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="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5627534" data-attributes="member: 54877">I'm going to say something that maybe pushes the edges a little bit, for the sake of clarity.  And as soon as I do, someone is going to come in and say, "Well, you described my experiences, and I disagree, and I'm not like that!"  But ya pick your poison and ya take ya chances. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> Posit a person with some modest fencing experience, taught in the older style.  (That is, taught still as the sport, but with the combat origins of the sport in mind, rather than, say, what a high school fencing coach might do with limited time to get people ready for competition on a team.)  Now, assume this same person has some modest knowledge of ancient combat, if only academic, and the imagination and appreciation of the differences. And then the modest imagination necessary to extrapolate to a fantasy genre, or at least appreciate some of the famous fights from the source material. The combination of all of this is not most people, by any means, but it is not something terribly difficult, either. And people can of course switch in an out bits and pieces and still get some appreciation of the issues involved.  All else being equal, a tennis player is likely to have somewhat of a better appreciation of the capabiltities and limits of having a stick in your hand, and what you can do with it (albeit, also likely to be misleading if the appreciation of the differences in weight and someone not trying to hit you aren't acknowledged). No one so described would find any 4E combat-related mechanics "disassociated".  Not one.  Not even Come and Get It, with or without errata.  This is because, among other things: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Every fencers uses a minority of their skills in an actual bout.  In a life or death situation, they would use far less.  An Olympic level fencer or near to it might use 30% of what they know in a bout, because those are things that are honed to perfection right now. Another 10% to 20% might get tried occasionally if the situation warrants, but with only so so success.  In a moment of inspiration, once or twice during a match, they might improvise (but only by mixing techniques--not totally new).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It is easy for a fencer to make people move.  You simply put them into a position where the alternative to not moving is not acceptable to them.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It is an acknowledged technique among all surviving texts on the subject of dealing with multiple foes with a melee weapon, and also of any recreationist, modern parallel hobbyist (e.g. martial art practioners), and fantasy authors who have dealt with the subject in some detail (e.g. Lieber)--that the primary means of dealing with mulitple foes is to fight such that your foes get in each others' way.  You cause this via your own movement, and making attacks that force individuals to move where you want them.  Naturally, endurance and skill are highly important in such a contest.</li> </ul>Accordingly, none of these mechanics are inherently "disassociated".  Any disassociation is because of what the player brings to the mechanic.   Now, if you happen to agree with all of that, then you might still object that a mechanic that asks for such experience is asking too much--as if it were necessary for a person to be an engineer to appreciate certain abstract and narrative but realistic mechanics in a Sci/Fi game.  That is a valid objection.  It is the same objection that people have had, at various times, to hit points, Armor as AC, and so forth.  (It actually takes quite a sophisticated and nuanced appreciation of how armor really works to accept Armor as AC, and not everyone that has the appreciation will necessarily like it, even then.) Therefore, any felt "disassociation" is an opportunity for the one so feeling to develop a wider or deeper or simply different appreciation for possibilities in gaming styles.  One need not.  There is no moral or even artistic imperative here.  It is merely a game, after all.  Some things will come easier than others, and thus some will never be worth the trouble, for the expected reward.  That's all fine.   I like spinach.  You might not.  No problem.  If you want to say you don't like spinach because of the taste, because of the color, because of the texture, a general dislike of "rabbit food", or because your great aunt Matilda served it unwashed and overcooked to you when you were four--then I've got no complaint.   I think if that last one is the only reason, you might think about trying it under better circumstances, but that's your business. On the other hand, if you want to claim that spinach is particularly odious out of all vegetable, due to extreme bitterness, and should be cast into the outer darkness, then I might have several words to say about soil composition and other factors.  (Particularly sandy soil makes very fine tomatos, but can cause bitterness in green vegetables, for example.)  Of course, if you want to make these unwarranted claims about yellow squash, which is inherently demonic, then give me a few seconds to change clothes, and I'll be right there on the barricades with you. I never said I had no blindspots of my own. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/angel.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":angel:" title="Angel    :angel:" data-shortname=":angel:" /></blockquote>

Verification