Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6877742">I agree with everything up to &quot;as they are supposed to be&quot;.&nbsp; Can you not see how that phrase is entirely subjective?&nbsp; Or how similar that sounds to the arguments people use to defend untenable social policy?&nbsp; (&quot;Marriage is supposed to be...&quot;)Totally agree!&nbsp; And my narrative and the mechanics work together in unison, explaining and complementing each other.&nbsp; I get that you don't like how I'm defining low Int for this character, and that's a valid dislike, but it's simply not altering mechanics one iota, it's just explaining the mechanics differently than we're used to.You'll have to help me with this one.&nbsp; Are you describing having a player narrate that an iron golem is actually an orc,&nbsp; with everybody else at the table expected to participate in the fiction?If you truly see that as analogous the Eloelle story then we still have a long way to go.&nbsp; Because Eloelle's narrative, as I've tried to explain, doesn't actually alter anything tangible in the game world.&nbsp; The narration is purely an inner monologue, shared with the rest of the table.&nbsp; That was the whole point of the thought experiment where she keeps the narrative to herself, to demonstrate how there's no effect on the game.So maybe a better analogy would be where Eloelle, equipped with a magic weapon, gets a really lucky critical (did I mention she's Warlock 3/Rogue 17?) rolls all 6's and one-shots an iron golem.&nbsp; (Yes, I realize even then the damage wouldn't be sufficient; this is for illustration purposes only.&nbsp; Don't try this at home.) So she narrates how her Patron intervenes as she strikes, turning the iron golem into an orc that looks like an iron golem, enabling her to kill it in one blow.Ok, that's a terrible narrative and I wouldn't actually ever use it.&nbsp; But do you see how the narrative doesn't contradict the mechanics?&nbsp; The dice let her one shot the golem; turning it into an orc was purely for (bad) flavor.&nbsp; Re-read.&nbsp; Plenty of hatred for/dismissiveness of the concept itself.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 6877742"] I agree with everything up to "as they are supposed to be". Can you not see how that phrase is entirely subjective? Or how similar that sounds to the arguments people use to defend untenable social policy? ("Marriage is supposed to be...") Totally agree! And my narrative and the mechanics work together in unison, explaining and complementing each other. I get that you don't like how I'm defining low Int for this character, and that's a valid dislike, but it's simply not altering mechanics one iota, it's just explaining the mechanics differently than we're used to. You'll have to help me with this one. Are you describing having a player narrate that an iron golem is actually an orc, with everybody else at the table expected to participate in the fiction? If you truly see that as analogous the Eloelle story then we still have a long way to go. Because Eloelle's narrative, as I've tried to explain, doesn't actually alter anything tangible in the game world. The narration is purely an inner monologue, shared with the rest of the table. That was the whole point of the thought experiment where she keeps the narrative to herself, to demonstrate how there's no effect on the game. So maybe a better analogy would be where Eloelle, equipped with a magic weapon, gets a really lucky critical (did I mention she's Warlock 3/Rogue 17?) rolls all 6's and one-shots an iron golem. (Yes, I realize even then the damage wouldn't be sufficient; this is for illustration purposes only. Don't try this at home.) So she narrates how her Patron intervenes as she strikes, turning the iron golem into an orc[I] that looks like an iron golem[/I], enabling her to kill it in one blow. Ok, that's a terrible narrative and I wouldn't actually ever use it. But do you see how the narrative doesn't contradict the mechanics? The dice let her one shot the golem; turning it into an orc was purely for (bad) flavor. Re-read. Plenty of hatred for/dismissiveness of the concept itself. [/QUOTE]

Verification