Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6868540" data-attributes="member: 42582">Speak for yourself!In the typical D&amp;D campaign, how much time actually passes &quot;on stage&quot;, where checks are being made and actions declared to which a PC's stats will matter?Your objection strikes me as similar to the objection against 4e encounter powers, that it makes no sense that a fighter can (say) disarm only a single enemy without a short rest.Of course that would make no sense as a principle of causation, but that's not what it is. All the encounter power tells us is what happens in the N fights where we saw that fighter in-action, &quot;on screen&quot; as it were.In those on-screen moments, the player (or the table) can always come up with a reason why the character's genius doesn't shine.Again, this is like the objection to encounter powers.Why does the fighter not disarm everyone? The answer could range from &quot;No opportunity arose&quot; to &quot;I saw this better move to perform&quot; to &quot;I tried but they were too good for me!&quot;Why does the sorcerer not throw more cards? &quot;They're not worthy of my magic.&quot; &quot;I had something better to do.&quot; &quot;I was flipping through my deck looking for the perfect effect, and you stabbed them before I could get to it!&quot;It's fairly easy to find narrations that explain mechanical limits in terms other than a simple mapping of mechanics to in-fiction causation.In my case, it tells me that I'm glad I play with people who don't see every aspect of the game as simply an opportunity for operational maximisation.What is the &quot;change cascade&quot; in 4e? I don't see how it's any different, in respect of this issue, from 5e.That brings back fond memories of the &quot;dissociated mechanics&quot; thread!EDIT: And you ninja-ed me at post 136.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6868540, member: 42582"] Speak for yourself! In the typical D&D campaign, how much time actually passes "on stage", where checks are being made and actions declared to which a PC's stats will matter? Your objection strikes me as similar to the objection against 4e encounter powers, that it makes no sense that a fighter can (say) disarm only a single enemy without a short rest. Of course that would make no sense as a [I]principle of causation[/I], but that's not what it is. All the encounter power tells us is [I]what happens in the [/I]N[I] fights where we saw that fighter in-action[/I], "on screen" as it were. In those on-screen moments, the player (or the table) can always come up with a reason why the character's genius doesn't shine. Again, this is like the objection to encounter powers. Why does the fighter not disarm everyone? The answer could range from "No opportunity arose" to "I saw this better move to perform" to "I tried but they were too good for me!" Why does the sorcerer not throw more cards? "They're not worthy of my magic." "I had something better to do." "I was flipping through my deck looking for the perfect effect, and you stabbed them before I could get to it!" It's fairly easy to find narrations that explain mechanical limits in terms other than a simple mapping of mechanics to in-fiction causation. In my case, it tells me that I'm glad I play with people who don't see every aspect of the game as simply an opportunity for operational maximisation. What is the "change cascade" in 4e? I don't see how it's any different, in respect of this issue, from 5e. That brings back fond memories of the "dissociated mechanics" thread! EDIT: And you ninja-ed me at post 136. [/QUOTE]

Verification