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: 5305353" data-attributes="member: 83768">Wow. So, this is getting entirely too long and you're ignoring most of my points. I'll try one more time. This is false. It's not a roleplaying game if what you do fictionally has no impact on what you do mechanically. Plain and simple. You simply CANNOT impact what you do in Monopoly by roleplaying things out in the fiction. I can't say, "Well, today boys I'm not traveling anywhere. I'm going to stay in my hotel on Boardwalk and play some poker with my colleagues." Nope. You roll the dice on your turn. You must move that many spaces. Those are the rules of the game. The same thing applies to D&D. By not allowing fiction in the game to impact the mechanical functions of the game, you're turning it into a board game. That's fine if you want to have that experience. I'm not knocking it. But, let's not be naive and call it roleplaying. <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=";)" /> XP and leveling is totally not a requirement for a game to be an RPG... And, improvement doesn't "mean" XP and leveling in all RPGs. I think you need to broaden your horizons as far as RPGs. What games have you played? If they have that power and can justify it in the fiction, sure. There's also a social contract at the table that needs to be clear to all the players and what is acceptable to them. If you want to play a "anime" oriented game, and I'm interested in a more classic fantasy experience, we need to reconcile those differences and figure out what kind of theme we're going for in the campaign. I don't. We're playing elves and wizards (which, last I checked, don't exist). I don't give one <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=":)" /> about realism. When did I say this? I just described earlier in this thread that a rogue could stab a fire elemental's ember heart... Wtf is wrong with you? Are you not reading my posts? Quit replying to my posts and quoting me if you're not going to read them. I never once said anything about realism, except that I don't give a <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=":)" /> about it. Seriously... Just stop. It's coming from your imagination. The same as where mine is coming from. And, when we tell this story, when we describe our actions and our characters, we're created a shared story. It's not hard. You should try it. You might enjoy roleplaying. You're right. So describe it for me. Nope. The rules are there to resolve the fiction. Fiction is the fiction. Seriously. Saying, "I roll my Intimidate skill" is NOT fiction. There's NOTHING there that is fictional. That is a real world thing you are announcing. Agreed. I never said otherwise. Not if we're playing a roleplaying game. You're not masturbating with your voice if your fictional actions with your character(s) has a direct impact on the game (see my Monopoly example above). I think that depends on the magical power and the sword. Not true. This is an issue with 4E, not roleplaying. That's fine. If you're playing "I roll to hit. I roll damage. Next?" Which is more boring? I don't want to hear that 50 times in a row. THAT to me is boring. I want to hear how you're using that Magic Missile NOW in THIS situation in THIS moment on THIS particular enemy. Does it really take that much time to say, "Two bolts of bluish force streak out of my staff and strike at the two minions." "Sweet. The bolts hit them with precise force and the wind is knocked out of them and they fall unconscious. Santos, you're up now." Really? That was hard? You're telling me you want to hear. "I use my At-Will attack power Magic Missile. I got a 20. For 6 damage..." "Ok, The minions die." The DM must adhere to the rules and fictionally justify it as well. I never said the DM could give monsters powers fictionally. I said you have to justify your actions it fictionally. If the fire elemental is not immune to poison, the DM must supply a reason why, fictionally. Plain and simple. You tell me, Majoru, why is a Fire Elemental not immune to poison? Not at all. I gave a perfect example earlier in the thread. Powers are never the whim of the DM. I never said that. I said, "To do something with your character mechanically, you need to do something fictionally." Again. No. <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=":)" /> no. Where in my example above did the Rogue not get to attack the elemental with poison? Please. Show it to me. I like fiction, i.e. roleplaying. Sure. I also like board games, but when I play D&D, I don't want to play a board game. How is this relevant at all? It's not. Everything has changed, hopefully. You're telling me every battle you get in has the same enemies? The same circumstances? The same whatever? I find that hard to believe. "Majoru, your wizard steps up onto the deck of the hovering airship. Lord Baltu is there and he has your sister in his arms, using her as a human shield. Now how do you use your Magic Missile?" The description is not masturbating with your voice, because your description directly impacts the fact that you are using the power in the fiction. No. It's heavily dependent on what's in YOUR head. Are you kidding? You don't think spirits and undead have weak points? That's not true at all (unless the DM wants it