Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9201731" data-attributes="member: 177">Oh, but I said we had a battlemat, miniatures, and such.&nbsp; There are standards for determining line of sight on a battlemat - typically if you can trace a line from any corner of the square/hex the PC occupies to the point in question, without touching an obstructing object's square/hex, there are no obscuring objects.&nbsp; Lighting effects can be externalized with markers, and the impact of light levels on Perception ability checks are in the rules, and the GM can mark the object on the map as having a valid target for the spell .&nbsp; Much of this is typically managed in the imagination, because that is easier.&nbsp; But it is not required.&nbsp; We could imagine, in fact, automating this in a videogame - the player selects a skill, and in a dropdown chooses to have the game mark all points in line of sight that are valid targets for that skill.&nbsp; The system can apply lighting effects and use either passive or active perception checks, and display targets.&nbsp; And that's likely what we will find if we break down most hypothetical candidates for &quot;must be in the imagination&quot; - that they are the things we usually do in imagination, but realize that it isn't required to be in the imagination.The GM is working from a published adventure - it tells you when things are locked, stuck, etc.&nbsp; So, if we are to be picky, no.&nbsp; &quot;What happens&quot; is not a game state.&nbsp; What happens are changes in the game state - transitions from one state to another.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some of the changes in game state will be dictated by the rules, other changes in game state will be choices by the players.We would presume that, in D&amp;D, there'll be perception checks for all creatures within range.&nbsp; Those that make the check may potentially act when their place in initiative comes up.&nbsp; What the GM chooses to have creatures do is not &quot;state&quot;, but is choice - equivalent to the chess player choosing to move a pawn or a knight.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9201731, member: 177"] Oh, but I said we had a battlemat, miniatures, and such. There are standards for determining line of sight on a battlemat - typically if you can trace a line from any corner of the square/hex the PC occupies to the point in question, without touching an obstructing object's square/hex, there are no obscuring objects. Lighting effects can be externalized with markers, and the impact of light levels on Perception ability checks are in the rules, and the GM can mark the object on the map as having a valid target for the spell . Much of this is [I]typically[/I] managed in the imagination, because that is easier. But it is not [I]required[/I]. We could imagine, in fact, automating this in a videogame - the player selects a skill, and in a dropdown chooses to have the game mark all points in line of sight that are valid targets for that skill. The system can apply lighting effects and use either passive or active perception checks, and display targets. And that's likely what we will find if we break down most hypothetical candidates for "must be in the imagination" - that they are the things we usually do in imagination, but realize that it isn't [I]required[/I] to be in the imagination. The GM is working from a published adventure - it tells you when things are locked, stuck, etc. So, if we are to be picky, no. "What happens" is not a game state. What happens are [I]changes[/I] in the game state - transitions from one state to another. Some of the changes in game state will be dictated by the rules, other changes in game state will be choices by the players. We would presume that, in D&D, there'll be perception checks for all creatures within range. Those that make the check may potentially act when their place in initiative comes up. What the GM chooses to have creatures do is not "state", but is choice - equivalent to the chess player choosing to move a pawn or a knight. [/QUOTE]

Verification