Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 2745830" data-attributes="member: 2011">Uh huh.AoOs don't really happen in real life. It's mostly a game mechanic, even if someone can think of a way for it to sometimes work in real life. If you have 8 guys on you, you tend to concentrate only on a few of them at a time and if one of them &quot;lowers his guard&quot; for an instant, you typically cannot take advantage of it.One person's common sense explanation of the rules is another person's suspension of belief (or not).Like I said, common sense rationalization of combat rules is kind of silly. You can go round and round that mulberry bush for a real long time on that and get nowhere.Explaining that a given rule (such as Cleaves on AoOs, or even AoOs in the first place) makes sense to you does not mean that it makes sense to someone else. Some rules are better at modeling what most people consider reasonable combat and other do not. Giving an explanation for why a given game mechanic can model reality will typically not change anyone's mind.In fact, it is often the person who has to go out of his way to explain why a given mechanic works that is stretching belief. It's a game with rules. If you have to come up with a way to explain why the rule actually works as a model to your players in order for them to suspend belief, then there is probably something wrong with the rule.AC and hit points, as an example, are fairly poor rules to model combat because single wound kill threats basically disappear as the character progresses up levels. Having the skill to parry or avoid the blow at all is a better model. But, people can talk until they are blue in the face explaining why hit points are a rational common sense model.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 2745830, member: 2011"] Uh huh. AoOs don't really happen in real life. It's mostly a game mechanic, even if someone can think of a way for it to sometimes work in real life. If you have 8 guys on you, you tend to concentrate only on a few of them at a time and if one of them "lowers his guard" for an instant, you typically cannot take advantage of it. One person's common sense explanation of the rules is another person's suspension of belief (or not). Like I said, common sense rationalization of combat rules is kind of silly. You can go round and round that mulberry bush for a real long time on that and get nowhere. Explaining that a given rule (such as Cleaves on AoOs, or even AoOs in the first place) makes sense to you does not mean that it makes sense to someone else. Some rules are better at modeling what most people consider reasonable combat and other do not. Giving an explanation for why a given game mechanic can model reality will typically not change anyone's mind. In fact, it is often the person who has to go out of his way to explain why a given mechanic works that is stretching belief. It's a game with rules. If you have to come up with a way to explain why the rule actually works as a model to your players in order for them to suspend belief, then there is probably something wrong with the rule. AC and hit points, as an example, are fairly poor rules to model combat because single wound kill threats basically disappear as the character progresses up levels. Having the skill to parry or avoid the blow at all is a better model. But, people can talk until they are blue in the face explaining why hit points are a rational common sense model. [/QUOTE]

Verification