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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6599189" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I know where you're coming from but the problem lies with the system's granular specifications (numerical encounter distances, numerical movement rates in all dimensions, numerical increments for weapon/melee reach, numerical spell ranges, spell AoE shapes/units, specific action economy, specific triggerable melee control effects based on the interaction of multiple priors, etc).  That isn't even taking into account for trying to have battlefield obstacles/terrain (that interact with the aforementioned numbers/cover designations).  How all these come together with 1-4 above gets very, very, very prickly.You can "say yes" all the time to players questions (can I move over this log that spans this bog of difficult terrain, fire off this magic missle and get to that area of cover?).  However, inevitably, saying yes all the time is going to remove the tactical robustness (which is predicated upon assimilation of a fair bit of precise information and making sound tactical action declarations based on what is happening right now and what may be coming down the line) for the players.  Then what happens when you say no?   They aren't relying on their own ability to observe and orient to assimilate the information and decide.  They're relying on you being amenable to their course of action declaration.  If suddenly you aren't amenable and they can't discern why (and they can't observe and orient without you as their conduit for sensory/spatial information), then they're feeling that you're exerting Force (1) and removing their agency (2 and thus removing 3 yet again)...and they may feel it is arbitrary or adversarial.It is very difficult.  There is a lot of tension between what the D&D rules actually support (play with precise units, movements and interactions) and how TotM play procedures manifest around (eg playing with or actually "getting around") that rules infrastructure.  Personally, I'd rather just play with a system that doesn't push back against me (at all), and actually supports me, when I try to realize my preferred mode of play with it.</blockquote>

Verification