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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="urLordy" data-source="post: 6212810" data-attributes="member: 6747028">Yes, I'm aware of this zoomed out perspective in combat, esp. in 4E. I believe that, based on all the input you've received while arguing things on Enworld is that the primary playstyle that has problems with damage-on-a-miss is not the one that's popping out for the entire duration of combat. if fictional cohesiveness is maintained like blinking, then blinking only occasionally is ideal if you prefer to be in-character such that you only go into metagame mode between those half-second blinks.If, however, combat is like one giant long blink (and then fill in all the blanks later) then that becomes incohesive to those people who don't want to blink for so long.Hell, you could flip a coin and say "Heads, you win the adventure" or "Tails you lose the adventure" and I could argue this the fiction still has integrity. Well, that depends really on whether I want to be in-character for the duration of that adventure, whether I care or not that adventure has 50:50 odds of success, etc.But now I'm meandering...It's probably important to scale back yet again and ask what the context is here. When I brought up the cleric example, it was an easy straightforward point to make. I didn't appreciate the comparison to damage on a miss. If you're defending the cohesion of your game, then let's stop right here. I don't care about your game anymore than you care about mine. I care only about the believability (and other problems) of damage-on-a-miss when combat is not 'popped out' for the entire duration. If that's not the conversation we're having, then let's not continue.Ahh, I think I understand your point better. That could be divine agency. The healer wants to heal (organic behavior). The result is up to the gods (how much healing occurs). And/or since the healing is subjective and abstract, the healer doesn't necessarily know much the commoner or hero is healed. That's why in my games, the recipient of the healing implicitly or explicitly asks for healing. All of the above can lead to naturalistic behavior. Therefore, still not comparable to damage on a miss for me.Well, you know that's not objectively true, because you've read all the people who described that it was not believable. If a person doesn't feel that GWF leads to believable behavior, then it's not empowering the player in that context. No matter what you state about it.I don't understand. If you bring a painting into the house, and your partner says "I don't like it -- it's too abstract" or "I don't like it -- it's too surreal", and you say "I don't see why it can't be accepted. I see issues of habit or familiarity with art appreciation, but not deep issues of neuroligical or aesthetical structure (insert more artspeak here)".What matters is that your partner has to stare at this painting every evening and weekend. And if she doesn't like it, the situation isn't sustainable. Your rational undertstanding doesn't change any of that. Is that what we're arguing about? I don't even know. I know you didn't call this partner unreasonable or anything like that, but now you're saying you don't understand her preferences?</blockquote>

Verification