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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5498214" data-attributes="member: 55271">So I guess the answer to, "Can you explain?" is, "No, I can't." Fair enough.You're the one who linked to the thread where Czege (and others) argue that the GM should take control over PC decision-making away from the players in order to aggressively frame scenes. If there's some screwed up Forge definition of "railroading" which makes that anything other than railroading, I don't really care.Not a great example to pick. Robin D. Laws designed GUMSHOE. Which, despite his protests to the contrary, is an entire system designed to support railroading the PCs.You, like Laws, seem to be under the impression that railroading the PCs from Point A to Point B isn't railroading because there isn't a railroad from Point B to Point C. I'm afraid you're mistaken. An intermittent railroad is still a railroad.Please note that I've gamed with Laws. He's a good guy. I'm generally a fan of his game designs. But describing him as "not a railroader" is kinda kooky.You understand that nothing you wrote there is a rule right? It's really difficult to have a conversation with you when you keep changing the topic and refusing to explain your actual position.I could, of course, trivially point to equivalent "thematic content" in 3E:* I choose to play a half-orc, I am playing a PC who straddles two worlds -- the civilized, cultured world and the savage, barbaric world. This in itself brings into play the thematic questions "What is the relationship between these two worlds?" and "What is my response to being of these two worlds?"And I could point and laugh at the fact that you think "make a guy move 5 feet" constitutes a deep and meaningful contribution to the narrative.But, really, that would just be a distraction from that you explicitly and implicitly refuse to explain your positions.You say that you've written a lot of words in this thread. Yes, you have. And you have failed to use any of those words to answer the simplest of questions. Instead you just post obfuscated tautologies and apparently hope that nobody will notice.This is a pretty good example of why you're posting nonsense:(1) You specifically claim that second wind mechanics support "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the  players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...)  and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this  thematic material".This makes little sense to me. What does "you regain hit points and gain a +2 bonus to all defenses for 1 turn" have to do with character- and situation-focused narrativist play, building rich and compelling thematic material into your PCs, or the GM framing situations which engage with that thematic material?You've been asked for an explanation multiple times, but you refuse to give it.But even if we accept that the second wind mechanics somehow do all this...(2) You specifically claim that they would not do so if they were a standard action.By which we're forced to conclude that the "compelling thematic material" you're talking about is... somehow dependent on whether or not one is taking a minor, move, or standard action?That seems kinda hokey.But even if we accept that this is somehow true; that using a standard action to take a second wind would effectively disrupt whatever the heck it is you're talking about...(3) Using a second wind, according to both the Player's Handbook and Rules Compendium, requires a standard action....I'm just going to give that a second to soak in.I think we're done here.</blockquote>

Verification