Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="urLordy" data-source="post: 6210141" data-attributes="member: 6747028">I just saw apples to oranges sorry.Anything that is established to be real and true within the fictional D&D game world is world-building, whether you personally find it compelling or not. Dragons fly, mages remember memorized magic formula, etc. That's called world-building. If a DM decided that old senile mages cannot remember memorized spells, that's additional world building. If a DM decided that old senile mages can remember spell formula with perfect clarity but not what happened to them yesterday, that's also more world-building. Some stories are more compelling than others, but wizards remembering spell formula is part of a D&D fictional universe. You're arguing what you dislike about the fiction; that's not the same thing as outcome-based narrative rule.There is genre precedent for wizards in non-D&D universes forgetting the words to a ritual that is remembered and recalled conventionally, but there is no genre precedent AFAIK for forgetting magic runes imprinted in the mind. For example, I cannot recall the Patryns and Sartans in Weis's Death Gate cycle forgetting magic runes, or even worrying about it.That point doesn't force D&D spell memorization to be an outcome-based rule. Just a function of world-building, a bio-arcane law if you will.I didn't say that a wizard fouling up the gestures is as absurd as diarrhea. That's why I gave the sneezing powder example. I'm saying your comparisons are as useful to me as referencing player fiat that their PC never gets diarrhea.  Speaking of habit and familiarity, Ratskinner mentioned the significant resistance and de-programming when certain players accepting the usage of narrative tokens. Now you already said how you view the rules as only outcomes of play. That you did not view the rules as sim or world-building. How do you know that your own habit and familiarity is causing you significant resistance and requires de-programming in order to see your comparisons also as process sim or world building?Well that was clear already when you found the counter arguments to be "almost unintelligible" and are already "confident" that new players will interpret outcome-based rules just fine. I already met halfway acknowledging the inconsistencies of hit points and how I've come to accept them despite their failings. I'm not getting that same conciliatory vibe from you that mechanics which you view as outcome-based cannot be viewed as process sim or worldbuilding.</blockquote>

Verification