Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="PaulGreystoke" data-source="post: 783999" data-attributes="member: 10810">&quot;Oh, what a tangled web we weave...&quot;Azlan said:Azlan, this is precisely the point.&nbsp; D&amp;D is a web of abstractions, each of which when&nbsp; taken individually can be seen to be erroneous or problematic.&nbsp; But the real question is whether the web taken as a whole provides a playable simulation.&nbsp; The problem is that while D&amp;D has a very abstract combat system, it tries to give the illusion of being straight-forward &quot;1 roll of the dice = 1 blow&quot; type of system, which it patently is not.&nbsp; This illusion is much more pronounced in 3E with its 6 second rounds &amp; much more tactical rules set.&nbsp; In 1E, with its 1 minute rounds, it was a touch more obvious that everything was an abstraction - although most players never thought of it that way.You mentioned that D&amp;D tended to have armor backwards in reference to its ability to deflect rather than to absorb damage.&nbsp; But you also noted that D&amp;D was backwards in using STR to increase to hit chance.&nbsp; Thus D&amp;D ends up being more-or-less right as a whole, despite the individual elements being &quot;wrong&quot;.&nbsp; And so it goes throughout the system.I recall a similar debate 20 years ago in 1E.&nbsp; I had a player who was appalled that DEX didn't improve his character's chance to hit.&nbsp; Having become proficient in the martial arts, he felt he knew better &amp; wanted me to houserule a change.&nbsp; But I pointed out that the game already DID give a higher DEX character this advantage in combat, albeit in a backwards sort of way.&nbsp; I used the example of 2 characters identical in every way except that 1 had a higher DEX bonus than the other.&nbsp; I pointed out that the character with the higher DEX bonus (&amp; thus better AC) was harder to hit than the other.&nbsp; The player was annoyed that I was pointing out the obvious - until I turned this around on him &amp; noted that this meant that the character with the higher DEX bonus was going to hit his lower DEX bonus (&amp; thus weaker AC) counterpart more often.&nbsp; Thus although the game didn't give the higher DEX bonus character an attack bonus directly, the net result was the same as my player desired.&nbsp; The DEX AC bonus was, in an abstract way, already acting as an attack bonus.Of course, this kind of abstraction is annoying when you want a real &quot;1 roll = 1 blow&quot; simulation.&nbsp; But most people don't seem to want the complexity that such a system requires.&nbsp; That want something simpler that can give the feel of the &quot;1 roll = 1 blow&quot; system.&nbsp; And this is what D&amp;D does in its own quirky &amp; highly abstract way.&nbsp; One of the reasons for D&amp;D's enduring success seems to be its ability to finesse this issue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="PaulGreystoke, post: 783999, member: 10810"] [b]"Oh, what a tangled web we weave..."[/b] Azlan said: Azlan, this is precisely the point. D&D is a web of abstractions, each of which when taken individually can be seen to be erroneous or problematic. But the real question is whether the web taken as a whole provides a playable simulation. The problem is that while D&D has a very abstract combat system, it tries to give the illusion of being straight-forward "1 roll of the dice = 1 blow" type of system, which it patently is not. This illusion is much more pronounced in 3E with its 6 second rounds & much more tactical rules set. In 1E, with its 1 minute rounds, it was a touch more obvious that everything was an abstraction - although most players never thought of it that way. You mentioned that D&D tended to have armor backwards in reference to its ability to deflect rather than to absorb damage. But you also noted that D&D was backwards in using STR to increase to hit chance. Thus D&D ends up being more-or-less right as a whole, despite the individual elements being "wrong". And so it goes throughout the system. I recall a similar debate 20 years ago in 1E. I had a player who was appalled that DEX didn't improve his character's chance to hit. Having become proficient in the martial arts, he felt he knew better & wanted me to houserule a change. But I pointed out that the game already DID give a higher DEX character this advantage in combat, albeit in a backwards sort of way. I used the example of 2 characters identical in every way except that 1 had a higher DEX bonus than the other. I pointed out that the character with the higher DEX bonus (& thus better AC) was harder to hit than the other. The player was annoyed that I was pointing out the obvious - until I turned this around on him & noted that this meant that the character with the higher DEX bonus was going to hit his lower DEX bonus (& thus weaker AC) counterpart more often. Thus although the game didn't give the higher DEX bonus character an attack bonus directly, the net result was the same as my player desired. The DEX AC bonus was, in an abstract way, already acting as an attack bonus. Of course, this kind of abstraction is annoying when you want a real "1 roll = 1 blow" simulation. But most people don't seem to want the complexity that such a system requires. That want something simpler that can give the feel of the "1 roll = 1 blow" system. And this is what D&D does in its own quirky & highly abstract way. One of the reasons for D&D's enduring success seems to be its ability to finesse this issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification