Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9205646" data-attributes="member: 7006">The thing is... the game really already does allow for everything you say here to occur... it's just that they are Narrative decisions the DM must allow for them to happen as part of the story.&nbsp; And there are unfortunately a lot of DMs out there who won't allow for it, because to them there should be a &quot;mechanic&quot; tied to it for it to be allowed.&nbsp; And if there's not... if it's purely down to the DM needing to make an arbitrary choice to allow it based upon just the story being played... they aren't going to do it.&nbsp; Because they don't like mixing Encounter abilities with Narrative abilities.You are correct in that there is no rule in the game that says if a Barbarian is out of mechanical Rages that they can still do something &quot;rage-like&quot; if it is narratively cool or important to do.&nbsp; However, to a narratively-focused DM (like myself for instance)... if you as a player told me what your PC was doing in the story of the game that exemplified this situation of wanting/needing/having this &quot;rage-like&quot; effect happen even though you mechanically were out of Rages (like say you were trying to do a Last Stand to defend a bridge against the incoming horde)... I would have no problem making that arbitrary choice and saying &quot;Okay, that sounds cool, yes, you can do this rage-like thing even though mechanically you are out of rages&quot;.&nbsp; And I wouldn't need the game to give me &quot;rules&quot; on how or when I should allow for that-- it's just me as a DM using my DMing skills to know when it's time to let the mechanical Encounter rules fall away and just Narratively let players do cool stuff.Does this put more onus on the DM?&nbsp; Absolutely.&nbsp; DMs will have to learn through experience when it is okay to let the Encounter combat rules fall away and just use Narrative to drive the story forward.&nbsp; But because it is so wide-open on how, when, where, and why this switch over to Narrative storytelling can or should occur... it's nothing the game can create rules for.&nbsp; There's no way for the rules to make an accurate interpretation as to when that switchover occurs.&nbsp; Because if there was... if there&nbsp; was a way for the game rules to know when the DM can give out an extra Rage-like occurrence when they are out of Rages... then that by definition just becomes one more addition to the Rage rules.&nbsp; &quot;The Barbarian gets X Rages per Day, and if they run out and then A,B, or C occur within the story, then the DM can give the Barbarian player an additional Rage.&quot;&nbsp; That's not solving a problem... it's just changing when the problem will show up (basically any time that D, E, or F occur that the game did not take into account.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9205646, member: 7006"] The thing is... the game really already does allow for everything you say here to occur... it's just that they are Narrative decisions the DM must allow for them to happen as part of the story. And there are unfortunately a lot of DMs out there who [I]won't[/I] allow for it, because to them there should be a "mechanic" tied to it for it to be allowed. And if there's not... if it's purely down to the DM needing to make an arbitrary choice to allow it based upon just the story being played... they aren't going to do it. Because they don't like mixing Encounter abilities with Narrative abilities. You are correct in that there is no rule in the game that says if a Barbarian is out of mechanical Rages that they can still do something "rage-like" if it is narratively cool or important to do. However, to a narratively-focused DM (like myself for instance)... if you as a player told me what your PC was doing in the story of the game that exemplified this situation of wanting/needing/having this "rage-like" effect happen even though you mechanically were out of Rages (like say you were trying to do a Last Stand to defend a bridge against the incoming horde)... I would have no problem making that arbitrary choice and saying "Okay, that sounds cool, yes, you can do this rage-like thing even though mechanically you are out of rages". And I wouldn't need the game to give me "rules" on how or when I should allow for that-- it's just me as a DM using my DMing skills to know when it's time to let the mechanical Encounter rules fall away and just Narratively let players do cool stuff. Does this put more onus on the DM? Absolutely. DMs will have to learn through experience when it is okay to let the Encounter combat rules fall away and just use Narrative to drive the story forward. But because it is so wide-open on how, when, where, and why this switch over to Narrative storytelling can or should occur... it's nothing the game can create rules for. There's no way for the rules to make an accurate interpretation as to when that switchover occurs. Because if there was... if there was a way for the game rules to know when the DM can give out an extra Rage-like occurrence when they are out of Rages... then that by definition just becomes one more addition to the Rage rules. "The Barbarian gets X Rages per Day, and if they run out and then A,B, or C occur within the story, then the DM can give the Barbarian player an additional Rage." That's not solving a problem... it's just changing when the problem will show up (basically any time that D, E, or F occur that the game did not take into account.) [/QUOTE]

Verification