机翻第八弹
Much about melee
APR.
1979
#24
“Melee in the D&D system is certainly a crucial factor, and it must not be warped at the risk of spoiling the whole game . Likewise , it is not unrealistic — if there is such a thing as ”realism“ in a game . . . filled with the unreal assumptions of dragons, magic spells, and so on. ”
“Furthermore , the D&D game is a role-playing campaign where much of the real enjoyment for participants comes from the gradual development of the game personae and their continuing exploits, whether successes or failures.”
“在d&d系统中,肉搏战无疑是一个关键因素,它不能被扭曲,从而破坏整个游戏。”同样地,这也不是不现实的——如果在游戏中存在“现实主义”。充满了对龙、魔法咒语等等的不真实的假设。“
“此外,d&d游戏是一款角色扮演游戏,参与者的真正乐趣来自于游戏人物的逐渐发展和他们持续的成功,无论是成功还是失败。”
From issue #24 April 1979
There is some controversy regarding the system of resolving individual battles used in the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® game and the somewhat similar melee system which is part of the ADVANCED D&D® rules. The meat of the D&D® system is the concept of pure adventure, the challenge of the unknown, facing the unexpected and overcoming all obstacles. At times this requires combat with spells, missiles, and hand-to-hand fighting. How crucial to the game as a whole is the melee? What part should it play? Is “realism” an important consideration?
To put the whole matter into perspective, it is necessary to point out that there is probably only a small percentage of the whole concerned with possible shortcomings in the melee system, but even 1% to perhaps 5% of an audience of well over 100,000 enthusiasts is too large a number to be ignored. To the majority who do not have problems with the rationale of fantasy melee as presented in the D&D rules, what follows will serve to strengthen your understanding of the processes and their relationship to the whole game. For those who doubt the validity of D&D combat systems, the expostulation will at least demonstrate the logic of the systems, and perhaps justify them to the extent that you will be able to use them with complete assurance that they are faithful representations of the combat potential of the figures concerned.
There can be no question as to the central theme of the game. It is the creation and development of the game persona, the fantastic player character who is to interact with his or her environment — hopefully to develop into a commanding figure in the milieu. In order to do so, the player character must undergo a continuing series of activities which are dictated by the campaign at large and the Dungeon Master in particular. Interaction can be the mundane affairs of food, equipment and shelter, or it can be dealing with non-player characters in only slightly less routine things such as hiring men-at-arms, treating with local officials, and so on. But from even these everyday affairs can develop adventures, and adventurers are, of course, the meat of the D&D system; for it is by means of adventuring that player characters gain acumen and the wealth and wherewithal to increase in ability level. The experience, actual as well as that awarded by the DM, is gained in the course of successive adventures, and in the context of those adventures it is most common to engage in combat.
Hacking and slewing should not, of course, be the first refuge of the beleaguered D&D player, let alone his or her initial resort when confronted with a problem situation. Naturally enough, a well run campaign will offer a sufficient number of alternatives as well as situations which encourage thinking, negotiation, and alternatives to physical force, by means of careful prompting or object lessons in the negative form. Aside from this, however, combat and melee will certainly occupy a considerable amount of time during any given adventure, at least on the average. Spell and missile combat do not consume any appreciable amount of time, but as they are also often a part of an overall melee, these factors must be considered along with hand-to-hand fighting.
What must be simulated in melee combat are the thrusts and blows (smashing and cutting) of weapons wielded as well as the natural body weaponry of monsters — teeth, claws, and so forth. Individual combat of this sort can be made exceptionally detailed by inclusion of such factors as armor, weapon(s), reflex speed, agility, position of weapon (left or right hand or both), training, strength, height, weight, tactics chosen (attack, defend, or a combination), location of successive blows, and results of injury to specific areas. If, in fact, the D&D game was a simulation of hand-to-hand combat utilizing miniature figurines, such detail would be highly desirable. The game is one of adventure, though, and combats of a protracted nature (several hours minimum of six or more player characters are considered involved against one or more opponents each) are undesirable, as the majority of participants are most definitely not miniature battle game enthusiasts. Time could be reduced considerably by the inclusion of such factors as death blows — a kill at a single stroke, exceptionally high amounts of damage — or perhaps a modified form of killing at a single stroke, featuring specific hit location coupled with specific body hit points, and special results from hits — unconsciousness, loss of member, incapacitation of member, etc.
