But it's this kind of thinking that keeps DnD from feeling like realistic medieval combat. Power attacks, hitpoints, etc.
DnD isn't an attempt at anything resembling realism. It is a game with a very abstract and game-y combat system, not a realistic one. On purpose. There a place for both kinds of games. People who wants DnD to have a realistic combat are similar to people who want Panzer General-like games* to be realistic simulations of WW2. Also known as... well, people who do not understand that different games with different design goals do exist.
*You look for Gary Grigsby's games and similar games instead.
Vavra made this point before he was driven from here by the whining. A lot of RPG modeling was done as a massive abstraction back in the day because there was either no computers involved at all, or very primitive computers. Now, we have the hardware to delve much deeper, and these abstractions are no longer necessary. New deeper and more concrete models are required.
Are we still talking about Dungeons and Dragons? You know that pen & paper system? The computer games only use the existing DnD rules, slightly modified at best/worst. So how Vavra's claim has anything to do with the discussion?
Also by that logic, on computers, simulation > abstraction. Every time, which is not true.
It seems to me that you just want DnD to be more realistic because you like the idea of simulation but at the same time like/want to like DnD. Just like someone wanting to change a Panzer General game into a Gary Grigsby's game because he likes deep simulation of WW2 but he also like Panzer General. That' nonsense.
That, or you really believe in some rule: simulation > abstraction.
Are you sure that the point of D&D is simulating medieval combat?
Why, yes, yes I am. In any decent fantasy game/book/movie, the main character spends the bulk of their time fighting against other humanoids (humans, other human-like species, skeletons, undead, etc) using regular weapons. Fighting against dragons, mages, etc ought to be rather rare.
PorkyThePaladin said:
... your position seems to be that D&D is just too far removed from reality. It should be more realistic.
Sure, would be nice. IF that wont result in more mess/bad ideas than there currently are in D&D.
[Yes, let's not improve anything for fear of upsetting the cart.
Why would be the point of DnD be simulation because you fight humans? It doesn't matter with what you fight, you can still represent it in more-realistic or more abstract kind of way. DnD is -
on purpose - highly abstract. A conscious decision on part of the authors starting with Gygax. It did not want to "simulate" anything other than in the most basic of ways: there are sides and they want to hurt each other. Want a less abstract combat systems in (c)rpg? Maybe GURPS? Probably not but i'm sure there are some games to your liking. But you probably wont find anything that is a good simulation and at the same time very playable in p&p.
Why would making DnD to be more realistic would be an improvement ? You seem so sure about it. Realistic approach isn't better or worse than an abstract one by itself. It all depends on your goals. Majority of boardgame, most computer games and even many p&p games don't attempt to simulate reality other than in very basic ways. They attempt to have interesting and varied rules and provide "fun" through that, not from faithful simulation of reality. DnD is on the very end of the spectrum abstraction <-> realism. The abstraction end.
Starting to make DnD more of simulation-y and less game-y, something it never was, after 40 years, would be silly. And pointless because the whole system is highly abstracted, not just parts of combat moves or whatever. You'd have to change most of it. Better make a fresh p&p or computer game system designed from the start with combat more faithful to reality. Or use one already existing.
TL;DR: Abstraction as good as simulation. Possibly better. DnD is very abstract. It always was. It is fun. Leave it that way.
