Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 4210396" data-attributes="member: 19857">So - wait.&nbsp; Mechanics that videogame RPGs basically stole from RPGs are &quot;videogamey&quot;?&nbsp; That's an interesting definition of videogamey in my mind.Seriously - I know that I've been using a &quot;taunt&quot; mechanic like this since around 1990 - because interaction skills in combat were integral to Torg and I started playing Torg in 1990.&nbsp; And we were doing something like this in Basic D&amp;D without any mechanics at all long before that - player taunts the dragon, DM decides whether dragon thinks player is funny or angrify-ing, dragon react appropriately.&nbsp; Perhaps if a mechanic was actually needed a &quot;Morale&quot; check would be made.&nbsp; Regardless, there's nothing particularly &quot;videogamey&quot; about taunting a foe with the hope that it will drop what it's doing and attack you instead - in fact, a lot of action movies have fight scenes that hinge on that very tactic.&nbsp; (I'm sure when we started doing this in D&amp;D it was because we were trying to emulate something we saw in Raiders, or Aliens, or some other action/adventure flick).Those are features, not bugs.&nbsp; If you taunt a creature who can maintain composure, you should have a chance that it will fail.&nbsp; You're supposed to taunt creatures that you can peeve off and get to react against you.&nbsp; That's a feature of a &quot;taunt&quot;.&nbsp; The mechanic works for things other than taunts - taunting was just the example of &quot;interaction in combat&quot; that is easiest to outline - but if you want to make it a &quot;challenge to your honor&quot; or a &quot;wave the red flag in front of the bull&quot; or &quot;rub yourself in beef tallow so that the Tyrannosaur attacks you instead&quot; the underlying mechanic can be the same, with a few modifications. But the point wasn't that this particular mechanism is superior/inferior/whatever from a &quot;mark&quot;, just that if that's all that a mark does then I don't really see the need for a keyword for it.&nbsp; I'm hoping that &quot;marks&quot; are more general than an &quot;attack me first&quot; mechanism.&nbsp; But I'll wait to see how they play out at the table - if they're just a formalization of something I'm already doing, I guess it won't be that hard to pick them up anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 4210396, member: 19857"] So - wait. Mechanics that videogame RPGs basically stole from RPGs are "videogamey"? That's an interesting definition of videogamey in my mind. Seriously - I know that I've been using a "taunt" mechanic like this since around 1990 - because interaction skills in combat were integral to Torg and I started playing Torg in 1990. And we were doing something like this in Basic D&D without any mechanics at all long before that - player taunts the dragon, DM decides whether dragon thinks player is funny or angrify-ing, dragon react appropriately. Perhaps if a mechanic was actually needed a "Morale" check would be made. Regardless, there's nothing particularly "videogamey" about taunting a foe with the hope that it will drop what it's doing and attack you instead - in fact, a lot of action movies have fight scenes that hinge on that very tactic. (I'm sure when we started doing this in D&D it was because we were trying to emulate something we saw in Raiders, or Aliens, or some other action/adventure flick). Those are features, not bugs. If you taunt a creature who can maintain composure, you should have a chance that it will fail. You're supposed to taunt creatures that you can peeve off and get to react against you. That's a feature of a "taunt". The mechanic works for things other than taunts - taunting was just the example of "interaction in combat" that is easiest to outline - but if you want to make it a "challenge to your honor" or a "wave the red flag in front of the bull" or "rub yourself in beef tallow so that the Tyrannosaur attacks you instead" the underlying mechanic can be the same, with a few modifications. But the point wasn't that this particular mechanism is superior/inferior/whatever from a "mark", just that if that's all that a mark does then I don't really see the need for a keyword for it. I'm hoping that "marks" are more general than an "attack me first" mechanism. But I'll wait to see how they play out at the table - if they're just a formalization of something I'm already doing, I guess it won't be that hard to pick them up anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification