| Sensten |
It seems like there are a lot of game mechanics that evolve to simplify rolls/maths for players and abstract a lot of things as a result. My question is this:
How complicated do you think you could get in attempting to simulate a more realistic encounter without making it so complicated it requires a Ph.D. and a computer to play?
I think a lot about the sorts of mechanics I don't care much for but when I consider what it would take to replace them, I wonder if anyone would even play such a game. I think I would, but I enjoy math.
Is there a sweet spot (or sweeter spot) where encounters feel more realistic but aren't too complicated for everyone to enjoy?
| kyrt-ryder |
E6 does nothing to simulate a more realistic encounter. All it does is keep the gameworld a little closer to reality.
I have a friend who swears by Riddle of Steel for realistic roleplaying combat without overcomplifying encounters, but I haven't actually played it so I can't speak for it myself.
| Sensten |
That's an interesting system, and one I'll look into more, but I'm not sure it really addresses the questions I'm asking. Maybe a for instance would help.
Reach is a weird thing. A small character with a dagger has the same reach as a medium creature with a greatsword. Doesn't that seem weird? Size affects strength as regards carrying capacity but not damage. It also seems weird that strength determines accuracy rather than dexterity. AC is a bunch of things rolled into one when it would mroe realistically be at least two separate things. Iteratives are another thing. I think about adding a categorical comparative called quickness or something. Iteratives are only earned when you're x amount quicker than another character which will change depending on who you're facing. Different weapons may affect quickness differently. There would be different ways of using quickness: increase number of attacks, increase accuracy, increase power, or increase defense. For a lot of rolls, d20 has too much variability in my opinion.
I know there are some alternate rules for these things, but my point is that all these sorts of things would complicate how the game is played/rolled. My question is, as before, how complicated could a system get before it's unplayable?
| Cranefist |
Sensten, abstraction makes the game world feel more realistic because your understanding of combat and my understanding of combat, as well as anything else, are not the same. Whatever shared ground we have will be nullified anyway by things like turn based movement and decision making.
The more ability for each person playing to simply narrate what they are trying to do, and the more fair the dice mechanic is between players, the more realistic it will feel, because their isn't a wide gulf between the narration and the action, nor a brick wall of rules.
In pathfinder, I can't swing on a rope past a pirate and wack him because I don't have fly by attack. Stupid.
So long as what is being asked for is within the scope of what an ordinary person would expect for such a character in a novel to be able to do, just let it ride.
| Sensten |
If you start calling Strength, Power, you get why it works for strike and damage. Being nimble doesn't do anything for your hitting if you can't move a defending element.
On the contrary, calling it power only makes it more obvious that strength is for damage not accuracy. However, because AC is a combination of "can't hit" and "hit but doesn't damage" strength in pathfinder works in that capacity. Power and accuracy are otherwise different systems.
Sensten, abstraction makes the game world feel more realistic because your understanding of combat and my understanding of combat, as well as anything else, are not the same. Whatever shared ground we have will be nullified anyway by things like turn based movement and decision making.
I think what you're referring here to is standardization, not abstraction. Yes, making everything work the same for everyone does contribute to a communal experience, but not necessarily a realistic one
Please keep in mind, I'm not complaining about pathfinder's rules. I enjoy them for what they are. Nor am I necessarily looking for reasons why my understanding of the various aspects of the rules are wrong (unless doing so actually answers my question). I don't think anyone can really argue that any system requires some abstraction and that not all of pathfinder's abstractions make sense. I'm more looking for a general idea of how complex a system can get and still have someone who will/can play it.
Thank you for your responses though. It does give me more to think on.
| Sensten |
E6 does nothing to simulate a more realistic encounter. All it does is keep the gameworld a little closer to reality.
I have a friend who swears by Riddle of Steel for realistic roleplaying combat without overcomplifying encounters, but I haven't actually played it so I can't speak for it myself.
Missed your post completely. That looks like an interesting system. I'll check it out.
Still doesn't exactly address what I'm asking though. Maybe I should ask it this way: How complex a system are YOU willing/able to play?
Some options:
Addition/Subtraction only
Multiplication/Division
Multiple situational modifiers that change as quickly as every turn
Variable modifiers based on situation
Etc.
I am 100% sure that I used the english definitions.
Okay. I'm not really interested in debating the semantic difference between abstracting and standardizing. :) My purpose is as above.