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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9565592" data-attributes="member: 6785785">No, it was a much older conversation, from an older thread. I remember it now... you said that no salesman could ever sell you something you didn't want. That it was impossible. It struck me as a very odd claim to make, which is why I remembered it. But it's not just like a resolution mechanic because you get to decide. And you can decide based on so many things... so many social (like real world at the table, I mean) influences or any number of other things. Now, I'm not saying that such choices can't be meaningful, or enjoyable in play. Or that every such decision must be made by the dice. I just think that there are times when the dice are called for, and that enhances play. That's all dodging the questions., and doesn't have anything to do with what I said.  What makes D&D combat risky? If a game left combat resolution up to player fiat, would you consider combat in that game to be as risky as D&D?I don't see it as you do. The "inside" and "outside" concept doesn't resonate with me. I don't think that doing one makes me incapable of doing the other. I can do both. It does to me, is my point. Whatever label you want to use... "learning" or something else... I think the two methods are different enough to point out the distinction. That's bonkers for so many reasons. First, because chance is inherently exciting. We don't know what will happen... that's generally a more interesting/exciting/scary situation than the known. Second, because that kind of tension that the dice can produce is along the same kind that the actual situation would produce. The entire situation of that combat and why it was so dire was framed by rules. They can help create that tension... which helps us feel something of what the character feels. Third, dice rolls and table procedures and so forth don't destroy my immersion. People mention this very often and I always find it odd. If that's the case, why not just do some freeform roleplay? Why play a game with procedures if what you really want to do is immerse deeply in character? Fourth, because your game of choice is 5e D&D. Social and exploration aren't really its strong suits. I mean, honestly... if you really want to explore character a bit more deeply, the kind of power fantasy game that D&D delivers is probably not the best way to do that. I mean, the player's conception of character is inviolate... the game is designed more to facilitate character portrayal than it is about exploring character in any way. Sure, but you feel tension as a player when the character would feel tension in the fiction. You feel nervous or afraid when the character would be nervous or afraid. Don't you think that can help facilitate immersion? And then, by extension, don't you think removing the choice from the player could help someone immerse in a situation where the character is not actually mentally capable of making a choice? And which method do you think is probably more likely to introduce unwanted results? Player choice, or some kind of randomized resolution? Sure, but giving the player that level of control... to clearly make a decision... in a situation when the character may not quite be capable of making a decision... you don't think that's immersion breaking?</blockquote>

Verification