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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="P1NBACK" data-source="post: 5303918" data-attributes="member: 83768">Oh god, wherein he tries to define "roleplaying game"... Gimme a break. I can "roleplay" my banker in Monopoly. Does that mean Monopoly is a roleplaying game? It has some rules and I'm playing a character... No. Absolutely not. The roleplaying comes in when my fictional actions and choices have a direct impact on the game. This is why it's important for the mechanics to support the fiction. First of all, I never once mentioned realism as the stated goal. Never. Plausibility? Yes. Realism? No. However, my main concern is the fiction. As I just discussed, without that fiction carrying my character and my choices, we're playing a board game and "roleplaying" is just us masturbating with our voices. Like I said... We're not talking about realism. We're talking about fiction. Pay attention. But, you're assuming spellcasters are more elite in the fiction. This isn't necessarily true. Really? That sounds fun as hell to me. All of sudden, we're immersed in the fiction because of one simple question. I'm imagining the Wizard modifying his spell and recalling his lore of elementals. If the Rogue had justified it in the fiction, "As I strike at the elemental, I make sure to place my blade in the ember that rests at it's heart so that my poison strikes at it's weakest location..." Wow... All of a sudden I'm IMAGINING this fiction take place. And it sounds <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />ing awesome. This... compared to...Wizard: I use Poison Missile at-will. DM: Sweet. It's an elemental though. How do you do that? Wizard: Well, I just cast it. DM: Oh, cool. Well, roll to hit. Roll for damage. DM: Rogue, you're up. Rogue: Sweet. I use Poison Strike at-will. DM: Oh, uh, sure. Roll to hit. Roll for damage. ...Nah... I'd rather hear... Wizard: I use Poison Missile at-will. DM: Sweet. It's an elemental though, how do you do that? Wizard: I modify the casting of the spell slightly as I'm casting it so that the substance I shoot at the Elemental acts the same as a poison would for a human. I'm really good at Arcana and would know how to modify my spells on the fly and I'd also know what hurts Elementals.Oh yeah!Not at all. See my example above. Not at all. Rogues can deal damage to undead. There's nothing saying they can't. They just need to justify it in the fiction, same as the Wizard or Cleric. I use Magic Missile. "Sweet, what happens?" "How does that work?" "How do you do that?"   Being immune to something and having characters justify it in fiction are two entirely different things. For example, in the example above, the Rogue decides to strike at this tiny little ember floating in the center of the fire elemental, it's the magical beast's heart. We've already established the rogue can use the poison on it (because she justified it in the fiction), but if the elemental has Immunity to Poison, well, the DM just JUSTIFIES that in the fiction. "When your poison blade strikes at the elemental's ember heart, your blade flares and the poison is burned away. You realize, no poison will simply be able to pass through the heat of the elemental to reach its heart." Poison. Immunity.  This, versus, "Sorry. It's immune. You deal no poison damage." Well... Why is it immune? How is it immune? Same thing. Sigh... Again. We're not talking about realism. I play my games in a very cinematic manner. A rogue striking the ember heart of a flame elemental? Oh yeah. Yeah. I'm of the school that says, "Everyone's powers work if you can justify it in the fiction." If you can justify it in the fiction. Yes. The example given earlier of someone using their shield to hold down a swarm of lizards or whatever is a good one. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> And, this is sad to me. We're playing the game for the explanation. For the fiction. We're not playing Monopoly or D&D Minis. So... Why play combat at all? Just skip it. "You guys win. Good job. Now... back to roleplaying..." My advice to that player: "Use your imagination. This is D&D. Not, Monopoly."</blockquote>

Verification