Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="phloog" data-source="post: 4488719" data-attributes="member: 59219">Shouldn't have used the term berserk....&nbsp;The problem for me remains this: &nbsp;I as the DM present a storyline to which the players add.&nbsp; They add by having their characters take actions.&nbsp; While I create the overarching story, they truly have a huge role and a great deal of power because they can, as you say, come up with their own views, opinions, and rationales for their actions.&nbsp;Your option #3 is fabulous if the player of the wizard WANTS that to happen.&nbsp; The problem is that this choice is removed from the player - &nbsp;&quot;Bob, remember how you told me that your character is decidedly anti-physical combat, and that he has the coolest head in the Seven Realms?&nbsp; Remember making all those choices to boost your willpower and such?&nbsp; Remember how we discussed during character creation that the only way he would ever attack someone if it was Ragnalor, the man who killed his beloved Fluffy? ... ... yeah, well this scruffy warrior just used CAGI on you so you're going to have to scrap all that, because he's decided that you're going to rush him and get attacked&quot;&nbsp;The problem is not that the player is incapable of coming up with an exciting reason to rush in barehanded...the problem is that the player is being FORCED to rush in barehanded regardless of how his character is designed, how he wants his character to be played, and completely independent of the list of powers, abilities, and benefits on his character sheet.&nbsp; If you want to describe fighters as quasi-magical beings with an assortment of mystical powers it gets a bit better, but still ignores the entirety of the targets stats.&nbsp;Will defense?&nbsp; Irrelevant.&nbsp; Intelligence and Tactical Ability?&nbsp; Irrelevant.&nbsp;How you want your character to act?&nbsp; Meaningless.&nbsp;If there was some form of save, or an attack required, the storyline rationale would still be broken and goofy, but it would be slightly better.&nbsp;I haven't seen anything in 4e that was as goofy and horrid as CAGI, but I haven't played it all that much.&nbsp;Too many words from me - - I disagree with any power that takes control of a character, PARTICULARLY a PC, without a roll or any regard for the nature of the character controlled.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="phloog, post: 4488719, member: 59219"] Shouldn't have used the term berserk.... The problem for me remains this: I as the DM present a storyline to which the players add. They add by having their characters take actions. While I create the overarching story, they truly have a huge role and a great deal of power because they can, as you say, come up with their own views, opinions, and rationales for their actions. Your option #3 is fabulous if the player of the wizard WANTS that to happen. The problem is that this choice is removed from the player - "Bob, remember how you told me that your character is decidedly anti-physical combat, and that he has the coolest head in the Seven Realms? Remember making all those choices to boost your willpower and such? Remember how we discussed during character creation that the only way he would ever attack someone if it was Ragnalor, the man who killed his beloved Fluffy? ... ... yeah, well this scruffy warrior just used CAGI on you so you're going to have to scrap all that, because he's decided that you're going to rush him and get attacked" The problem is not that the player is incapable of coming up with an exciting reason to rush in barehanded...the problem is that the player is being FORCED to rush in barehanded regardless of how his character is designed, how he wants his character to be played, and completely independent of the list of powers, abilities, and benefits on his character sheet. If you want to describe fighters as quasi-magical beings with an assortment of mystical powers it gets a bit better, but still ignores the entirety of the targets stats. Will defense? Irrelevant. Intelligence and Tactical Ability? Irrelevant. How you want your character to act? Meaningless. If there was some form of save, or an attack required, the storyline rationale would still be broken and goofy, but it would be slightly better. I haven't seen anything in 4e that was as goofy and horrid as CAGI, but I haven't played it all that much. Too many words from me - - I disagree with any power that takes control of a character, PARTICULARLY a PC, without a roll or any regard for the nature of the character controlled. [/QUOTE]

Verification