Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6325049" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Even if people ignored some of the fluff text it was very easy to achieve in every edition of D&D prior to 4e.  I don't remember EVER thinking someone taking a poison save could have not been poisoned at all.  You may have some text to support this but it was something glossed over by many.  The manipulation of the spell is a non-entity.  It's like damage resistance.  The player does not announce he is trying to manipulate the spell.  It's just subsumed in combat.   The real issue is player decisions that essentially time travel back before the event that has already happened and change it.A good example would be a reaction that said whenever you take more than 10 damage you can choose to use your parry power and reduce that damage by 1d6.   The player is then acting on that 10 damage which to be known in my opinion has to have already occurred and then going back in time and parrying it.Perhaps this is the heart of GNS simulation.  I'm not really sure.  The constant confusion I get from people over these terms has let me to use narrative mechanical unity.Most people I know played them the same exact way.  This is probably a clue as to why many people in my camp see 3e as just another successor to pre-3e D&D.   There is plenty to not like don't get me wrong but it's not a  "sim" or NMU issue.   Such arguments though are kind of disingenuous.  I realize that in a perfect world everything would be real time perhaps.  I do think though that while initiative is purely a player concept nothing happens in the world until you take actions.   After the battle is over, a character might remember that he got in a sword thrust before the ogre but initiative is not part of his world.  Whereas with me, AC, hit points, and such are very much part of his world even if named differently in his mind.   (general defensive capability and general overall health).Your argument is basically that any concession to game play is a total concession and why not throw out any concerns on the matter.  While I know logically as a player, when I am in the mind of my character I am imagining things happening in that order.   It doesn't affront my sensibilities.  Whereas, the second I use a time traveling power, I've lost any immersion I had.You can have off turn actions.  That in and of itself is not the issue.  The issue would be off turn actions that specifically travel up the timeline of events.  4e likely had some of those (and other games too of course) and that is the issue.  I don't take issue with opportunity attacks which are reactions.  If a person begins to move through my threatened area, I can react to it before the total movement is completed.  My only requirement is that the choice to use a reaction occur before the outcome is known.   So if I have a shield spell that stops incoming arrows, I want the DM to announce that so and so enemy is firing an arrow, and then I must choose to use the shield.  I do not want to be hit by the arrow and then choose to use the shield.   Of course in the first case requiring a perception roll could be in order if the room is busy enough.There are several things that you should consider about pre-4e people.  First.  Nothing but the core books is really the official rules.  If there is a feat in a splatbook somewhere even put out by wotc, that gives a second wind, we would not say that that edition supports martial healing.   Even though such a feat would exist.  Second, we don't consider all reactions as a violation of temporal linearity.  Just those that actually undo a result.   I must admit I've forgotten all about 4e for the most part.  Still I would imagine that there are examples of both in the game.I think one big disconnect for some people is what is known to the PCs in game.  For people like me a LOT more is known than you probably assume.  It gets us in trouble on the dissociative arguments because what a PC knows is important to that concept.Sidenote:  I've enjoyed some of our discussions.  It's nice to have one without acrimony.  If that means both sides are coming to better understand the other then that is a good thing we can thank the various forums for if nothing else.</blockquote>

Verification