Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6684358" data-attributes="member: 6681948">[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] – that post got way too long, and I was distracted in the middle of it.  Apologies to those getting eyestrain reading it.I like the “fiction” term, but terminology seems to be a lot of the argument.  The statement that “metagaming is cheating”, for example, suggests a correlation between the terms.  But is metagming cheating?  Well it depends on the social contract.  Maybe we decided our game should be like Order of the Stick and break the fourth wall.  Even in a more typical “PC’s should act on PC knowledge” game, I suspect most would agree that Metagaming such as “I must create a character who can get along with the other characters”, or “That is the adventure hook – play along” is not “cheating”.  It is clearly metagaming.  This, I think is in agreement with your comments.The specific argument, however, definitely focusses on whether the fiction intended to be generated by the Feint mechanic is:(a)    “if the Feint succeeds, the defender has no idea that he has been feinted until, at least, the attacker makes the attack against which he has no DEX bonus”; or  (b)    “if the Feint succeeds, the defender knows that he has been feinted and will be easier for the attacker to strike”.If the intent of the designer is (a), then having the rolls occur at the time the Feint is announced, rather than at the time the followup attack is initiated, is poor design.  If the intent is (b), the design is great.  In either case, the designer has failed to explicitly state the fiction intended to be created by the mechanic.A great discussion on DM’s expecting players to react in a manner inconsistent with how the mechanics work.  My comment was more directed to “gaming the rules”.  If we assume that the group has adopted “fiction (a)” with respect to the feint  mechanics, it is just as much “metagaming” (as that term has been used by Barlo’s detractors) for Barlo’s player to change his mind and attack instead of withdrawing after seeing the Feint check as it would be for Barlo’s player to change his mind and withdraw instead of attacking after seeing the Feint check.  In either case, the feint check Barlo in character did not detect is changing his actions.  The difference, of course, is that choosing to withdraw is the action that looks most like being influenced by the successful feint check.  In regards to “secret rolls”, again we have not defined the terminology.  It requires just as much trust in the DM for the players to roll the dice where only the DM can see them, and somewhat less if they roll in a manner that DM and player can see them, but the other player cannot.  All three are “secret rolls”.I find many players irrationally attached to being the “masters of their own fate” if the ‘1’ that kills them was rolled by their own hand.  Regardless, if the agreed fiction is (a), then there must be no indication to Barlo [BTW, I am assuming Abel and Barlo are uncreative so the players and characters share the same name] that Abel is attempting a feint.  That might be accomplished with the DM making the rolls (and NOT asking “Barlo, what’s your Sense Motive”) or by having Abel roll a secret roll, which the DM and Abel know is a feint, but Barlo does not, and letting Barlo roll his own Sense Motive after taking his own action.  We then get the question of whether he rolls before Abel declares his action (fiction:  The feinter can tell whether his feint was successful) or after (fiction:  the feinter can’t tell whether his feint succeeded until it is too late).</blockquote>

Verification