Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6862690" data-attributes="member: 42582">What I'm trying to get at it is that the decision to resolve climbing via a single check, but to resolve combat via a complex series of checks that often also involve multiple dimensions (initiative, to hit, damage) together with non-random elements also that themselves frame the options for dice-rolling (eg movement and positioning, in D&amp;D, is non-random), is just that - it's a decision.And this is not an abstract point, it's a practical one - because there are other RPGs out there, including fantasy and action adventure RPGs, that have decided differently, and therefore don't load combat up with special mechanical baggage that other domains of conflict and drama lack.I was motivated to make this point because some posters upthread suggested that D&amp;D's mechanical focus on combat is not reflective of a choice made by the D&amp;D designers, but is rather a more-or-less natural or inevitable consequence of the significance of combat in fantasy and/or action RPGing. That is not true.If you want combat to be the main focus of mechanical action because you feel it's more exciting, then that's a fine decision. Likewise if you think that, in the particular fantasy fiction to which D&amp;D aspires, combat is the ultimate crucible for the resolution of conflict. But if you make such a decision (or embrace a game whose designers have made such a decision), it hardly makes sense to then go on and lambast those who enjoy that excitement, and want to deploy those mechanics, as &quot;not real roleplayers&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6862690, member: 42582"] What I'm trying to get at it is that the decision to resolve climbing via a single check, but to resolve combat via a complex series of checks that often also involve multiple dimensions (initiative, to hit, damage) together with non-random elements also that themselves frame the options for dice-rolling (eg movement and positioning, in D&D, is non-random), is [I]just that[/I] - it's a [I]decision[/I]. And this is not an abstract point, it's a practical one - because there are other RPGs out there, including fantasy and action adventure RPGs, that have decided differently, and therefore don't load combat up with special mechanical baggage that other domains of conflict and drama lack. I was motivated to make this point because some posters upthread suggested that D&D's mechanical focus on combat is not reflective of a choice made by the D&D designers, but is rather a more-or-less natural or inevitable consequence of the significance of combat in fantasy and/or action RPGing. That is not true. If you want combat to be the main focus of mechanical action because you feel it's more exciting, then that's a fine decision. Likewise if you think that, in the particular fantasy fiction to which D&D aspires, combat is the ultimate crucible for the resolution of conflict. But if you make such a decision (or embrace a game whose designers have made such a decision), it hardly makes sense to then go on and lambast those who enjoy that excitement, and want to deploy those mechanics, as "not real roleplayers". [/QUOTE]

Verification