NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yesway Jose" data-source="post: 5626928" data-attributes="member: 6679265">I apologize once again for the "absurd hypotheticals" (quoting now, not paraphrasing). I will try again.... You didn't like the example of a complete jerk winning the encounter on his own via mind control. That was not my intention, so let's tone it down to say that the DM agrees that, out of combat, Hypnotism can also be used to mechanically add some bonus to diplomacy rolls or make the target fall prone. This player is very much in Actor stance. Now the PC engages in meaningful combat. The player remains faithful to his vision of the character operating as if he's a wizard who is using Hypnotism in that slightly more versatile way. I don't know how you can fault this hypothetical player for this, because you've indicated that the in-game the character cannot observe a difference between magic in and out of meaningful combat, and the player is thinking accordingly in Actor stance. So the player has one narrative vision (=Hypnotism that can be used to move a target, attack another, influence people, and make them fall prone) whereas the meaningful combat mechanisms only allows for a more limited narrative (=move a target, or attack another). To remain true to his narrative, the player can pretend that his character does try to use Hypnotism (behind the scenes, beyond the abstraction of combat as suggested by the mechanics) to make a target fall prone or be nicer to him, but that will never have any mechanical affect on the shared narrative with the other players and DM. (Again, I don't know how you can fault this hypothetical player for this, because you've indicated that the in-game the character cannot observe a difference between magic in and out of meaningful combat) Since his fictional POV (which is oblivious to the shift from default to combat reality) has no mechanical effect, the player cannot narratively share this conceit with the other players who are operating by what the mechanics dictate to be true to the narrative. To remain true to the shared narrative as defined by the mechanics, the player must stop pretending that his hypnotism can do what it does out of combat. In doing so, it breaks immersion for him, because he is no longer faithful to his narrative. (If you don't like the Hypnotism example for any reason, sub with any other fictional construct that works differently in and out of meaningful combat). James is absolutely right, I think, that it all boils down to immersion in the end. Some (many?) players want to tell a story of fictional constructs being more or less consistent regardless of combat vs non-combat, and the mechanics of 4E combat are hindering those players from telling that story. Therefore, the mechanics are disassociated from the story that those players want to happen. This is NOT about anybody acting like a jerk, or ruining fun for everyone else. Going back to the Paladin with the toads, you've insisted that the character in-game cannot observe and explore the difference between Baleful Polymorph in and out of combat, and that's why it's not disassociated (if I extrapolate correctly). This is a premise I cannot agree with. Not because combat is not an abstraction (I agree it is), but because IMO your implications are completely disassociating the mechanics from the story I want to tell. Does that help to explain my position?</blockquote>

Verification