Search results

If I had the time and patience to do so, and I succesfully articulate myself (a rehash of what's probably already been restated by various posters from various angles), would you just tell me how that relates to 3E or 4E? Because I don't really care :) And 5E is too preliminary to know how it...

OK. I don't have the patience to follow through with my side of things, sorry. It's like Enworld Vietnam. I suspect you infer too much from my statements. Every statement has its context. No need to generalize too much from what you think I'm saying. To answer the question, I don't know. But...

And yet "fortune-in-the-middle" is not a commonly used term (I believe you use it the most on this forum?) and a lot of people still don't understand it, which, if true, just goes to show that academia is its own little bubble and not influential enough, such that the rest of us mainstream folk...

It depends: does the "Weaponmaster" use something like combat superiority or stamina points or something other than 4E martial dailies? (Preferably, the "Swordsage" could have something like a mana or psionics pool too)

Not to stir up more of the hornet's nest, but who elected the Forge as the official source for RPG terminology? If Alexander whoever-he-is wants to use differents terms, then that's his prerogative, isn't it? Until WoTC uses Forge terminology or the mainstream crowd chooses one over another, I...

Remember the context of post that you quoted me, I would have said the reverse: The "simulation/immersion" crowd are often trying to explain what they are doing The "4e crowd" seem to be very inconsiderate or scornful of the sim/1st person/immersive agenda But actually the more objective...

I tried the same with Neonchameleon, except the opposite: find a reason (in-game) for it TO work (metagame), but he didn't go for it. I guess you can't change what people are looking for. More importantly however, if you want to give someone a reason for it TO work, then giving them just any...

Not referring to you specifically, but in general, for all those people who don't take D&D seriously as a simulation, why do they keep defending various half-assed fluff explanations (that they don't take seriously anyway) against those who DO treat it more earnestly? Aren't they just yanking...

He wrote "equally metagame", not "all metagame". That is, he's clearly using "metagame" as a quality or degree, not a binary (it IS metagame OR it isn't) meaning. You can't use the word "equally" otherwise ("that Nissan and that Toyota are equally automobile")

I fully sympathize. I find it rather unsatisfying to debate in-game causation with Step-On-Uppers -- because ultimately, the in-game fluff is irrelevant. They've already chosen the metagame mechanic. Any half-assed fluff explanation will suffice exactly because the fluff is not even close to the...

That can't be true in an absolute sense, if only because thousands and thousands of wizards have been roleplayed in contrary ways, so maybe, just maybe, you're taking a narrow minded view of how wizards must be roleplayed. For example, you don't seem to want to consider the possibility that...

Hmm, if you really like to play wizards, why didn't you find a character concept that allowed you to be play a wizard without breaking it? Just relinquish the rules a little bit and do what is possible for that character instead of what the rules say are theoretically possible. That way, you get...

Perhaps ALL metagame mechanics are "dissociated" until they are connected to the game world. In which case, the mechanic was dissociated until the player associated it to the Raven Queen's power of intervention. A sim mechanic (a "descriptor" as you once put it IIRC) is connected to the game...

Hmm, we're really not on the same page, are we? A gaming group with a social contract will tell you when you're being a dick, trust me. They might do it implicitly or explicitly via in-game roleplaying or player-to-player or DM houserule. Just like your wife would tell you not to be a dick...

I feel obligated to pre-counter the usual counterpoint, which is that the character does not exist and isn't thinking anything. The character thinks whatever the player wants the character to think, so goes the counter-argument. I don't like that counter-argument because it's pretty obvious to...

Perhaps you are overstating your case or we're talking past each other or you don't understand the analogy of taking out the garbage. I'm asking that when there's an area not covered by the rule, then don't be a dick. I don't want 5E to be a game designed specifically for dicks.

In my analogy, the garbage can did exist. You retconned the garbage can to be non-existent, thus creating a brand new analogy. For that reason, I don't know even know what we were talking about anymore.

That depends on how "belief" is paraphrased, so can/did you come to a conclusion without making a "fallacy fallacy" (argumentum ad logicam)? :)

Good thing he didn't call for "meaningful unification of players" after declaring that the other player's beliefs is based on "fallacy" :P

So the rules say that fighters can do 1 arm-related power once per day and 1 leg-related power once per day? What happens if the fighter exhausts his arm-related encounter power so that he can't do that anymore but can still do his arm-related daily?