NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="P1NBACK" data-source="post: 5323640" data-attributes="member: 83768">I disagree with this. But, I'll drop it because after reading the rest of your post, I think you and I are on exactly the same page. You're just missing the 10+ pages previous to this last bit. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Dogs uses the same resolution system for combat, talking, etc... Yes. But, by playing the game alone, you're required to create fiction. If you're not creating fiction, you're not rolling dice.  Np! I completely agree.  I'm commenting on people who disagree.  Agreed.  This happened in my 3E games too. Terrain mattered. This is not unique to 4E. But, yeah. I agree with your sentiment. Again. Disagree here. But, I like your thoughts. I like how you're using the battlemat and minis to represent fiction. The thing is, most people aren't doing that. They want the battlemat to remain mechanical. They want "Grab" not to mean actually grabbing something, but to be "Attack Red" which imposes "Condition Blue". Read up thread and you'll see what I mean.  I believe you and I play the same way.  Not at all. Not in Dogs... Have you actually played Dogs or just read it? In Dogs, your "intent" is, "I shoot him in the face..." because that's what I'm trying to do. In fact, Dogs wants you to bring out those big guns because they have super-potential to change your character because they are super prone to fallout (that's why all guns get +1d4 dice). Remember, low dice cause problems for you. The "effect" is what we determine later, when you decide to See or Take the Blow. So, it'd play out like this: Player 1: I shoot him in the face! (pushes forward 2 dice, a 6 and a 1 for 7 total). Player 2: Well, I can't beat a 7 with two dice, I have to use 3. So, I use my 5, 1, and 1 to "Take the Blow". However, I still have dice, so I'm not out of the fight. "The gun goes off with a loud bang and smoke... Jebediah grabs his ear and screams, 'Holy crap! You just blew my ear off!'" (that's 3 d10 fallout dice to set aside [which could kill me later at the end of the conflict]). Notice how I HAVE to describe taking the blow based on the original fiction? I have to describe how I take the blow from being shot in the face? The fiction is supremely important because it directly ties into what I can say next. Yeah. I would never do that. I'd just let the dice speak for themselves and have the player decide to invoke traits for more dice and justify it in the fiction (like you have to do to get more dice in Dogs...).  I don't understand this statement. Care to elaborate?  You don't think one man grabbing a gargantuan swarm of humanoids (like say, a mob of 25 humans or so) is of "super human" ability? This is what we're talking about here. People here are advocating this. That's not "pulp" - that's super human.  Sure he did. A great example (from the movie) is when the party is traveling in the dwarven ruins and they get swarmed by the horde (a gargantuan swarm) and only make it out because the Balrog roars. Now... Imagine Aragorn "grabbing" that swarm....  I agree. This is what I've been saying for 10 pages. "Awesome. What are you doing? How do you do that? What do you say? How do you intimidate him? etc..." We are at a fundamental agreement. You're arguing with me because you're taking me out of context (which is based on this entire thread).  Exactly.  I don't think you know what I'm saying when it comes to disassociated mechanics. But, I'm glad we agree on the fiction aspect of it all.  Agreed. But, this is why I don't have players roll for knowledge checks most of the time. I just give them the information.  I'm not saying all 4E mechanics are disassociated. I think you're misinterpreting me. Like I said, we're at a fundamental agreement. And, that to me suffices for the point of this thread.</blockquote>

Verification