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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7585556" data-attributes="member: 42582">I haven't done a survey, but 4e is clearly designed around the idea that vertical movement (both up and down) will be a meaningful aspect of play: it has climibing rules, flying rules, prominent advice on what height of cliff is a good fit for what level of PCs, etc.An analogue to falling, in this context, is the proverbial character chained to a cliff while a dragon breathes fire on him/her, and that is one of the examples (the other is suffering a poison bite/sting) that Gygax uses (in his DMG) to explain how saving throws should be thought of in the fiction.One of the most classic of D&D modules is G2, and vertical movement (in the Rift) is a big element in the first half of that adventure (at least as I experienced, both in AD&D and in my 4e adaptation).I guess my point is that I don't think these are corner cases that the hp rules somehow have trouble coping with. The game system treats them as core, and that fits with my own play experience.EDIT:To put it another way, here are two different contentions:(1) At my table, PCs falling down cliffs is a pretty rare corner case, and so the contrast between being pushed and jumping doesn't really come into play, and so we're able to treat a player deciding that his/her PC jumps as metagame rather than "in character"/actor stance. (2) In D&D, PCs falling down cliffs is a pretty rare corner case, and so the contrast between being pushed and jumping isn't really a part of D&D play, and so a player deciding that his/her PC jumps is metagaming rather than playing "in character"/actor stance.If someone asserts (1) I've got no reason to doubt their sincerity. And I've played games in which "gentlemen's agreements" keep some rule or odd consequence off the table although it's implicit in the system itself.But [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] appears to be arguing (2). Just as he argues (for instance) that it is common sense that a 1st level dwarf PC should know all about forest trails, but it would be metagaming for the player of a 1st level desert nomad to impute to his/her PC knowledge of trolls. Presenting these claims as universal, or as obvious truths about the game, and the way it is meant to be played, is (in my view) ridiculous.</blockquote>

Verification