Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Mhoram" data-source="post: 5989539" data-attributes="member: 4789">I've been looking at that - and my style is very very close to Emerikol's - the closer the 1 to 1 mapping of what I do to what the character does helps immersion. I roll a die - this is an attack (or attack sequence) die roll=attack Pretty much one to one. When I make tactical decisions I make them as the character - I consider character abilities to be things the character is aware of - his maneuvers, his tactics etc. When I as a player chose to use an abilities, then ipso facto (in my way of playing) so did my character. If the tactic he is using has a daily limit due to abstraction that in not explained in story - how does he choose to use it?&nbsp; &nbsp;Assuming the party has some message spell or psionic link or something the mage can say &quot;Back off I&quot;m throwing a fire ball&quot; the cleric could say &quot;I'm going to turn these undead&quot; what does a fighter say to prepare his party's responses to his action when he uses a daily power?As I said, this isn't a playstyle for everyone, but it is the way I play - without that player decision=character decision / mechanics of abilities = abilities of character in story (even on why the character can only due it once a day) I have a lot less fun gaming. I game for the express purpose of immersion - combat I win, I win, if not I don't achieve my objective (don't have a lot of character death in 1 on 1 gaming). Either way gives me plenty of opportunity to see and feel what my character is seeing and feeling.Edit - reading over the thread again - my goal in gaming is to become pure actor stance - so after an hour in the game I refer to the character as I instinctively and actually feel the emotion the character is feeling (be it rage, love, frustration etc) The whole point, for me, of gaming is to become someone else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Mhoram, post: 5989539, member: 4789"] I've been looking at that - and my style is very very close to Emerikol's - the closer the 1 to 1 mapping of what I do to what the character does helps immersion. I roll a die - this is an attack (or attack sequence) die roll=attack Pretty much one to one. When I make tactical decisions I make them as the character - I consider character abilities to be things the character is aware of - his maneuvers, his tactics etc. When I as a player chose to use an abilities, then ipso facto (in my way of playing) so did my character. If the tactic he is using has a daily limit due to abstraction that in not explained in story - how does he choose to use it? Assuming the party has some message spell or psionic link or something the mage can say "Back off I"m throwing a fire ball" the cleric could say "I'm going to turn these undead" what does a fighter say to prepare his party's responses to his action when he uses a daily power? As I said, this isn't a playstyle for everyone, but it is the way I play - without that player decision=character decision / mechanics of abilities = abilities of character in story (even on why the character can only due it once a day) I have a lot less fun gaming. I game for the express purpose of immersion - combat I win, I win, if not I don't achieve my objective (don't have a lot of character death in 1 on 1 gaming). Either way gives me plenty of opportunity to see and feel what my character is seeing and feeling. Edit - reading over the thread again - my goal in gaming is to become pure actor stance - so after an hour in the game I refer to the character as I instinctively and actually feel the emotion the character is feeling (be it rage, love, frustration etc) The whole point, for me, of gaming is to become someone else. [/QUOTE]

Verification