有一些争论关于系统解决个人战斗中使用龙与地下城®游戏和类似近战系统是先进的D&D®规则的一部分。d&d系统的核心是纯粹的冒险,未知的挑战,面对意想不到的挑战,克服所有的障碍。有时,这需要战斗的符咒,导弹,和肉搏战。作为一个整体,这场比赛的关键是肉搏?它应该扮演什么角色?“现实主义”是一个重要的考虑因素吗?
要把整个事情都考虑进去,有必要指出的是,可能只有一小部分人关注近战系统可能存在的缺陷,但即使是1%到5%的超过10万名狂热爱好者,也有可能被忽略。对于绝大多数人来说,在d&d规则中没有出现幻想战的基本原理,接下来的内容将会加强你对整个游戏过程的理解,以及他们与整个游戏的关系。对于那些质疑D&D战斗系统的有效性的人来说,他们的表现至少能证明系统的逻辑,也许能让他们对他们的行为作出合理的解释,从而使他们能够充分地使用这些系统来保证他们对相关人员的战斗潜力的忠诚表现。
游戏的中心主题是毫无疑问的。它是游戏角色的创造和发展,是与他或她的环境互动的出色的玩家角色——希望在环境中成长为一个有威严的人物。为了达到这个目的,玩家角色必须经历一系列连续的活动,这些活动是由大型战役和地下城主所决定的。互动可以是食物、设备和住所的日常事务,也可以是处理非玩家角色的事务,比如雇佣武器、和当地官员打交道等等。但即使是这些日常事务也能发展冒险,当然,冒险家是d&d系统的核心;因为它是通过一种冒险的方式,玩家的角色获得了智慧和财富,并且增加了能力水平。在历次历险中获得的经验、实际的以及由DM所授予的经验,在这些冒险的环境中,最常见的是参与战斗。
当然,黑客和雪橇不应该是被围攻的D&D玩家的第一个避难所,更不用说在遇到问题时他或她的最初的求助了。很自然地,一个良好的竞选活动将提供足够数量的替代方案,以及鼓励思考、谈判和替代物理力量的情况,通过谨慎的提示或消极形式的实物课程。除此之外,在任何给定的冒险中,战斗和近战肯定会占用相当多的时间,至少在一般情况下是如此。法术和导弹战斗不会消耗任何可观的时间,但是由于它们通常是整个近战的一部分,这些因素必须被考虑到一起进行肉搏战。
在近战战斗中必须模拟的是武器的推进和打击(粉碎和切割)以及怪物的自然身体武器——牙齿、利爪等等。这种类型的个人战斗可以通过包括装甲、武器(s)、反射速度、敏捷性、武器位置(左或右)、训练、力量、高度、体重、选择的战术(攻击、防守或组合)、连续打击的位置以及对特定区域的伤害等因素进行异常详细的描述。事实上,如果D&D游戏是一个利用微型小雕像进行的肉搏战的模拟,那么这些细节将是非常可取的。不过,这款游戏是一种冒险游戏,它与一种长时间的游戏(至少有6个或更多的玩家角色被认为是针对一个或多个对手)的游戏是不受欢迎的,因为大多数玩家绝对不是小型的战斗游戏爱好者。时间可以通过包含诸如死亡打击这样的因素而大大减少——一击致死,异常高的伤害——或者可能是一种单一中风的一种修正形式,具有特定的攻击位置,加上特定的身体攻击点,以及受打击的特殊结果——失去意识、失去成员、丧失成员资格等。
Close simulation of actual hand-to-hand combat and inclusion of immediate-result strokes have overall disadvantages from the standpoint of the game as a whole. Obviously, much of the excitement and action is not found in melee, and even shortening the process by adding in death strokes and the like causes undue emphasis on such combat. Furthermore, the D&D game is a role-playing campaign where much of the real enjoyment for participants comes from the gradual development of the game personae and their continuing exploits, whether successes or failures. In a system already fraught with numberless possibilities of instant death — spells, poison, breath and gaze weapons, and traps — it is too much to force players to face yet another. Melee combat is nearly certain to be a part of each and every adventure. It has sufficient element of danger to make the possibility of character death highly likely, but it also allows the wise to withdraw if things get too tough —most of the time, in any case.
