Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 6665629" data-attributes="member: 66434">I was speaking of D&amp;D from an original design standpoint. There are of course many ways to approach play, but the further one gets from exploration/ treasure hunting the less chance that the mechanics of the game are going to be the best fit for that experience. The heroic band of heroes on a quest model was added to the game about 10 years into its life. Earlier than that there were others who wanted to play differently, and the base D&amp;D mechanics model wasn't working for them so we got Runequest. RQ handles individual combat in much greater detail than the abstract D&amp;D model. Over the years that basic D&amp;D model has gotten major surgery for many different editions as all kinds of different bells &amp; whistles were tacked on to give a different feel from the default design. All of these changes have one thing in common- the basic bones of the combat system remained unchanged. Here we are 41 years later with a large part of the D&amp;D audience wanting combat to be more of a central activity, yet we STILL have static AC and generic hit points?&nbsp; So my basis for balance being based on combat being a bad idea is simply mechanical. Having D&amp;D be combat centric would be like making a game based around the PCs being mecha pilots and having mech combat being decided by a simple 2d6+modifier contest to see who won the fight. It isn't good design to make something that you want to be the main focus of play handled by quick abstract resolution mechanics. Trying to add bells &amp; whistles to the core mechanics of D&amp;D in order to make it a combat focused game is like putting lipstick on a pig. Underneath all the fancy dials &amp; levers is still that abstract combat system. This is why I think D&amp;D (mechanically) is ill suited to handle detailed heroic action compared to other systems.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ExploderWizard, post: 6665629, member: 66434"] I was speaking of D&D from an original design standpoint. There are of course many ways to approach play, but the further one gets from exploration/ treasure hunting the less chance that the [I]mechanics[/I] of the game are going to be the best fit for that experience. The heroic band of heroes on a quest model was added to the game about 10 years into its life. Earlier than that there were others who wanted to play differently, and the base D&D mechanics model wasn't working for them so we got Runequest. RQ handles individual combat in much greater detail than the abstract D&D model. Over the years that basic D&D model has gotten major surgery for many different editions as all kinds of different bells & whistles were tacked on to give a different feel from the default design. All of these changes have one thing in common- the basic bones of the combat system remained unchanged. Here we are 41 years later with a large part of the D&D audience wanting combat to be more of a central activity, yet we STILL have static AC and generic hit points? So my basis for balance being based on combat being a bad idea is simply mechanical. Having D&D be combat centric would be like making a game based around the PCs being mecha pilots and having mech combat being decided by a simple 2d6+modifier contest to see who won the fight. It isn't good design to make something that you want to be the main focus of play handled by quick abstract resolution mechanics. Trying to add bells & whistles to the core mechanics of D&D in order to make it a combat focused game is like putting lipstick on a pig. Underneath all the fancy dials & levers is still that abstract combat system. This is why I think D&D (mechanically) is ill suited to handle detailed heroic action compared to other systems. [/QUOTE]

Verification