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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4582267" data-attributes="member: 54707">I agree. A weakness too many currently have.Obviously in a fantasy RPG (or most any RPG) the effort is not to produce a specifically realistic simulation of combat. That is a secondary consideration overall to the game, despite how important combat is as a game activity. But in becoming so obsessed with the "fantasy aspect" (I am using this term widely to mean unrealistic rather than narrowly to mean just fantasy) too many RPGs have lost their heritage (as evolving from the wargame) as being good sources through which one can learn effective, organized, combat principles. In an effort to be so fantastic too many games have swung too far in the direction of being useless as real tactical and strategic thinking tools. I am also not in favor of turning RPGs into strict wargames Mal. If one wants a wargame then one can just play a wargame or re-enact an historical battle. Nothing wrong with that, I do it from time to time. One role-plays though to role play, for which battle and combat (although an important aspect of most RPGs) is just one element or component of what is actually role-played. But when combat is role played then I think it should also be role-played as if it were exciting, dangerous, interesting, tactically challenging, and as useful an activity as any other in-game activity.That is, RPGs don't have to be, and really shouldn't be, Either/Or activities. When role playing and pursuing interesting plot developments I'm all for imaginative and clever adventure, in the most open sense of the term. But when engaged in combat I'm also all in favor of cunning, decisive, organized warfare.Good role play does not necessitate the need to abandon all realism and tactics in combat, and good combat tactics do note mean that an RPG should be all about units of soldiers moving from one engagement to the next in endless succession. A good adventurer for example is like a good explorer, he would have to know many things. How to survive, interact with natives, hunt, fish, map, etc. He would also have to know how to fight if necessary. So being a good explorer does not mean you go about any skill you possess in a haphazard or sloppy fashion. A good adventurer would have to know how to do a lot more than fight in order to be able to survive and thrive at his occupation. But then again if he doesn't know how to fight well and effectively he isn't likely to live long enough to enjoy the fruits of his labor. So it's not a competition between capabilities, it's more like, how can I best improve every capability I really need?</blockquote>

Verification