The D&D combat systems are not all that “unrealistic" either, as will be discussed hereafter. The systems are designed to provide relative speed of resolution without either bogging down the referee in a morass of paperwork or giving high probability of death to participants' personae. Certainly, the longer and more involved the melee procedure, the more work and boredom for the Dungeon Master, while fast systems are fun but deadly to player characters (if such systems are challenging and equitable) and tend to discourage participants from long-term commitment to a campaign, for they cannot relate to a world in which they are but the briefest of candles, so to speak.
In order to minutely examine the combat system as used in the AD&D™ game, an example of play is appropriate. Consider a party of adventurers trekking through a dungeon’s 10-footwide corridor when they come upon a chamber housing a troop of gnoll guards. Let us assume that our party of adventurers is both well balanced in character race and class. They have a dwarf, a gnome, and a halfling in the front rank. Behind them are two half-elves. The last rank consists of three humans. Although there are eight characters, all of them are able to take an active part in the coming engagement; spells and missiles can be discharged from the rear or middle rows. The center- rank characters will also be able to engage in hand-to-hand combat if they have equipped themselves with spears or thrusting pole arms which are of a size useful in the surroundings. The front rank can initially use spells or missiles and then engage in melee with center-rank support, assuming that the party was not surprised. Whether or not any exchange of missiles and spells takes place is immaterial to the example, for it is melee which is the activity in question. Let us then move on to where the adventurers are locked in combat with the gnolls.
Each melee round is considered to be a one-minute period, with a further division into ten segments of six seconds each for determination of missile fire, spell casting and the striking of multiple telling blows. Note that during the course of a round there are assumed to be a number of parries, feints, and non-telling attacks made by opponents. The one (or several) dice roll (or rolls) made for each adversary, however, determines if a telling attack is made. If there is a hit indicated, some damage has been done; if a miss is rolled, then the opponent managed to block or avoid the attack.
If the participants picture the melee as somewhat analogous to a boxing match, they will have a correct grasp of the rationale used in designing the melee system. During the course of a melee round there is movement, there are many attacks which do not score, and each "to hit” roll indicates that there is an opening which may or may not allow a telling attack. In a recent letter, Don Turnbull stated that he envisioned that three sorts of attacks were continually taking place during melee:
1) attacks which had no chance of hitting, including feints, parries, and the like;
2) attacks which had a chance of doing damage but which missed as indicated by the die roll; and
3) attacks which were telling as indicated by the die roll and subsequent damage determination.
This is a correct summation of what the D&D melee procedure subsumes. Note that the skill factor of higher-level fighters — as well as natural abilities and/or the speed of some monsters — allows more than one opportunity per melee round of scoring a telling attack, as those character and creature types are more able to take advantage of openings left by adversaries during the course of sparring, Similarly, zero-level men, and monsters under one full hit die, are considered as being less able to defend; thus, opponents of two or more levels or hit dice are able to get in one telling blow for each such level or hit die.
