Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5892949" data-attributes="member: 52073">That example was in response to Hussar's and your assertions that exploits don't actually correspond to anything in the gameworld, but are simply ways to abstractly influence the narrative--see Hussar's "Only if you insist that that cool move is something that the character distinctly knows in game and not simply a meta-game construct, identical to an Action Point. The reason you can do that Daily NOW, is because the player has decided to influence the in-game fiction to determine that it happens now. He cannot do it later, for exactly the same reason that you cannot change the die roll later." and your longer example.My point was that if you're going to treat exploits that way, you have a massive disconnect between the fiction and the game for tactical (and conversational) purposes.  Out of game, the wizard's player can talk about his various blasting spells by name and their various resource costs, and this maps to the fiction explicitly: you can say "I have one Fireball prepared today and one Shock Sphere that I can recover with a few minutes rest; I should easily be able to blanket the area with arcane energy and kill all the goblins," and that same explanation means something both IC and OOC.With exploits as a metagame construct, however, out of game the fighter's player can talk about his daily and encounter powers by name and their various resource costs, but this doesn't map to the game world.  If you ask the fighter's player if he can have his character move to the first group of goblins, use Sweeping Blow, move to the second group of goblins, use Rain of Blows, move to the third group of goblins, etc., he can tell you he's already used most of his encounters already and will have to do something else after Sweeping Blow.  In the fiction, the fighter somehow knows that he only has one multi-target power left and cannot in any way hit multiple goblins--it's not even that he'll go up to each group, try to hit goblins, and somehow only manage to hit one each time, it's that unless you're blatantly ignoring your power lineup your fighter knows during the planning that he can't hit multiple goblins and he should have the wizard handle that even though he multiattacked two or three times in the battle already and should have a good handle on it.As cheesy as the ToB maneuver names could sometimes be, a warblade being able to talk about his techniques meaningfully in-game made more sense than some vague "I can do fancy moves that do stuff" explanation.  If you take that tack, the casters get to know exactly what their powers are and how often they can use them, and classes get to know their class features (e.g. the rogue knows what he needs to do to get sneak attack), but the martial types can't talk about their exploits in-game, and so sometimes making plans in the fiction can make as much sense as a protagonist in a book holding off on a particular tactic because he knows there are still 100 pages left in the book and the author wouldn't let something like that succeed until things really get desperate.In attempting to fix the "exploit restrictions don't make sense in-game" problem, the solution makes something else not make sense in the fiction.  "I can always try, but not always succeed" makes sense.  "Looks like I'll only get four good openings, better make 'em count" makes some sense.  "I'm too tired to pull off anything fancy" makes sense.  "I can't pull off the specific technique you need right now because mumblemumbleplotrelevantmumble" does not make sense.</blockquote>

Verification