Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5305251" data-attributes="member: 18280">Indeed.I pulled out the 3.0 DMG this morning and re-read the section on gaze attacks.  Lo and behold, what is described is meeting a creature's gaze, followed by some rules for determining when that would happen.  Activity both from the gaze-attacker and the gaze-meeter.  Not simply glancing at someone's face.Huh.  Who woulda thunk it?Apparently not.Seems like too much reliance on the SRD, and not enough looking at the actual rules to see what the SRD material is supposed to represent, to me.(1)  Take a gander back up the thread, and see if you can discover anyone ever making note that encounter-based design has an effect on the problem.(2)  If "the salient field of action typically is not the gameworld" or "even the adventure" that leads directly to a lack of coherent self-reference in both game world and adventure.  A rather perfect description of the modules produced by WotC, now that I think about it!  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />Yes, a lack of coherent self-reference can cause problems, and if you are playing a game without coherent self-reference the encounters themselves should probably have extra layers of padding, because neither the game world nor the adventure will provide it.(3)  Even so, the objection is one of "clear choices" to be made prior to the final roll that results either in death or not.  If death is a possibility in a game, there is always a final move/roll that determines whether or not that outcome occurs.  This is tautological.  Removing SoD does not remove that, so if that is the objection, the only reasonable response is to remove the possibility of death.  Some folks do that.However, the objection that specifically says SSSoD is okay (or good, even), while SoD is not, must perforce rely upon what SS adds to the SoD.  And what SS adds are at least one, and probably two, decision points after the situation has become crystal clear.That is all about minimizing the gamble taken, and maximizing narrative control.(An alternate coherent hypothesis, if you prefer, is that some people believe SSSoD is better than SoD because they believe SS will prevent the SoD part of the equation from happening for some other reason that the one, and probably two, decision points after the situation has become crystal clear.  Perhaps they don't really care about the decision points -- although most seem to make that claim -- and just think that the extra rolls will cushion the odds....allowing for the dubious "thrill" of facing death with little chance of it actually occuring.If so, though, this is still all about minimizing the gamble taken, and maximizing narrative control.)And, AFAICT, this entire discussion is about how some people wish to minimize the gamble taken, and maximize narrative control while trying to convince themselves or others that this is not so.Play the game you want.  Different strokes for different folks.  Life is too short to play games you don't enjoy.But, as the man said in The Outlaw Josey Wales, "REMOVED FOR UNINTENDED IMPLICATION."  EDIT FOR INTENDED IMPLICATION:  "Don't expect us to believe that it is something it is not."RC</blockquote>

Verification