从整个游戏的角度来看,近距离模拟实际的手到手的战斗和包含直接结果的动作都有整体的缺点。很明显,大部分的兴奋和行动都不是在肉搏中发现的,甚至是通过增加死亡的次数来缩短这一过程,就像过度强调了这样的战斗。此外,D&D游戏是一种角色扮演活动,参与者的真正享受来自于游戏角色的逐渐发展和他们的持续开拓,不管是成功还是失败。在一个已经充斥着无数可能的瞬间死亡的系统中——魔咒、毒药、呼吸和注视武器,以及陷阱——它太过强迫玩家面对另一个。近战格斗几乎肯定是每个冒险的一部分。它有足够的危险因素使人物死亡的可能性极有可能发生,但它也允许明智的人在事情变得太困难的时候撤退——在任何情况下都是如此。
D&D的战斗系统也不全是不现实的,就像以后会讨论的那样。这些系统的设计目的是提供相对速度的解决方案,而不需要把裁判员拖到一个文件的泥沼中,或者给参与者的个人带来高概率的死亡。当然,肉搏的过程越长越复杂,对地下城的主人来说,工作和无聊就越多,而快速的系统对玩家来说是有趣的,但是对玩家来说是致命的(如果这样的系统是具有挑战性和公平性的),并且往往会让参与者不愿意长期致力于一场战役,因为他们无法与一个他们只是最简单的蜡烛的世界联系在一起,所以说。
为了详细地检查作战系统中使用AD&D™游戏,游戏的一个例子是合适的。想象一下,一群冒险家在一间地牢的10英尺宽的走廊上艰难跋涉,他们来到一间房屋,里面住着一群豺狼守卫。让我们假设我们的冒险者们在人物种族和阶级上都是很平衡的。他们有一个侏儒,一个侏儒,还有一个半身人。他们身后是两个半精灵。最后一个等级由三个人组成。虽然有八个角色,但他们都能在即将到来的活动中扮演积极的角色;咒语和导弹可以从后方或中排发射。如果他们装备了长矛或者是在周围环境中很有用的刺杆武器装备,那么他们的中心人物也可以进行徒手格斗。前线部队最初可以使用法术或导弹,然后与中心等级的支援进行近战,假设对方并不惊讶。无论是否进行导弹和法术的交换对这个例子来说都是无关紧要的,因为它是近战,这是一个问题。让我们继续到冒险家与gnolls战斗的地方。
每一场混战被认为是一分钟的时间,进一步划分为十段六秒的时间,以确定导弹射击、施法和多次打击的打击。请注意,在一回合的过程中,被假定有许多的parries,feints,和不告诉对手的攻击。然而,为每一个对手制造的一个骰子(或数个)骰子,决定了是否进行了攻击。如果有撞击,就会造成一些损害;如果一个失误被打滚,那么对手就可以阻止或避免攻击。
如果参与者认为近战与拳击比赛有点类似,他们就会正确地掌握设计近战系统的基本原理。在近战回合的过程中,有许多攻击没有得分,每一个“命中”都表明有一个可能或不允许有说服力的攻击。在最近的一封信中,唐·特恩布尔(Don Turnbull)表示,他设想在肉搏中会持续发生三种攻击:
1)没有命中的攻击,包括佯攻、攻击和类似的攻击;
2)攻击有可能造成伤害但未被掷骰子所指示的;和
3)由掷骰子和随后的伤害决定所指示的攻击。
这是对D&D近战程序的正确总结。请注意,高级格斗者的技能因素——以及天赋和/或某些怪物的速度——可以在每回合的攻击中获得超过一次的机会,因为这些角色和生物类型更能利用对手在战斗过程中留下的空缺,同样地,零级的人,以及在一个完全命中的骰子下的怪物,被认为是不能防御的;因此,两个或两个以上级别或命中骰子的对手都能在每一个这样的级别或命中的骰子上获得一个致命的打击。
This melee system also hinges on the number of hit points assigned to characters. As I have repeatedly pointed out, if a rhinoceros can take a maximum amount of damage equal to eight or nine eight-sided dice, a maximum of 64 or 72 hit points of damage to kill, it is positively absurd to assume that an 8th-level fighter with average scores on his or her hit dice and an 18 constitution, thus having 76 hit points, can physically withstand more punishment than a rhino before being killed. Hit points are a combination of actual physical constitution, skill at the avoidance of taking real physical damage, luck and/or magical or divine factors. Ten points of damage dealt to a rhino indicates a considerable wound, while the same damage sustained by the 8th-level fighter indicates a near miss, a slight wound, and a bit of luck used up, a bit of fatigue piling up against his or her skill at avoiding the fatal cut or thrust. So even when a hit is scored in melee combat, it is more often than not a grazing blow, a mere light wound which would have been fatal (or nearly so) to a lesser mortal. If sufficient numbers of such wounds accrue to the character, however, stamina, skill, and luck will eventually run out, and an attack will strike home....
