Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7392413" data-attributes="member: 82106">I stand by my assertion, it is vastly easier to say "I target square X, and these other squares are in the AoE, I'm rolling 7 to-hit rolls, I hit targets 2, 3, and 7, they take 27 points of damage and the others take 13." In AD&D you have to (at best, assuming an accurate room layout with figures representing the real positions of all PCs) decide on an exact target location, draw a circle somehow (on top of all the figures, walls, etc, even a template of some sort will be awkward at times) and then argue about if the figure that just got knocked over was EXACTLY outside or inside the diameter, and whether the base of figures counts or only the 'pieces parts', if the figure is really a fair size to represent the PC, etc. etc. etc. ALL of these arguments have come up in play where I have GMed, many many times! As I said, I'm not even delving into the 'volume filling' process and its potential intricacies (exactly how tall is that arched ceiling anyway?). I have a math degree, I won't argue it either. In fact though your trusting E. Gary Gygax, because it is right in the 1e DMG section on adjudicating various spells! I trust Gary's basic solid geometry. I just haven't GMed 2e in a long time, so I'd have to go back and reread this stuff to recall every stray number. Again, this attests to the added complexity of the 'AD&D way' of doing it...Well, you seem to play with a group of people who are basically incredibly focused on the minutia of D&D play, so I will just take your word for it. Trust me when I tell you, this is highly atypical, particularly in more recent times. If this was 1980, it wouldn't surprise me too much...I actually assert its objectively determinable in this specific case. The original point stands, that agency of players is positively impacted by having well-defined and easily understood consequences to standard actions.Really, you studied that? lol. Honestly, given how D&D hit points work, classically, there's no way falling is at all realistic, and thus we must question the realism of gravity itself. I don't agree that every bit helps. I think that physical reality is holistic, and unrealistic is unrealistic. Well, I think you are 'playing like its 1981' basically. Out here, yeah, the GM's role has evolved, a LOT! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />OK, but I'm just saying that isn't going to be very realistic either, my way may be MORE so.I did this exercise out of curiosity a couple years ago. Numbers are all over the place. Yes, there are some records, but there isn't any large body of price and wage records for one specific time period. If you are willing to take a spread of records that cover over 600 years of history, kind of squint a little, and interpolate based on some prices that overlap between sources here and there, you can make something CREDIBLE. However, AT BEST it represents a sort of averaging over time, space, and circumstance, and only applies to the region it is based on (IE usually late Medieval England). How that relates to a fantasy world is anyone's guess. I will just give you back your reply to me on that. I don't agree. I never will probably. The result of using D&D (no matter how tweaked) is utterly unrealistic and by necessity 99.9% gamist. You might make it 99.8% gamist, but is that really worth the effort? I gave it up years ago.</blockquote>

Verification