Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8376558" data-attributes="member: 16814">No.  You don't get to say you're not calling my approach dumb by trying to claim that it's not the approach, but the fictional things in the approach that are dumb.  This isn't, at all, an argument that flies.  If my approach requires the fiction to be dumb in your opinion, I do not see how you can reify the fiction into something independent and separate from my approach.  This is still calling my approach dumb.Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath for an apology or anything.  What on Earth does this have to do with the price of tea in China.  Different editions are different games.  This is like saying that you remember how to play Monopoly, thank you very much, so Risk should be similar.  I'm not exaggerating here -- the editions are actually different games.  That they have some similarities, and share tropes, is nice, but it's not carte blanche to drag old game sensibilities into the new game and declare that the ground truth of the new rules.Okay.  So?  The existence of other options has zero bearing on the existence of this one.  For instance, my PC's ability to swing a sword has no impact on their ability to poke with a spear.  They are separate cases -- I don't get told I shouldn't be able to swing a sword because I can still poke with a spear.  This is the same.  That a rogue has other options available doesn't invalidate THIS option.Huh, you'd think that, if this were intended, the rules would mention something like this, yes?  This is your problem, not a general problem.  It's that you have a preformed imagining of what happens, and so when the PC tries to hide behind the same pillar, it conflicts with your preformed imaging.  And that's fine.  The problem is when you then blame the rules for this, and insist they need to be changed to make more sense.  Except, the rules work just fine if you imagine something else.  And that something else isn't even outlandish or weird, it's just imagining a chaotic battlefield where a creature skilled at being sneaky manages to pull one over on another combatant not engaged directly with the sneaky creature.  That they have enough variability in their 5 square feet of space to vary timing and location enough to keep being skilled enough to get the drop on their opponent.The claim you're using more mechanics and this is therefore better suggests that you should make sure to have advantage or disadvantage used on every single roll.  It's a silly argument.  More is not better.  And the claim that you have the high ground on better imagination seems contraindicated in that my argument is based on "follow the mechanics, then imagine the outcome."  There's no lack of imagining going on in my game, just as the creatures in my game aren't dumb -- instead there are desperate battles of skill and awareness and a dynamic use of space and timing to gain the upper hand.  The idea that you have the high horse to lecture me about storytelling and roleplaying is, frankly, insulting to a high degree.  Neither of these things are impacted at all by allowing a creature to attempt to hide in the same place in subsequent rounds of combat without penalty.How do I know this?  Because I used to adamantly hold your position.  I used to apply disadvantage to hiding in the same place, for the same arguments you're making.  Then, I realized I was making work for myself because I was trying to force the game into my opinions.  So, I quit.  I also don't think at all about metagaming, nor do I care about it anymore.  I just altered how I built challenges so that metagaming is not an issue.  This is very easy to do -- don't build encounters where the challenge is entirely based on making the players pretend they don't know the gimmick.  And, for the topic at hand, don't imagine creatures with AEGIS.</blockquote>

Verification