Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6549949" data-attributes="member: 97077">I'm forced to disagree unless I'm misunderstanding your position. Narrative still comes first in combat even though what we can do fictionally is constrained by action economy and turn order e.g. &quot;I attack the orc with my greatsword.&quot; (Arguably, turn order and action economy is really about ensuring equal spotlight time and opportunity to contribute.) From there the DM judges whether an attack roll is necessary (it usually is because of opposition that is defending itself but we can imagine cases where there is no uncertainty as to hitting) and, if successful, what effect follows (usually a damage roll, again, if it's uncertain and applicable) as well as the narration of the result. Replace the fictional declaration with &quot;I try to appeal to the King's well-known mercy to spare our lives,&quot; change AC to DC, keep the life-or-death stakes, and now we're in a whole different game with different expectations? This seems odd to me. Perhaps our expectations are not in line with what the game actually is. Rather we're taking our expectations from other games and trying to apply them to D&amp;D 5e.I'm not sure I can see combat rules as &quot;universal laws.&quot; I know that some people with particular play agendas really want it to be that way though and might even try to make the rules apply in that fashion to varying degrees of success. I think the combat rules can be taken exactly as any other rule - a tool that serves the DM and allows him or her to resolve uncertainty.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 6549949, member: 97077"] I'm forced to disagree unless I'm misunderstanding your position. Narrative still comes first in combat even though what we can do fictionally is constrained by action economy and turn order e.g. "I attack the orc with my greatsword." (Arguably, turn order and action economy is really about ensuring equal spotlight time and opportunity to contribute.) From there the DM judges whether an attack roll is necessary (it usually is because of opposition that is defending itself but we can imagine cases where there is no uncertainty as to hitting) and, if successful, what effect follows (usually a damage roll, again, if it's uncertain and applicable) as well as the narration of the result. Replace the fictional declaration with "I try to appeal to the King's well-known mercy to spare our lives," change AC to DC, keep the life-or-death stakes, and now we're in a whole different game with different expectations? This seems odd to me. Perhaps our expectations are not in line with what the game actually is. Rather we're taking our expectations from other games and trying to apply them to D&D 5e. I'm not sure I can see combat rules as "universal laws." I know that some people with particular play agendas really want it to be that way though and might even try to make the rules apply in that fashion to varying degrees of success. I think the combat rules can be taken exactly as any other rule - a tool that serves the DM and allows him or her to resolve uncertainty. [/QUOTE]

Verification