Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5574288" data-attributes="member: 27160">I think you misunderstood the scope I was including with my description of &quot;role&quot;.&nbsp; Let me try to paint it clearly:Can you, personally, fly by flapping your arms?&nbsp; I know I can't - it's physically impossible, in this world, for me to do so.&nbsp; And yet I retain at least the illusion that I possess free will.&nbsp; Likewise for a &quot;character&quot; in &quot;Monopolyworld&quot;.&nbsp; The physics of their setting both allow them to do and prevent them from doing things in ways that are quite alien to us, living in the &quot;real&quot; world.&nbsp; That does not mean that they &quot;lack free will&quot; - just that the ways in which they may use it within the &quot;physics&quot; of the world they inhabit are different (and very much more restricted!) than those available to us.Such a world would be very challenging to play &quot;immersively&quot; - but that does not prevent it being possible to roleplay.&nbsp; The contradiction you claim is not there, I'm afraid.Does this not assume that the tactical &quot;level&quot; is distinct from the &quot;narrative&quot; one?&nbsp; In D&amp;D I am sceptical that this should normally be the case.&nbsp; I know that, had I (in my younger days <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) taken up &quot;adventuring&quot; as a career, I would absolutely have wanted to get myself schooled in &quot;optimal tactics&quot;; I think it's only reasonable to assume that most D&amp;D characters will focus on it, to some extent, too.&nbsp; Even though this describes a limitation on the characters played, I think that is already implicit, in that the characters played are automatically assumed to be &quot;adventurers&quot;, or &quot;Heroes&quot;.&nbsp; In other words, the focus on tactics is tied to the game &quot;fiction&quot; through the assumed topic of both characters and in-game activities.I think it's a very reasonable personal preference, if a little limiting - it certainly does not seem uncommon.&nbsp; It is as well to remember that it is a preference, though, not a universal requirement <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I would probably see Dhalia using &quot;Come and Get It&quot; to pull the assassin to her, and as a fighter her OA would stop them moving away if it hit in any case (and would be entirely consistent with &quot;holding a sword to her throat&quot; as hit points are not representative of physical damage, at least until the target is bloodied).&nbsp; But, yeah - basically, what you said <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5574288, member: 27160"] I think you misunderstood the scope I was including with my description of "role". Let me try to paint it clearly: Can you, personally, fly by flapping your arms? I know I can't - it's physically impossible, in this world, for me to do so. And yet I retain at least the illusion that I possess free will. Likewise for a "character" in "Monopolyworld". The physics of their setting both allow them to do and prevent them from doing things in ways that are quite alien to us, living in the "real" world. That does not mean that they "lack free will" - just that the ways in which they may use it within the "physics" of the world they inhabit are different (and very much more restricted!) than those available to us. Such a world would be very challenging to play "immersively" - but that does not prevent it being possible to roleplay. The contradiction you claim is not there, I'm afraid. Does this not assume that the tactical "level" is distinct from the "narrative" one? In D&D I am sceptical that this should normally be the case. I know that, had I (in my younger days ;) ) taken up "adventuring" as a career, I would absolutely have wanted to get myself schooled in "optimal tactics"; I think it's only reasonable to assume that most D&D characters will focus on it, to some extent, too. Even though this describes a limitation on the characters played, I think that is already implicit, in that the characters played are automatically assumed to be "adventurers", or "Heroes". In other words, the focus on tactics is tied to the game "fiction" through the assumed topic of both characters and in-game activities. I think it's a very reasonable personal preference, if a little limiting - it certainly does not seem uncommon. It is as well to remember that it is a preference, though, not a universal requirement ;) I would probably see Dhalia using "Come and Get It" to pull the assassin to her, and as a fighter her OA would stop them moving away if it hit in any case (and would be entirely consistent with "holding a sword to her throat" as hit points are not representative of physical damage, at least until the target is bloodied). But, yeah - basically, what you said :). [/QUOTE]

Verification