Search results

Oh come on. Now your just being facetious. I've lost any interest in continuing discussing this with you in particular.

Yes. Very good. We've already covered that there are many legitimate reasons why damage could be reduced or ignored. "Cause I'm the DM" is not one of them. But by all means, keep amusing yourself with irrelevancies.

You are arguing something other people aren't. Final does not mean sole. No one has said the DM isn't final arbiter. What we are saying is it would be bad form for the DM to overrule a player with a reasonable explanation and to only account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences. Really...

There is no demand. We are talking about a basic PC ability. In no edition of D&D has the player ever had to ask the DMs permission to damage monsters. "If it pleases you, oh overlord, I have rolled 7 damage" "Nay, worthless whelp! I will allow your roll of 20 to stand, but your damage is...

Ahem, you know, Mr. Moderator (rawr), there seems to be a lot of SW players on here these days. Yet there is no SW post tag... :angel:

This is at the core of what I've been arguing. You just stated it much better than I have managed to so far. :) I would add that the narrative control ceded to the player here isn't really any different than the narrative control the player has always had. The powers of 4e are, typically...

Certainly. Or it has some type of immunity or magical protection or any of dozens of other possibilities why it's damage would legitimately be reduced within the context of the game. What isn't legitimate is the DM arbitrarily, and after the fact, negating players actions while ignoring their...

That doesn't even make any sense. Interactions in the game world are framed in the mechanics. The DM doesn't judge how well you describe swinging your sword at a troll to determine if you hit. You roll dice. If you hit, the damage expression isn't determined at whim by the DM based on your...

Yes! And that physical process has been described a few dozen times, including by me in the first post you quote. What you describe is the abstract attitude of the rules in every edition of D&D, not just 4e. So it is not an emergent philosophy, its core to the game. We haven't been...

I agree, neither the player or the DM gets to play God with the WHOLE WORLD! That's actually pretty central to my point. Agree 100%. That is exactly what I am arguing. By interacting with the snake in ways envisioned with imagination, I have done things to it (damage, prone). Overruling...

This is what you keep missing in the snake discussions - The claim is that the rule doesn't make sense within the fiction to ONE person at the table, the DM. It does make sense to the player and said player offers an explanation of how his power still works within the fiction, and the DM...

You're focusing on the wrong things in Hussar's example. He is talking from the perspective of the people gathered around the table - why is violating a player's suspension DM prerogative, but the player violating the DMs must be remedied to the DMs satisfaction? These aren't different issues...

Since 1979 at the tender age of 6. Started with 1e, then some OD&D, then Red Box, then back to 1e. During the mid 80s I played lots of systems - Traveller, Paranoia, Gamma World, Top Secret SI, some Rolemaster, several others, but mainly AD&D, with quite a bit of Top Secret and Paranoia. In...

Man, this thread has made me miss 1e. Those were my formative years, RPG-wise, bridging the gap from pre-teen boy "heheh, breasts" to beginning to think in terms of story and character. In any of a hundred other threads we'd be arguing over whether many of these elements of 1e AD&D were good...

Nice offensive opening. Call Pathfinder players 3tards and compare 4e to a board game and I think you could offend pretty much everyone. I'm not easily distracted, so I've had no problem continuing to play characters during this "onslaught" of wrongwayism, but I might just be extra special.

Right, you are more well informed because of the transparency, but the tinkering may still be quite complex. Easier than if that transparency wasn't there but less easy than a system designed with tinkering in mind. If the change you want to make mucks the basic math that runs through the...

I think that's just good basic GMing advice anyway. I know people often tell those new to Savage Worlds to play it before changing it. The system and presentation lends itself to tinkering so well that most new GMs to the system already have tons of ideas to tinker and modify before they even...

First, this is an interesting discussion and I've enjoyed it. We may be the only two, but hey, suum cuique... It's clear I did have a misunderstanding of exactly how you were using the GNS terms as types. I thought you were defining narrativism specifically as conflict that arises because of...

No, they are not. They simply have more "feet" in touch with the ground. When those feet aren't in touch with the ground, they are THEN prone.

You are getting too technical and focusing on the one piece of the condition with no mechanical effect. However, any creature has a method of moving itself that involves contact with the ground. A snake and a man both use contact with the ground to move themselves about, a snake has more...