I am firmly convinced that this system is superior to all others so far conceived and published. It reflects actual combat reasonably, for weaponry, armor (protection and speed and magical factors), and skill level, and allows for a limited amount of choice as to attacking or defending. It does not require participants to keep track of more than a minimal amount of information, it is quite fast, and it does not place undue burden upon the Dungeon Master. It allows those involved in combat to opt to retire if they are taking too much damage, although this does not necessarily guarantee that they will succeed or that the opponents will not strike a teling blow prior to such retreat. Means of dealing fatal damage at a single stroke or in a single melee routine are kept to a minimum commensurate with the excitement level of the system. Poison, weapons which deliver a fatal blow, etc., are rare or obvious. Thus, participants know that a giant snake or scorpion can fell them with a single strike with poison; they are aware that a dragon or a 12-headed hydra or a cloud giant can deliver considerable amounts of damage when they succeed in striking; and they also are aware that it is quite unlikely that an opponent will have a sword of sharpness, a vorpal blade, or some similarly deadly weapon. Melee, then, albeit a common enough occurrence, is a calculated risk which participants can usually determine before engaging in as to their likelihood of success; and even if the hazards are found to be too severe, they can often retract their characters to fight again another day.
Of course, everyone will not be satisfied with the combat system as presented. If DM and players desire a more complex and time-consuming method of determining melee combat, or if they wish a more detailed but shorter system, who can say them nay?
However, care must be taken to make certain that the net effect is the same as if the correct system had been employed, or else the melee will become imbalanced. If combat is distorted to favor the player characters, they will rise in experience levels too rapidly, and participants will become bored with a game which offers no real challenge and whose results are always a foregone conclusion. If melee is changed to favor the adversaries of player characters, such as by inclusion of extra or special damage when a high number is rolled on a “to hit” die, the net result will also be a loss of interest in the campaign. How does a rule for double damage on a die roll of 20 favor monsters and spoil a campaign? If only players are allowed such extra damage, then the former case of imbalance in favor of the players over their adversaries is in effect. If monsters are allowed such a benefit, it means the chances of surviving a melee, or withdrawing from combat if things are not going well, are sharply reduced. That means that character survival will be less likely. If players cannot develop and identify with a long- lived character, they will lose interest in the game. Terry Kuntz developed a system which allowed for telling strokes in an unpublished game he developed to recreate the epic adventures of Robin Hood et al. To mitigate against the possible loss at a single stroke, he also included a saving throw which allowed avoidance of such death blows, and the chance of making a successful saving throw increased as the character successfully engaged in combats, i.e. gained experience. This sort of approach is obviously possible, but it requires a highly competent designer to develop.
这个近战系统也取决于分配给角色的点的数量。正如我反复指出的,如果一头犀牛能够承受最大限度的伤害,相当于8个或9个八面骰子,最多可以达到64或72点的杀伤力,那么假设一个8级的战士在他或她的骰子和18个宪法中平均得分,从而拥有76个生命点,在被杀之前能够承受比犀牛更多的惩罚,这是非常荒谬的。命中点是实际身体构造的结合,避免了物理伤害的技能,运气和/或魔法或神圣因素。对犀牛造成的10点伤害表明了相当大的伤害,而8级的战士所遭受的同样的伤害表明了一个接近的失误,一个轻微的伤口,以及一点点的运气用尽,一点点的疲劳堆积起来对抗他或她的技能,以避免致命的伤口或刺痛。因此,即使在近战中被击中的时候,它通常也比不吃草的打击更频繁,仅仅是一个轻微的伤害,对于一个较小的人来说是致命的(或者几乎是如此)。然而,如果有足够多的这样的伤口累积到这个角色,那么耐力、技能和运气最终将会耗尽,而攻击将会击中要害。
我坚信,这个系统比迄今为止所设想和发布的所有其他系统都要优越。它能合理地反映实际的战斗,对于武器,装甲(保护和速度和魔法因素),和技能等级,并且允许有限的选择攻击或防御。它不要求参与者追踪的信息量是最少的,它是相当快的,而且它不会给地下城主带来不必要的负担。它允许那些参与战斗的人选择撤退,如果他们受到的伤害太大,尽管这并不一定保证他们会成功,或者对手在撤退之前不会对他们发动攻击。在单次或单一的近战中,处理致命伤害的方法与系统的兴奋程度保持在最低程度。毒药,武器,致命的一击,等等,都是很少见或很明显的。因此,参与者知道一条巨蟒或蝎子可以用一种毒液打击它们;他们意识到,龙或12头的九头蛇或云巨人一旦成功,就会造成相当大的伤害;而且他们也意识到,一个对手将会有利剑,一种旋翼,或者类似致命的武器。肉搏,虽然是一种常见的事件,但它是一种经过计算的风险,参与者通常在参与到成功的可能性之前就能确定;即使这些危险被发现太严重了,他们也常常会撤回他们的角色,以再次战斗。
当然,每个人都不会对所呈现的战斗系统感到满意。如果DM和玩家想要一种更加复杂和耗时的方法来确定肉搏,或者他们想要一个更详细但更短的系统,谁能说他们不呢?
