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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7072110" data-attributes="member: 71699">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=97077" target="_blank">iserith</a> your earlier post made me think about a difference between agency over fluff and agency over crunch. RAW states "You don’t normally decide to make a saving throw; you are forced to make one because your character or monster is at risk of harm." Let's say my DM treats Fireballs as a "normal" situation, so I am forced to make a save. This is really different from agency over attack because it doesn't matter what I say my character will do: the crunch will be the same. I can describe my character diving for cover or I can describe my character standing and taking it on the chin, and then based upon my roll I will still take full or half damage. Maybe when I dived for cover I took full. And when I stood and took it I took half?! In terms of the conversation of the game, we hit a dissonance.Conversely, when a character makes an attack they have agency in crunch. They can choose to attack or not attack. They can choose who or what they attack and what they use. So in terms of the conversation of the game this is always meaningful. If I tell my DM that I stand there doing nothing, then that actually matters: a huge contrast with saving throws! Thus I feel like a DM would first have to decide which situations are not "normal" in their game (i.e. become situations in which characters can choose not to save through action or inaction) and then the game conversation works with that. If the DM says that saving against a Fireball isn't "normal" then it matters if I choose to take it or choose to dive for cover. Otherwise I think it doesn't.</blockquote>

Verification