Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6633085" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't see the sharp contrast between rules and story that your claim relies upon.If I want  my PC to impale someone, and I look at my character sheet and see that my mounted lance does (say) 2d10+2 damage, and my shortsword (due to class abilities, feats, magic items etc) does (say) 4d6+10 damage, then when I choose to have my PC attack with shorsword rather than mounted lance how am I not caring about the story? I want a story of PC impales NPC/monster, and I am adopting the method that the rules tell me is the best way to go about achieving that outcome within the story.If you don't conceive of the rules as connected to, and shaping, story outcomes in this sort of way, then what do you think they are for?I want to try and connect this rather general remark to the particular instance of the impale. Are you saying that the GM should suspend or change the action resolution rules, and so (for instance) award bonus damage to the mounted lance attack to make it mechanically stronger than the shortsword? Or penalise the shortsword attack?At what point is the GM supposed to tell the player that s/he will do such a thing?It seems to me that if you want players to choose lances over shortswords when they want their PCs to impale enemies, the best way to achieve that is to give your game mechanics that are more likely to generate stories of impalement when the PCs attack with lances than when they attack with shortswords. If the mechanics will only achieve this result by the GM suspending or changing them on an ad hoc basis, that seems to me simply an indication that the mechanics aren't very good.</blockquote>

Verification