然而,必须注意确保净效果与使用正确的系统相同,否则近战就会变得不平衡。如果战斗被扭曲到有利于玩家角色,他们将会在经验水平上迅速上升,而参与者将会对一场没有真正挑战的游戏感到厌烦,结果永远是预料之中的结果。如果肉搏被改变成有利于玩家角色的对手,比如当一个高数值被打到“命中”骰子时,将额外的或特殊的伤害包含在内,那么最终的结果也将是对比赛失去兴趣。“骰子结果在20以上便造成双倍伤害”的规则是如何帮助怪物和破坏一个战役的?如果只有球员被允许这样的额外的伤害,那么以前的不平衡的球员对他们的对手的支持是有效的。如果怪物能得到这样的好处,那就意味着在近战中幸存下来的机会,或者如果事情进展不顺利,从战斗中撤退的几率会大大降低。这意味着角色的生存将不太可能。如果玩家不能开发和识别一个长期存在的角色,他们就会对游戏失去兴趣。特里·昆茨(Terry Kuntz)开发了一种系统,可以在未出版的游戏中讲述笔画,以再现罗宾汉(Robin Hood)等人的史诗冒险故事。为了减轻一次中风可能造成的损失,他还提出了一种拯救方案,可以避免这样的死亡打击,而且成功的挽救生命的机会增加了,因为角色成功地参与了战斗,也就是获得了经验。这种方法显然是可行的,但是需要一个非常称职的设计人员来开发。
Melee in the D&D system is certainly a crucial factor, and it must not be warped at the risk of spoiling the whole game. Likewise, it is not unrealistic — if there is such a thing as "realism” in a game, particularly a game filled with the unreal assumptions of dragons, magic spells, and so on. The D&D melee combat system subsumes all sorts of variable factors in a system which must deal with imaginary monsters, magic- endowed weaponry, and make-believe characters and abilities. It does so in the form as to allow referees to handle the affair as rapidly as possible, while keeping balance between player characters and opponents, and still allowing the players the chance of withdrawing their characters if the going gets too rough. As melee combat is so common an occurrence during the course of each adventure, brevity, equitability, and options must be carefully balanced.
Someone recently asked how I could include a rule regarding weapons proficiency in the AD&D rules after decrying what they viewed as a similar system: bonuses for expertise with weapons. The AD&D system, in fact, penalizes characters for using weapons which they do not have expertise with. Obviously, this is entirely different in its effect upon combat. Penalties do not change the balance between character and adversary, for the player can always opt to use non-penalized weapons for his or her character.
It also makes the game more challenging by further defining differences in character classes and causing certain weapons to be more desirable than others: i.e., will the magic hammer+1 be useful to the cleric? It likewise adds choices. All this, rather than offering still another method whereby characters can more easily defeat opponents and have less challenge. How can one be mistaken as a variation of the other? The answer there is that the results of the two systems were not reflected upon. With a more perfect understanding of the combat system and its purposes, the inquirer will certainly be able to reason the thing through without difficulty and avoid spoiling the game in the name of “realism."
Realism does have a function in the D&D system, of course. It is the tool of the DM who is confronted by a situation which is not covered in the rules. With the number of variables involved in a game such as this, there is no possibility of avoiding situations which are not spelled out in the book. The spirit of the rules can be a guideline, as can the overall aim of rules which apply to general cases, but when a specific situation arises, judgement must often come into play.
