Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Eirikrautha" data-source="post: 7375430" data-attributes="member: 6777843">I disagree.&nbsp; In fact, I can say with relative certainty that, at most tables, delineated abilities only increase player choice at creation and serve to restrict player choice during play.&nbsp; I'll give you an example.A fighter in a less &quot;crunchy&quot; game is surrounded by three opponents who are trying to grab him.&nbsp; The player controlling the fighter looks at the GM and says, &quot;I want to spin around with my sword held outward and try to strike all of the opponents surrounding me.&nbsp; They are crowding in on me, so they would have a hard time not being hit.&quot;&nbsp; The DM thinks about it and says,&quot;O.K., that makes sense.&nbsp; It'll be harder to hit the opponents, because you are spinning and not aiming.&nbsp; Take a -5 penalty on each roll.&quot;In a more crunchy game, the DM is more likely to say, &quot;That sounds like a Whirlwind attack.&nbsp; Did you take that feat?&nbsp; If not, you can't do that.&quot;&nbsp; Now a more flexible DM might allow someone to try a whirlwind attack untrained with penalties, but then runs the risk of irritating the player who took that feat, as it might be seen as devaluing that feat choice (if anyone can do it, the feat just becomes about bonuses).&nbsp; I've actually seen this happen at the table in a PFS game.You see, by delineating these choices in the rules, you add to your choices during character creation.&nbsp; But in many circumstances, you've now closed off the other actions you didn't take feats for during play.&nbsp; It's the difference between a board game and a role playing game.&nbsp; In an ideal (meaning theoretical) board game, all actions are prescribed precisely by the rules.&nbsp; In an ideal RPG, all actions are possible, with the rules determining the results.&nbsp; The middle generation of RPGs (3.5, et al.) became more like board games ( I'd argue because of a fear of bad DMs restricting player agency and also the desire to minimize &quot;arbitrary&quot; decisions at the table... but that's another argument).&nbsp; This has somewhat trained many DMs and players to think of RPGs as pseudo-board games (especially in combat), with only those actions expressly permitted as being allowed.&nbsp; AD&amp;D had rules to describe the results of actions; modern RPGs of the same lineage have rules to explain what *can* be done (look at the action economy rules, with bonus actions, reactions, etc...).&nbsp; Pathfinder 1 was firmly in that mold (and less so than 5e is).&nbsp; PF2 appears to have the same underlying rationale...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Eirikrautha, post: 7375430, member: 6777843"] I disagree. In fact, I can say with relative certainty that, at most tables, delineated abilities only increase player choice at creation and serve to restrict player choice during play. I'll give you an example. A fighter in a less "crunchy" game is surrounded by three opponents who are trying to grab him. The player controlling the fighter looks at the GM and says, "I want to spin around with my sword held outward and try to strike all of the opponents surrounding me. They are crowding in on me, so they would have a hard time not being hit." The DM thinks about it and says,"O.K., that makes sense. It'll be harder to hit the opponents, because you are spinning and not aiming. Take a -5 penalty on each roll." In a more crunchy game, the DM is more likely to say, "That sounds like a Whirlwind attack. Did you take that feat? If not, you can't do that." Now a more flexible DM might allow someone to try a whirlwind attack untrained with penalties, but then runs the risk of irritating the player who took that feat, as it might be seen as devaluing that feat choice (if anyone can do it, the feat just becomes about bonuses). I've actually seen this happen at the table in a PFS game. You see, by delineating these choices in the rules, you add to your choices during character creation. But in many circumstances, you've now closed off the other actions you didn't take feats for during play. It's the difference between a board game and a role playing game. In an ideal (meaning theoretical) board game, all actions are prescribed precisely by the rules. In an ideal RPG, all actions are possible, with the rules determining the results. The middle generation of RPGs (3.5, et al.) became more like board games ( I'd argue because of a fear of bad DMs restricting player agency and also the desire to minimize "arbitrary" decisions at the table... but that's another argument). This has somewhat trained many DMs and players to think of RPGs as pseudo-board games (especially in combat), with only those actions expressly permitted as being allowed. AD&D had rules to describe the results of actions; modern RPGs of the same lineage have rules to explain what *can* be done (look at the action economy rules, with bonus actions, reactions, etc...). Pathfinder 1 was firmly in that mold (and less so than 5e is). PF2 appears to have the same underlying rationale... [/QUOTE]

Verification