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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5879948" data-attributes="member: 87792">The problem with ending movement cold is that there's no physical reason it should.  I'm very much of the school of DMing that says "Roll the dice or say yes" - and hard coded movement ending is very much a "The players can't even try crazy plans" approach.  And what is adventuring except a series of more or less crazy plans, one after the other?  You are forcing PCs with possibly the most dangerous job ever to not take risky moves in combat. Being forced to be cautious even when being reckless would be good tactics is not why I play D&D.  And being physically unable to take actions that I could in the real world because of hard-coded mechanical rules, made for simplicity, is to me precisely the problem with CRPGs.  That if the designers either hadn't thought of something or considered it too much hassle I can't do it. I therefore consider B/X and Mouseferatu's approach (honestly, the reason I'm taking the risk is to preserve my standard action much of the time) to be thoroughly disempowering, deprotagonising, and inimical to one of the reasons I play TTRPGs.  I need to be able to take risks to preserve resources (and actions are resources). Now simplifying OAs is entirely possible.  Flat automatic damage might work.  (Something like I take my level in HPs as I use up some of my luck - faster than an OA and I can sort it out on my own sheet although many might not like that at all). But all the means I've seen of actually eliminating OAs have done it either by limiting my ability as a character to control the space around me, or by deprotagonising my PC and making that PC physically unable to take risks even to save an ally's life.  If I want my PC deprotagonised, I'll go back to the WoD storyteller who inflicted three DMPCs on the party - one for each PC.</blockquote>

Verification