Sean Cleary commented on this in a letter about common misunderstandings and difficulties encountered by the DM. While the AD&D system is absolutely clear, for example, that clerics have but one chance to attempt to turn undead, and that those struck by undead have no saving throw (life level is drained!), it was impossible to include all the minutiae in the rules. To illustrate further, consider the example of missile fire into a melee. Generally, the chances of hitting a friend instead of a foe is the ratio of the two in the melee. With small foes, the ratio is adjusted accordingly; i.e., two humans fighting four kobolds give about equal probabilities of hitting either. Huge foes make it almost impossible to strike a friend; i.e., aiming at a 12-foot-tall giant’s upper torso is quite unlikely to endanger the 6' tall human of a javelin of lightning bolts in a melee where a human and a giant are engaged. The missile strikes the giant; where does its stroke of lightning travel? Common sense and reality indicate that the angle of the javelin when it struck the giant will dictate that the stroke will travel in a straight line back along the shaft, and the rest is a matter of typical positions and angles — if the human was generally before the giant, and the javelin was thrown from behind the human, the trajectory of the missile will be a relatively straight line ending in the shaft of the weapon and indicating the course of the bolt of lightning backwards. The giant’s human opponent will not be struck by the stroke, but the lightning will most probably come close. Therefore, if the human is in met al armor, a saving throw should be made to determine if he or she takes half or no damage.
在D&D系统中,肉搏肯定是一个关键因素,它不能因为破坏整个游戏的风险而被扭曲。同样地,它也不是不现实的——如果在游戏中存在“现实主义”,尤其是一场充斥着龙、魔咒等虚幻假设的游戏。在一个系统中,d&d战斗系统包含了各种各样的可变因素,这个系统必须处理想象中的怪物,魔法武器,以及虚构的人物和能力。这样一来,就可以让裁判尽可能迅速地处理这件事,同时保持玩家的角色和对手之间的平衡,同时还能让球员们有机会在比赛太艰难的情况下收回他们的角色。由于肉搏在每次冒险过程中都是常见的,所以必须小心平衡,简洁,平衡。
最近有人问我,在谴责他们认为类似的系统:拥有武器的专业知识后,我如何能在AD&D规则中包含有关武器熟练程度的规则。事实上,AD&D系统对使用他们没有专业技能的武器进行惩罚。显然,这对战斗的影响是完全不同的。惩罚不会改变角色和对手之间的平衡,因为玩家可以选择不受惩罚的武器来攻击他/她的角色。
这也使得游戏更有挑战性通过进一步定义不同的角色类并使某些武器比其他的更可取,即。,魔锤+ 1对牧师有用吗?它也增加了选择。所有这些,而不是提供另一种方法,使角色更容易击败对手,减少挑战。一个人怎么可能被误认为是另一个的变体呢?答案是,这两个系统的结果没有被反映出来。通过对战斗系统及其目的的更完美的理解,问询者一定能够毫无困难地推理,并避免以“现实主义”的名义破坏游戏。
当然,在D&D系统中,现实主义确实有一个功能。它是DM的工具,它面对的是规则中没有涵盖的情况。在这样的游戏中涉及到的变量的数量,就不可能避免在书中没有说明的情况。规则的精神可以是指导原则,也可以是适用于一般情况的规则的总体目标,但是当出现特定的情况时,判断必须经常发挥作用。
Sean Cleary在一封信中对DM所遇到的常见误解和困难进行了评论,而AD&D系统是绝对清楚的,例如,神职人员只有一次机会去尝试不死,而那些被亡灵袭击的人却没有得救的机会(生活水平被耗尽了!),在规则中不可能包含所有细节。为了进一步说明,考虑导弹射击近战的例子。一般来说,击中朋友而不是敌人的几率是两者在近战中的比例。与小的敌人,比率作相应调整;即两个人与四名狗头人作战的概率相等。巨大的敌人几乎不可能击中一个朋友;即,瞄准一个12英尺高的巨人的上半身,不太可能威胁到一个在近战中闪电的人,一个人和一个巨人正在交火。导弹击中了巨人;它的闪电行程在哪里?常识和现实表明,在击中巨人时标枪的角度将决定冲程沿轴沿直线行进,其余则是典型的位置和角度——如果人类通常在巨人面前,标枪从人身后扔出,导弹的轨迹将是一个相对直线的终点,在武器的轴上,指示着闪电的方向向后。巨人的人类对手不会被击中,但是闪电很可能会接近。因此,如果人类是金属盔甲,就应该进行一次豁免检定,以确定他或她是否受到了一半或没有伤害。
In like manner, reality can illustrate probabilities. If three husky players are placed shoulder to shoulder, distances added for armor, and additional spaces added for weapon play, the DM can estimate what activities can take place in a given amount of space. Determination of how many persons can pass through a door 5 feet wide can be made with relative ease — two can proceed carefully, but if two or three rush to pass through at the same time a momentary jam can occur. How long should the jam last? How long would people remain so wedged? With an added factor for inflexible pieces of plate mail, the answer is probably one or two segments of a round. Of course, during this period the jammed characters cannot attack or defend, so no shield protection or dexterity bonus to armor class would apply, and an arbitrary bonus of +4 could be given to any attackers (an arbitrary penalty of -4 on saving throws follows).
