Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="radmod" data-source="post: 5268488" data-attributes="member: 93008">I think for me the question is one of game mechanics.If the rules say something can be done, then we accept it as believable (whether it is or not).However, realism runs afoul of game mechanics.Take standard initiative. Let's say there are ten PCs with 30' move. If one picks up a stick and double moves, he transports the stick 60'. Yet, if each of the ten were 30' from the other and they had delayed so the initiatives went from high to low, first to last respectively, then that same stick could be moved 300' in a single round (each takes a move + standard to pass the stick). That is unrealistic.So, as a fan of realism, I run simultaneous initiative. Basically you tell me what you are doing, everything goes off at roughly the same time and initiative is rolled only when important (like who hit first).I've found that it works and works well (speeds up encounters) and is more realistic.Yet, if one tries to interject too much realism then the game breaks down (becomes harder and, perhaps, more boring to play). IIRC, GURPs is more realistic but doesn't play as well. I once ran the exact same encounter in GURPs as I did in D&D and it took something like four times as long.That to my mind is why D&D has always been more popular. It's easier, and quicker AND unlike GURPs, where a low level can kill a high level with a single lucky roll, D&D allows you to go "Ouch, that hurt but I'm fine. Ouch. Ouch again. Um, guys, I might need some help. Ouch. Ouch, HELP! Ouch, thud!"</blockquote>

Verification