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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 2778485" data-attributes="member: 8439">Actually he said the mechanical fighting bits as what was distinct from roleplaying, and I agree. Florid descriptions of your sword technique are not roleplaying, they are simply being descriptive. Just like a 5 minute description of your character's well tailored cothing is not roleplaying. Being descriptive is nice and all, but its not roleplaying.Personally, I like to see roleplaying in combat, but it has nothing to do with verbosity. More making decisions based on your character's personality and feelings rather than just tactical considerations. When my gladiator wannabe refuses to swap out her twin shortswords for a bastard sword with more of a chance of penetrating her foe's DR because her longterm goal is to improve that fighting style (and she'll never be good at it if she uses a differnt weapon for the tough opponents!), that is roleplaying in combat, regardless of whether I spend two paragraphs describing her two sword technique or just say "She dismisses the suggestion angrily and full attacks again. Here's my attack and damage." When a chaotic neutral cleric who just spend half the session roleplaying a massive religious feud with the party tank risks an AoO to keep him up because he knows he can take the damage and that's the strategicly best move, that is not roleplaying in combat, imho, no matter how descriptive he is about his defensive casting and just how he invokes his god.I will also go so far as to say that if you are into roleplaying but go objective/tactical once initiative is rolled that it is qualitiatively worse by the standard of your style decision (immersive rp). The decision of whether to give detailed descriptions of your combat manuvers, on the other hand, is to me unrelated to your commitment to immersive RP.</blockquote>

Verification