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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 5994416" data-attributes="member: 336">I would actually say that DnD Process Sim falls apart, badly, under almost ANY scrutiny, and falls apart horribly when actually implemented within the ruleset.  Most of the attempts at Process Sim created such convoluted systems that they were, for most purposes, unusable.  There is a reason that "weapon speeds", "weapon vs. armor type", "grappling", and even "psionic combat" were such a rarity at game tables during the 1e era. These rules were horribly unwieldy.  To say that intense scrutiny is needed gives the system a huge pass when hardly anything "rules wise", that could be effectively used, can be described as actual Process Sim.  DnD combat works "well enough" directly because it is completely abstract.  Because it is abstract I as a DM, and as a player, can associate whatever explanation I feel works for the results of the particular mechanical action that the PLAYER takes.  A character is never taking any mechanical action.  A character doesn't roll initiative, never rolls an attack, never makes a climb check, never makes a diplomacy roll, or rolls to check for traps; a player does.When it takes a minute for a combat turn that is not Process Sim.  In that minute MY explanation is that many attacks and parries happened but only one has a probable "chance" to affect the outcome.  Why only one?  Obviously that is an arbitrary distinction that the game designer put in place.  Probably for balance reasons.  For the same balance reasons a fighter as he goes up in level started getting more probable "chances" to affect the outcome.  This was to balance against other classes that had more power as they went up in level.Stepped inititiative, HP, AC, attack bonuses, and damage are all abstract mechanics to produce results, not to create a Process Sim of "real" combat.When I started playing all I had was the Moldvay Basic Box.  If I wanted any Process Sim I had to create it from whole cloth.  This can even be seen in the default, and optional rules.  By default, all weapons do 1d6 damage.  The optional rules have weapons with variable damage.  This was a way of providing variety, not Process Sim.  A dagger to the heart will kill you just as easily as an axe to the head.  Why then does the dagger do so little damage when compared to the axe?  Shouldn't they do the same, if both of them can kill you with one strike?  Because the damage values are designed for variety.  The designer was giving me an optional guideline if I preferred to have some variety, but combat had no recognizable Process Sim.  To kill something I still had to whittle its HP, a completely abstract concept of combat effectiveness.  As a fight goes on the characters should start to fatigue, which makes combatants sloppier and easier to hit, as well as less accurate.  How come characters can hit just as effectively whether they just started fighting, or 10 minutes into the fight?  Because the combat sim is not process sim.  How come AC makes it harder to "hit" you instead of making the damage irrelevant?  For the exact same reason.When someone starts the conversation with how "DnD used to be able to do Process Sim within the rules, and 4e can't" they are simply looking at DnD with rose colored glasses.  DnD has never provided effective Process Sim right out of the box.  A group of players and a DM can decide to add some Process Sim to DnD by "house ruling" it in some way that is palatable to them.  They can do that with any version of DnD.If the arbitrary rule that during a one minute turn I'll only get one probable "chance" to attack does not break my immersion, then the arbitrary rule that during a combat or a day I'll only have one probable "chance" to use a particular technique does not do so either.  If I want, I can explain the 1 minute turn as a series of parries, ripostes, etc., with one good opening or an opening due to circumstance.  I can also explain the particular technique as a series of parries, ripostes, etc., with eventually a good opening.  When I've used the technique and can't use it anymore I can explain it as fatigue, the enemies getting wiser to my tricks, or the specifics of how to achieve the technique simply not manifesting again during the combat or during the day.The abstract nature of the combat system allows me as a DM, and as a player, to find/create a comfortable "explanation" for that situation.  If I want, or need one I can do so.  Or I can ignore it entirely if I so choose.  The willingness and experience to do so is not a limitation within the rules system.This is no different in any version of DnD from ODnD, to 4e, to DnD Next.</blockquote>

Verification