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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8415812" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think that’s a poor example.The idea of an attack of opportunity should absolutely be known to the player because it represents the knowledge that his character would have of the actual situation. The rules in this example correspond directly to in game events and so I can’t see how they interfere in amy way with engaging the fiction.The situation is that the character is in a dangerous situation and is considering fleeing. But, the immediate presence of a foe means that he may open himself to attack to do so. That’s the fictional situation and the rules reflect it just fine.Player engaging with rules= character interacting with world.To me, the player not knowing of the possibility of an opportunity attack is an example of not engaging in the fiction because he doesn’t have a full picture of the fiction. If I declare that my PC retreats and then as a result of that, I get attacked…the exact situation I was trying to avoid….that feels very much like a “gotcha” by the GM, and is emblematic of the kind of problems this approach faces. For example, 5E has the Disengage action, which allows a PC to avoid opportunity attacks, but it counts as their action for the round. How can this distinction be made if the players are unaware that it exists?I’ve yet to meet a GM or read a scenario that is so perfectly described that there are no blanks left in the player’s understanding. The truth is, we as players are always operating with less than 100% knowledge of a situation compared to what the characters would know. Rules can help bridge that gap and make things clearer for the player to accurately and meaningfully engage with the fiction.There may be other examples that we could come up with where the players are engaging with the game first rather than the fiction. When this happens, and if it’s a problem for any group, I think that it speaks to a problem with that specific rule rather than with the idea of rules overall.In my games of D&D, I find the impact of Hit Points on the fiction to be rather annoying at times. I think that they very easily can become a game element that dominates the fiction. Others may not think so, and indeed an argument can be made, similar to my reasoning on the opportunity attack, that Hit Points reflect something in the fiction that the PCs can observe and know. I think that’s true up to a point, but that once a certain level/HP total is reached, then the fictional corollary gets pretty wobbly.But does this indicate that there is a problem with players knowing the rules? I don’t think so, because in games where HP are used but kept to a minimum, or in games that use an alternative to HP, it’s not a problem at all.“Play worlds, not rules” is not a bad principle to keep in mind when playing. I find it very similar to “fiction first” that comes up in a lot of newer more narrative games. But I think it can be misleading in that it implies a dichotomy that need not exist.</blockquote>

Verification