Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 4042330" data-attributes="member: 957">Out of context your position is quite admirable.But if you want to roll for every single item that can be thought of which might happen 1 in 1,000,000 times, then you won't ever get to play a game.&nbsp; A troll ambushing a bridge is random, but the DMing saying it is so is not contrived.Which is why in over 20 years of gaming I've never used one.&nbsp; My point wasn't that they should be used.&nbsp; My point was that they are both plausible and within the ruleset.Again, outside of the context of the topic, I agree.&nbsp; But the context remains relevant.Well now you are throwing the basis of the conversation out the window.&nbsp; It most certainly COULD be that it wasn't an accident.&nbsp;&nbsp; But the point is that it still could be an accident and remain rules plausible.You seem to have missed the point.&nbsp; I have defined a scenario where a high level character can die from a fall from a horse and still remain fully along the rules of the table.&nbsp; It is only annoying and wrong when the players bring additional baggage of their own to the rules and try to constrain the game that way.&nbsp; And yeah, that is going to reduce the fun.But, quite simply, it isn't rules implausible.&nbsp; If the discussion is predicated on the assumption that it isn't then, yeah, I'm defining it away.If the conversation was on how hard a human needed to flap his arms to fly on earth and the assumption was that it was possible, then I'd define that away also.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 4042330, member: 957"] Out of context your position is quite admirable. But if you want to roll for every single item that can be thought of which might happen 1 in 1,000,000 times, then you won't ever get to play a game. A troll ambushing a bridge is random, but the DMing saying it is so is not contrived. Which is why in over 20 years of gaming I've never used one. My point wasn't that they should be used. My point was that they are both plausible and within the ruleset. Again, outside of the context of the topic, I agree. But the context remains relevant. Well now you are throwing the basis of the conversation out the window. It most certainly COULD be that it wasn't an accident. But the point is that it still could be an accident and remain rules plausible. You seem to have missed the point. I have defined a scenario where a high level character can die from a fall from a horse and still remain fully along the rules of the table. It is only annoying and wrong when the players bring additional baggage of their own to the rules and try to constrain the game that way. And yeah, that is going to reduce the fun. But, quite simply, it isn't rules implausible. If the discussion is predicated on the assumption that it isn't then, yeah, I'm defining it away. If the conversation was on how hard a human needed to flap his arms to fly on earth and the assumption was that it was possible, then I'd define that away also. [/QUOTE]

Verification