to be by design of the monster - certainly a DM can design a monster that has immunities and such things). But, if the DM has a creature with no such immunities, then certainly the rogue can justify hitting the creature. I'll come up with one right now. "I strike at the zombie's sinewy tissue that connects it's neck with it's head." Bam. Sneak attack. It took me about 2 seconds of game time to come up with and say that. Not at all. Certainly every group has their goals for the game. Let's hope one of those goals is to create compelling fiction while they play. We've already established that the DM is held just as responsible for adhering to creating this fiction as the players, so there is no "line". Omg... The designers relied on fiction?? HOW DARE THEY!Agreed. Why are you trying to argue with me about things I never said and things I agree with? Let's drop these antics. You're filling up your post with garbage that is not relevant to the topic and that we both agree on, yet you're phrasing it like we disagree and are arguing this matter. Just stop. Please. No. We just established that if a creature is immune to fire, it is immune to fire. Period. The DM should explain this in the fiction, just like you should. How is that possible if you don't describe anything? Doesn't make any sense to me. Wrong. You never knew about the ember heart if you didn't describe it. Hell, I never imagined a fire elemental with an ember heart until this very thread where the fiction demanded we describe it. So, don't tell me that we'd have all imagined that somehow if we never described it. Sure. So long as they justify it in the fiction. Same as everyone being allowed to use "Bluff" so long as they bluff someone in the fiction. Sure. If that's how you want to describe it. I'd probably help you out if you were struggling and tell you about the shimmering parts of the ghost that seem to come in and out of the material world, beckoning to be brought forth from its ethereal state. When you strike at the ghost, you can "sneak attack" it by striking these parts of it. ...Or something. Whatever. Twisting your blade is fine too. Not at all. Justify how you use fireball underwater? The fighter doesn't have this problem. Didn't we already cover this? I think so. Suit the fiction to YOUR group's preference. It's not the control of the DM the style of fiction your group wants to tell. It's your group's control. Yup. Me too. Hopefully it does in the situation I presented earlier. If the enemy is holding your sister at his chest, hopefully you'd want to hit him in the shoulder. <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=";)" /> Not really. Takes me about two seconds to describe my blue bolts of force striking at Lord Baltu's shoulder. Ok. Sure. How does this go against anything I said? Sweet. Glad to know. Irrelevant to the conversation though. There is no context if there's no fiction. Unless your fiction is simply window dressing... "This is the scenario guys... You're all on an airship because Lord Baltu has kidnapped Majoru's sister. Fight!" We could play a boardgame with that exact premise. What makes it roleplaying is that our fight has fictional weight. Sure. Let's describe that. When you use your Magic Missile against Lord Baltu, do you SAY anything to him first? What about your sister? Is she crying? Are you scared for her? Yeah. What does this have to do with fiction? You can still do this with fiction. Tactics and powers and skills, these things are all methods for resolving the fiction. Like I've said about 100 times in this thread. The DM is just as responsible. If you're fighting an ooze that is not immune to immobilize, I would have described that..."You strike the ooze with your arrows and while they go straight through it, tearing away globs of it's composition, your arrows strike into the gorund creating a barrier that it struggles to move past." You still need to roll Bluff checks to succeed at bluffing. <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=";)" /> There are rules that cover this on page 42 of the DMG. Check 'em out. 500 points of damage would have to be a pretty high level custom maneuver. <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=";)" /> So, if I put terrain powers on the battlefield as a DM, that's a BAD thing? Wtf... Naw. Sounds like you're making a poor example. There are clearly defined rules for terrain powers and custom stunts (page 42 of the DMG). You're making an exaggerated example to try to prove your point. It's not working. Check out this website: <a href="http://slyflourish.com/" target="_blank">Sly Flourish</a>Has tons of nice terrain power examples and suggestions for their rules. Nah. That's not what I'm saying at all. Some DMs (like suggested above) might give small bonuses (the DMG suggests this - +2 bonus for especially creative methods for doing things - or another example is page 42 of the DMG where they suggest a lower DC for the rogue doing his stunt because you want to encourage "creativity"), but I've never suggested disallowing something because you DID something and it wasn't "good enough". I am saying, you have to DO something. Not at all. I think we've exemplified that your examples are gross exaggerations and the DMG and rules clearly support the truth.</blockquote>

Verification