Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 7106006" data-attributes="member: 6688937">umm...hunh? Maybe I'm glitching here but this reads to me like: &quot;Of course they are plot armor 'cause A) They aren't and B) They aren't for another reason. Also, they are plot armor.&quot; Now, are they a (rather clumsy and indirect) way to pace a fight?...yeah, I suppose...I would say the final point you make about the Wizards v. Fighters varies a lot from edition to edition (and probably table-to-table). Consider how few spells a starting wizard has in the earlier editions (when HP are first installed). I mean, I know my AD&amp;D first-level wizards spend a lot of time trying to avoid notice until they can unleash massive plot device of Sleep or Magic Missile or their other single spell du jour. After that world-altering event, they go back to slinging around the back slinging stones or darts (if that). Maybe later, after you survive all that embarassment, you get to engage your phenomenal cosmic powers, but fresh out of the academy, you're not engaging the &quot;plot-as-combat&quot; any more than the barbarian. Out of combat, especially in early editions, there is precious little to differentiate anyone mechanically.Maybe I'm splitting too fine difference here, but &quot;plot&quot; and &quot;fiction&quot; (or fictional positioning for forgies) are not the same. I could see the argument, as others have made in defense of 4e, that the traditional caster certainly has &quot;reality scripts&quot; that he gets to insert into the fiction in a way that the non-caster doesn't. However, I'm not so certain that that guarantees the caster more ways to engage the plot - as - premise in ways that the more-reliable-yet-less-defined mechanics of the non-caster do. If I want to stop the Duke's men from harassing a peasant girl as part of the plot, is my engagement with the plot lessened if I do it with 20 swordblows rather than a Sleep spell? Conversely, if I'm trying to use HP as plot armor (immunity to protect the progress of the plot) shouldn't we derive that from how this or that character is important to the plot continuing? Shouldn't we then be designating a character or two as &quot;the hero&quot; and everyone else as either plucky sidekick or disposable secondary character?I like those kind of &quot;meta fictional&quot; mechanics in theory (I prefer &quot;narrative causality&quot;), but I've had the not-so-good experience of the table grinding to a halt as the &quot;guaranteed fiction&quot; of character A made the &quot;guaranteed outcome&quot; of character B very hard to imagine in a sensible way. Although, that may have been simply some poorly-playtested character mechanics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 7106006, member: 6688937"] umm...hunh? Maybe I'm glitching here but this reads to me like: "Of course they are plot armor 'cause A) They aren't and B) They aren't for another reason. Also, they are plot armor." Now, are they a (rather clumsy and indirect) way to pace a fight?...yeah, I suppose... I would say the final point you make about the Wizards v. Fighters varies a lot from edition to edition (and probably table-to-table). Consider how few spells a starting wizard has in the earlier editions (when HP are first installed). I mean, I know my AD&D first-level wizards spend a lot of time trying to avoid notice until they can unleash massive plot device of [I]Sleep[/I] or [I]Magic Missile[/I] or their other single spell du jour. After that world-altering event, they go back to slinging around the back slinging stones or darts (if that). Maybe later, after you survive all that embarassment, you get to engage your phenomenal cosmic powers, but fresh out of the academy, you're not engaging the "plot-as-combat" any more than the barbarian. Out of combat, especially in early editions, there is precious little to differentiate anyone mechanically. Maybe I'm splitting too fine difference here, but "plot" and "fiction" (or fictional positioning for forgies) are not the same. I could see the argument, as others have made in defense of 4e, that the traditional caster certainly has "reality scripts" that he gets to insert into the fiction in a way that the non-caster doesn't. However, I'm not so certain that that guarantees the caster more ways to engage the [I]plot - as - premise[/I] in ways that the more-reliable-yet-less-defined mechanics of the non-caster do. If I want to stop the Duke's men from harassing a peasant girl as part of the plot, is my engagement with the plot lessened if I do it with 20 swordblows rather than a [I]Sleep[/I] spell? Conversely, if I'm trying to use HP as plot armor (immunity to protect the progress of the plot) shouldn't we derive that from how this or that character is important to the plot continuing? Shouldn't we then be designating a character or two as "the hero" and everyone else as either plucky sidekick or disposable secondary character? I like those kind of "meta fictional" mechanics in theory (I prefer "narrative causality"), but I've had the not-so-good experience of the table grinding to a halt as the "guaranteed fiction" of character A made the "guaranteed outcome" of character B very hard to imagine in a sensible way. Although, that may have been simply some poorly-playtested character mechanics. [/QUOTE]

Verification