How do I describe "being marked" to players?

[bardolph]

I tend to think of being "Marked" as being taunted, growled at, slavered at, gnashed at, or whatever else the creature can do to communicate "Me kill you NOW!"

 

[Regicide]

Fighter style of marking also lead to an AoO against a marked target that attack someone else. Needless to say it's fairly easy to describe ; you just can't lower your guard agains a fighter and the -2 penalty is easy to roll into the fact you just got whacked! Most of the early explanations in this thread covered that type of mark.

You suffer the -2 even if you can not be whacked by the fighter, such as you are out of whacking range... or if the fighter is dead, asleep, whatever. Saying it has to do with him threatening to whack you is clearly not appropriate.

The marked has -2 because WotC says it does. That is the only explanation.

For instance if an evil dragonborn fighter breaths acid on the whole party, marking everyone, you can describe this as, the acid continuing to burn and making it difficult to make attacks, but it also leaves the dragonborn open with his head extended, making it easier to attack him. Everyone is marked by the dragonborn fighter.

The dragonborn isn't easier to hit, no one that wasn't hit by the blast gets the "bonus" to hit it for it's head being extended.

Again, it's a -2 because WotC says it is. WotC did not attempt to model anything when they made the rules, it's pretty obvious. Going through contortions to try to make it seem like they did is only going to have you end up with a sprain.

Fighters give out a mark penalty to enemies because they're fighters and thats what fighters do. Done. Fully described.

 

[sinecure]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the designers didn't do this for players in the books?

Telling everyone what the rules represented from the characters' points of view?

One must wonder, "Where were their heads at?"

How on earth could they have come up with a rule not representative of something in the game world? They're not building the game backwards are they?

 

[Incenjucar]

"You feel the monster's eyes on you, and just can't entirely ignore it."

Done.

Next.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

The marked has -2 because WotC says it does. That is the only explanation.

Well, far from me to stand in the way of your bad faith.

There's the in character explanation and the metagame explanation.
Metagaming wise, Fighter indeed mark because it is their job, or, in your words, 'Because WOTC say so.'

It doesn't have anything to do with the in characters explanations that can be supplied on demand, on a case by case basis, and so far only increased the fun of my group.

 

[LostSoul]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the designers didn't do this for players in the books?

Not me. It lets me describe a mark how I want at the moment - in whatever way I feel best - instead of being stuck describing it how the designers do.

Telling everyone what the rules represented from the characters' points of view?

That is something I enjoy doing for myself in an RPG. I don't want or need the designers to tell me what my PC is experiencing.

One must wonder, "Where were their heads at?"

Probaby in the same space mine is. It's great.

How on earth could they have come up with a rule not representative of something in the game world? They're not building the game backwards are they?

1. They didn't. Marking does represent something in the game world. They just didn't force you to describe it in a specific way.

2. They did build it backwards - backwards from what they think will be the most rewarding for the most players.

 

[Mengu]

The dragonborn isn't easier to hit, no one that wasn't hit by the blast gets the "bonus" to hit it for it's head being extended.

You completely missed my point. The explanation does not have to be simulationist. Since the dragonborn in my example hit everyone, it suits my purpose to describe it as you now have a penalty to hit all other enemies, but the dragonborn is easier to hit.

It's an abstraction. I can describe it in whatever way makes the adventure more exciting. And at the end, I can add in the necessary rulesy words "you are marked by blah" so they don't have to guess what's going on rules-wise.

 

[The Little Raven]

"You feel the monster's eyes on you, and just can't entirely ignore it."

"Your sword swishes by the kobold's ear and he decides it's wise to give you greater attention than your allies." (Combat Challenge - missed)

 

[WarpZone]

I think Mal's explaination has been the most helpful one so far. Thanks, Mal.

Also, thanks for the etymology lesson, GoLu. I just needed to know what "mark" means. I pictured some kinda glowy magical symbol floating over the targeted one's head, which seemed very unnatural to me.

 

[Xorn]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the designers didn't do this for players in the books?

Telling everyone what the rules represented from the characters' points of view?

One must wonder, "Where were their heads at?"

How on earth could they have come up with a rule not representative of something in the game world? They're not building the game backwards are they?

"It's very dangerous to ignore a fighter."

Seems like they described it from the character's point of view, to me.

I think the folks making a huge deal out of this should spearhead the crusade over there being no rules for eating and drinking spelled out from the player's point of view! It must not happen!