You showed nothing with your example. First off, you neglected to mention the additional foes in your “roll-playing” example, and then failed to show how the ogre was going to do anything different other than his basic attack in the second.
Yes I did. In fact, after the quote break you did, you even mention it yourself. As in:
So close to understanding... but a miss. In your example, at best the ogre wastes his turn with yelling for his buddies and a worthless improvised ranged weapon attack.
I don't know what sort of point you're trying to make, but it's probably lost if you contradict yourself immediately. You say I failed to show the ogre doing anything other than a basic attack, and immediately follow that up by acknowledging the first attack the ogre makes is not a basic attack. so, um....congrats on disproving yourself? Unless you can show me where an ogre throwing a half eaten cow carcass is in it's stat block somewhere. And how is that worthless? Sure seems to me like it would have an effect. Ironic that you'd make a personal dig at my intelligence of understanding and then completely contradict yourself in the same post.
What do you think happens afterwards? You even say it yourself; “... if there is no other reasonable option to the DM.” That's it. That's our complaint. There ISN'T a reasonable option for them to do stuff at the base level. There's either a convenient environmental threat that any and all enemies with a decent strength can make use of, or there isn't and it's back to the auto attack. In your example, what is difference between having an ogre be there, and a hill giant (excluding the CR difference)? Because as far as I can tell, there isn't one.
Just because you don't see an alternative doesn't mean there isn't one. That's
my point. i just literally gave you an example of something other than a base attack. Just yesterday, pemerton said he didn't recall anyone making an argument that a monster is only limited to abilities in a statblock, and here he is giving you xp for making that same argument. Maybe the PCs aren't in melee, and the ogre's next attack is to hurl the pile of burning logs it was using to cook the cow at the party, not only causing damage, but forcing every other player who tries to cross the burning logs to take fire damage. I don't know, the point is that how a monster typically behaves and the environment are
critically important factors to combat, and not something to be completely ignored. No wonder you guys think monsters are boring, because you're playing them as nothing but boring bags of stats when you have your solution literally right there in front of you but you either can't, or won't bother to think outside of a statblock. TTRPGs are not like a computer game. You CAN interact with literally everything around you. There are countless scenarios in which monsters can be encounters, with infinite environmental, personality, or motivational influences to said encounters.
I love that some people believe that anyone complaining about rules mechanics doesn't know how to role play.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Give me one quote of someone arguing that? Otherwise I have to assume you're being disingenuous in your argument, and attacking a strawman
That does seem to be [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]'s favourite line, in multiple current threads.
The thing I don't get, though, is how Sacrosanct reconciles his dismissal of everyone else's interest in mechanical details with his own preference for giving dragons spells. I haven't seen any explanation why the use of spels is an exception to the general principle that good roleplayers only need flavour text.
Same for you. One quote of me saying that. I suppose it's easy to build up a weak strawman so you can attack it. If you're talking about that other thread, I had
repeatedly stated that if someone is not including the elements that define what role playing is, then they are not playing a role playing game. That's objectively true for obvious reasons. Nowhere does it say, infer, or imply that people don't know how to role play or that I'm dismissing anyone's interest in mechanical details. However,
only using mechanical details and treating monsters the exact same as game pieces on a battleboard that can do nothing else but what is in a statblock is NOT role-playing. That's ROLL playing and is what we describe boardgames as. That isn't me being an arbritrator or anything else you've accuse me of. That's me using the actual definition of what role playing is. Don't believe me, go look up what games like Wrath of A. are classified as.
I've also never dismissed anyone who has an interest in the mechanical details. I've stated repeatedly how that's a perfectly viable way to play a game if that's what you want. I also never said that good role players only need flavor text.
So unless you can actually provide quotes of me doing so (which I'm sure is easy for you since you like to quote and cite sources), you need to kindly stop with these weak strawman and address what I actually said. Because at this point, with the several strawmen in a row, I can only assume you're being intellectually dishonest here.