Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7025745" data-attributes="member: 996">That's the system providing no tools, yes.&nbsp; Well, let's contrast natural-language with 13A's 'fiddley' actual system tools to fascilitate running TotM.D&amp;D natural languageDM: &quot;it's twenty feet away.&quot;Player1:&nbsp; &quot;From me?&quot;DM: &quot;Well, no, you're at the back of the party, so it's more like 30' away from you.&quot;Player1: &quot;I take my movement to back away from it since I have plenty of range and don't want to get attacked in melee.&quot;Player2: &quot;I charge*!&quot;Player3:&nbsp; &quot;I circle around staying well out of it's reach and throw daggers.&quot;Player4:&nbsp; &quot;I move up &amp; attack but don't want to stand right next to Player1 in case it has a breath&nbsp; weapon or something.&quot;Player5:&nbsp; &quot;I'm casting burning hands.&quot;Players2,3&amp;4:&nbsp; &quot;Oh, crap, would I be in it?&quot;On the monster's turn, it has a 50' cone breath weapon to use, who can it breath on?&nbsp; Well, not player 1, he's 65' away (he's fast), player's 2 &amp; 4, probably one or the other, but what if the monster moves relative to them? And where are they relative to 3 &amp; 5?&nbsp; And what's the angle of the cone, is it 50' long or 50' at the base (depends on the edition, IIRC in 5e, it'd be 53-degrees and yes, while in 1e you'd usually get the base and length of the cone, not the angle).13A:DM: &quot;It's close.&quot;Player1:&nbsp; &quot;I charge.&quot;Player2: &quot;I move away and attack&quot;Player3: &quot;I throw daggers.&quot;Player4: &quot;I engage and attack.&quot;Player5: &quot;I cast burning hands, since there's only one enemy, no need to do it 'recklessly' and risk hitting my friends.&quot;On the monster's turn it uses a Close attack, catching 1d3 PCs, Player 2 has moved away so is no longer 'Close,' Players 2 &amp; 4 are engaged, players 3 &amp; 5 are not, but still 'close.'Bottom line in both cases is that Player 2 isn't going to get breathed on and the others, well, probably, but not all of 'em.&nbsp; It's just very clear and simple in 13A, because the system supports the technique.&nbsp; In D&amp;D, it's up to the DM either figuring out a lot relative positions some of them based on information the players didn't bother to provide (did you circle to the right or left?) and deciding how 'best' to place the cone, or breaking out a visual aid - or just ruling arbitrarily. Of course, you're right about something:&nbsp; the natural language exchange in the D&amp;D example probably stimulates the imagination, not so much because it's using real units, as because the players are describing actions in natural language, and you're certainly getting a 'combat is chaotic' sense from it (it's also unlikely anyone's imagining it quite the same way, and that may cause problems when you go to rule arbitrarily about who was in what area).But, the question wasn't whether D&amp;D encouraged imagination (hey, it's a /game of the imagination/, says so right on the tin!), but whether it's system ever supported the TotM technique of play.&nbsp; Particularly compared to systems that clearly do, like 13th Age, as the example illustrates.&nbsp; Now, you /could/ go into more detail in describing actions:&nbsp; &quot;I circle to the NE, staying 10'&nbsp; from it, to my full movement of 30'.'&quot; &quot;OK, since you're moving in an arc centered on the enemy who occupies a 10' space, and your movement gives the length of the arc, not the length of the chord, the actual change in your position is only 25' NNE.&quot;&nbsp; But, yeah, no.&nbsp; ;P* no comments about Setting to Receive a Charge, Leap Attack, Fey-charger builds, nor the Charger Feat, please&nbsp; (puns involving credit cards, though, are fine).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7025745, member: 996"] That's the system providing no tools, yes. Well, let's contrast natural-language with 13A's 'fiddley' actual system tools to fascilitate running TotM. D&D natural language DM: "it's twenty feet away." Player1: "From me?" DM: "Well, no, you're at the back of the party, so it's more like 30' away from you." Player1: "I take my movement to back away from it since I have plenty of range and don't want to get attacked in melee." Player2: "I charge*!" Player3: "I circle around staying well out of it's reach and throw daggers." Player4: "I move up & attack but don't want to stand right next to Player1 in case it has a breath weapon or something." Player5: "I'm casting burning hands." Players2,3&4: "Oh, crap, would I be in it?" On the monster's turn, it has a 50' cone breath weapon to use, who can it breath on? Well, not player 1, he's 65' away (he's fast), player's 2 & 4, probably one or the other, but what if the monster moves relative to them? And where are they relative to 3 & 5? And what's the angle of the cone, is it 50' long or 50' at the base (depends on the edition, IIRC in 5e, it'd be 53-degrees and [i]yes[/i], while in 1e you'd usually get the base and length of the cone, not the angle). 13A: DM: "It's close." Player1: "I charge." Player2: "I move away and attack" Player3: "I throw daggers." Player4: "I engage and attack." Player5: "I cast burning hands, since there's only one enemy, no need to do it 'recklessly' and risk hitting my friends." On the monster's turn it uses a Close attack, catching 1d3 PCs, Player 2 has moved away so is no longer 'Close,' Players 2 & 4 are engaged, players 3 & 5 are not, but still 'close.' Bottom line in both cases is that Player 2 isn't going to get breathed on and the others, well, probably, but not all of 'em. It's just very clear and simple in 13A, because the system supports the technique. In D&D, it's up to the DM either figuring out a lot relative positions some of them based on information the players didn't bother to provide (did you circle to the right or left?) and deciding how 'best' to place the cone, or breaking out a visual aid - or just ruling arbitrarily. Of course, you're right about something: the natural language exchange in the D&D example probably stimulates the imagination, not so much because it's using real units, as because the players are describing actions in natural language, and you're certainly getting a 'combat is chaotic' sense from it (it's also unlikely anyone's imagining it quite the same way, and that may cause problems when you go to rule arbitrarily about who was in what area). But, the question wasn't whether D&D encouraged imagination (hey, it's a /game of the imagination/, says so right on the tin!), but whether it's system ever supported the TotM technique of play. Particularly compared to systems that clearly do, like 13th Age, as the example illustrates. Now, you /could/ go into more detail in describing actions: "I circle to the NE, staying 10' from it, to my full movement of 30'.'" "OK, since you're moving in an arc centered on the enemy who occupies a 10' space, and your movement gives the length of the arc, not the length of the chord, the actual change in your position is only 25' NNE." But, yeah, no. ;P *[i] no comments about Setting to Receive a Charge, Leap Attack, Fey-charger builds, nor the Charger Feat, please (puns involving credit cards, though, are fine).[/i] [/QUOTE]

Verification