Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yesway Jose" data-source="post: 5626334" data-attributes="member: 6679265">But I can not reconcile hit points and falling damage with the fiction IF the pattern started becoming embarrasingly obvious to me, so I do not act the character to jump off cliffs every morning.&nbsp;Please re-reference this post:Substitute feint (=Rogue Strike) with jumping off cliffs every morning, and you have my personal answer to your question above, which is: I can't and I don't.&nbsp;I find that 'disassociated mechanics' is already contentious enough and prone to cyclical discussions, thus trying to relate that to any one's definition of 'roleplaying' (which you keep trying to do) is so fraught with danger of fragmenting into infinite sub-threads, that I prefer to abstain from it. Play/discuss as you like, of course, but I will politely decline to engage from that angle.&nbsp;I guess the rogue could always come up with some sort of explanation like &quot;I had a dream from Lady Luck, it is my destiny to succeed at this but once per day, so I don't even try to do it more often.&quot;&nbsp;I think it technically fails the definition because the in-game reasoning (&quot;Praise the gods, it's a miracle!&quot;) cannot be explored in-game.&nbsp;More importantly, I find it incredibly unsatisfying, more of &quot;excuse&quot;, rather an &quot;explanation&quot; IMO.&nbsp;What's the difference between an &quot;excuse&quot; vs an &quot;explanation&quot;? Are we likely to read novels where rogues believe that Lady Luck allows him to maneuver opponents but once per day, and Mister Fate has separately declared the rogue's destiny to use a different ability (or produce a different outcome) once per day, and so forth? Is this the fate/destiny/luck version of the Vancian system?&nbsp;Or to put it another way, which explanation passes a D&amp;D Credibility Test with flying colors, and which falls flat or barely passes with a groan and much looking away?&nbsp;Or to put it another way, what kind of stories do you want to tell? Do you want to tell the story of the rogue who has observed the improbable of pattern of being able to feint and maneuver opponents but once per day, so he declares that Lady Luck has fated this to be so, and he advances to become a Rogue of Great Epicness, and lo, it comes to pass that he strides up to Gates of Heaven itself, and he asks &quot;Oh, Lady Luck, why is it that you have limited my fortune such that I can maneuver my opponents but once per day?&quot; and Lady Luck doth respond &quot;Smile, you're on D&amp;D Camera!&quot; and there is much rejoice and Breaking of Fourth Walls -- is that the kind of story that you want to tell?&nbsp;Aaah, but *I* am documenting this sort of information. And so are the DMs and the other players. And so is the hypothetical author as per above.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yesway Jose, post: 5626334, member: 6679265"] But I can [B]not[/B] reconcile hit points and falling damage with the fiction IF the pattern started becoming embarrasingly obvious to me, so I do [B]not[/B] act the character to jump off cliffs every morning. Please re-reference this post: Substitute feint (=Rogue Strike) with jumping off cliffs every morning, and you have my personal answer to your question above, which is: I can't and I don't. I find that 'disassociated mechanics' is already contentious enough and prone to cyclical discussions, thus trying to relate that to any one's definition of 'roleplaying' (which you keep trying to do) is so fraught with danger of fragmenting into infinite sub-threads, that I prefer to abstain from it. Play/discuss as you like, of course, but I will politely decline to engage from that angle. I guess the rogue could always come up with some sort of explanation like "I had a dream from Lady Luck, it is my destiny to succeed at this but once per day, so I don't even try to do it more often." I think it technically fails the definition because the in-game reasoning ("Praise the gods, it's a miracle!") cannot be explored in-game. More importantly, I find it incredibly unsatisfying, more of "excuse", rather an "explanation" IMO. What's the difference between an "excuse" vs an "explanation"? Are we likely to read novels where rogues believe that Lady Luck allows him to maneuver opponents but once per day, and Mister Fate has separately declared the rogue's destiny to use a different ability (or produce a different outcome) once per day, and so forth? Is this the fate/destiny/luck version of the Vancian system? Or to put it another way, which explanation passes a D&D Credibility Test with flying colors, and which falls flat or barely passes with a groan and much looking away? Or to put it another way, what kind of stories do you want to tell? Do you want to tell the story of the rogue who has observed the improbable of pattern of being able to feint and maneuver opponents but once per day, so he declares that Lady Luck has fated this to be so, and he advances to become a Rogue of Great Epicness, and lo, it comes to pass that he strides up to Gates of Heaven itself, and he asks "Oh, Lady Luck, why is it that you have limited my fortune such that I can maneuver my opponents but once per day?" and Lady Luck doth respond "Smile, you're on D&D Camera!" and there is much rejoice and Breaking of Fourth Walls -- is that the kind of story that you want to tell? Aaah, but *I* am documenting this sort of information. And so are the DMs and the other players. And so is the hypothetical author as per above. [/QUOTE]

Verification