Search results

Common sense wins.

Besides, look at it from the character's perspective. They have no reason to think killing a dragon strengthens your neck somehow. Thousands of people ride their horses every day- from the dragon killing noble to J. Random Peasant. A character who hears about Dragonkiller is going to think, "Oh...

You know what? This isn't hard to understand. If you really don't get it, I guess you never will at this point, because it has been explained time and time again during this thread.

Definitely. Sure. Right there with you. I mean, no, not at all, but yes, if that's how you want to play it, sure. But that 20th level High King? Once he's off screen, he's not so much a character as a prop. An element of the backstory. A plot device. No rules apply to him. He's out of the game...

Ah, but our NPC isn't the hero. The PCs are the heroes/heroines. Maybe he's an important character, maybe he's done great things, but he isn't the hero. In the "3. the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc" sense.

"Supposed to respond?" They respond however they damn well please. What you're talking about is their assumptions; assuming that in, say, Call of Cthulhu, a given scenario puzzle has a Mythos origin is all fine and dandy...but getting angry when it turns out to be a red herring, or a mundane...

Force them to do what? And I disagree with your spin on "player thinking." I don't have any players who think in purely gamist terms- in addition to the calculations of "Will this help me win?", there are, "What would my character do?" (and sometimes, "What would be interesting?") I've seen...

I suspect this whole phase of the argument is really over what people mean by "physics of the game world." Yes. Everything off-screen is color if you want to call it that.

Well, you should have mentioned that in the example! What was the DM's problem, then? Oh, sure. If I'm playing a game detailed enough that a cold rain has some kind of effect I want to avoid, my reaction will be based on that. But that doesn't mean I won't react to a cold rain without...

No, the right response in the DITV case would be, "We march on, drawing our coats in, shivering in the cold..." It's not at stake, no, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Dogs is sort of a bad example, as well, as you're rarely, if-ever supposed to be "in conflict" with the environment...

As a player, I don't want everything reduced to mechanics. I want roleplaying hooks like that. I make use of them. I enjoy them. I demand them. A DM who is providing them is doing exactly his job. Not everything needs to be represented mechanically. RPGs are more than just a mathematical...

If I say it is cold and raining, I expect my players to do things like: "My character puts on his poncho, or stands in an alcove, or stands there shivering and complaining about the cold." It's a hook they can hang roleplaying on. It doesn't need to penalize ranged attacks or have any other...

Yeah, I'm having a hard time following Celebrim's logic. I'd also like to see some concrete examples of his point(s). Particularly the "inevitably cause you problem" line from a while ago.

But you see my point, yes? If Superman is our analogy...you still can't kill Superman if he's asleep. Why should a 20th level Fighter be able to survive terrible injury...unless he's asleep? If you can not die from a single dagger thrust when awake and aware due to your hitpoints representing...

I'm sorry, Celebrim, but I didn't understand anything in that post. Could you re-state your argument as if you were speaking to a child? As simply as possible, define your terms and state your assumptions.

(emphasis mine) Surely the issue is then one of communication? I don't think that is the case. Look at the coup de grace rules- if a character is helpless, they can be killed outright. If high-level characters truly were more resilient physically to damage, as opposed to just protected by...

I am grumpy by nature. Pay me no mind. But I am interested in seeing your reasoning because I cannot follow it. You have said that this interpretation of the rules (that they do not model the entire game world) leads to an unfavorable outcome over a sufficiently long game, yes? I would like a...

I don't agree at all. I have, in all my years, never once, as a player or the GM, thought the mechanics were anything other than an abstraction. I have never blinked at a man in Call of Cthulhu dying to a gunshot that technically couldn't have killed him in a single hit. I have never once...

I am hoisted on my own sarcastic petard! No, I disagree. Not only do I not care one whit about it being inconsistent, but I think this inconsistency is good for the game. Not only because attempting to equate rules with world leads to far worse results, but because I do not accept for one...

How did you get the impression we wanted the same results to occur on stage as occurred off stage? Especially since we've said the opposite...?