The melee systems used in the D&D rules are by no means sacrosanct. Changes can be made if they are done intelligently by a knowledgeable individual who thoroughly understands the whole design. Similarly, “realism" is a part of melee, for the DM must refer to it continually to adjudicate combat situations where no rules exist, and this handling is of utmost importance in maintaining a balanced melee procedure. With this truly important input from the referee, it is my firm belief that the D&D system of combat is not only adequate but actually unsurpassed by any rival so-called “improvement” and "realistic" methods. The latter add complication and unnecessary record-keeping, or otherwise distort the aim of a role-playing game —character survival and identification. What is foisted off on the gullible is typically a hodgepodge of arbitrary rulings which are claimed to give “realism” to a make-believe game. Within the scope of the whole game surrounding such systems, they might or might not work well enough, but seldom will these systems fit into a D&D campaign regardless of the engineering attempts of well-meaning referees.
The logic of the D&D melee systems is simple: They reasonably reflect fantastic combat and they work damn well from all standpoints. My advice is to leave well enough alone and accept the game for what it is. If you must have more detail in melee, switch to another game, for the combat portions of the D&D rules are integral, and unsuccessful attempts to change melee will result in spoiling the whole. Better to start fresh than to find that much time and effort has been wasted on a deadend variant.
以类似的方式,现实可以证明概率。如果三个哈士奇的玩家被放置在肩膀上,在装甲上增加距离,在武器游戏中增加额外的空间,DM可以估计在一定数量的空间中会发生什么活动。确定有多少人可以通过5英尺宽的门,可以相对轻松地完成——两个可以小心地进行,但是如果两到三次同时发生,就会发生暂时性的堵塞。果酱要持续多久?人们还能保持多久?对于不灵活的平板邮件来说,答案可能是一到两段。当然,在这段时间内,被卡住的角色不能攻击或防御,所以没有任何盾牌保护或敏捷性的加成将适用于装甲类,并且任意的+ 4的奖励可以被给予任何攻击者(一个任意的- 4的豁免罚球将跟随)。
在D&D规则中使用的近战系统并不是神圣不可侵犯的。如果一个知识渊博的人对整个设计有透彻的了解,就可以做出改变。类似地,“现实主义”是混战的一部分,因为DM必须不断地引用它来判决没有规则的战斗情况,而这种处理在维持一个平衡的近战过程中是至关重要的。有了这个真正重要的裁判的意见,我坚信D&D的战斗系统不仅是足够的,而且是任何对手所谓的“改进”和“现实”的方法都无法超越的。后者增加了复杂性和不必要的记录,或者其他的扭曲了角色扮演游戏的目标——角色的生存和识别。在容易上当受骗的人身上,通常会有一些武断的裁决,这些裁决声称将“现实主义”赋予虚构的游戏。在围绕这类系统的整个游戏的范围内,他们可能会或者可能不会很好地工作,但是这些系统很少会被用于D&D运动,而不考虑那些善意的裁判的工程企图。
D&D近战系统的逻辑很简单:它们合理地反映了奇妙的战斗,并且从所有的角度都能很好地工作。我的建议是,充分地离开,接受这个游戏。如果你必须在近战中有更多的细节,切换到另一种游戏,因为d&d规则的战斗部分是不可分割的,而不成功的改变近战的尝试将会破坏整个游戏。最好是重新开始,而不是发现有太多的时间和精力被浪费在一个没有结果的变种上。