Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gammadoodler" data-source="post: 8030379" data-attributes="member: 6914290">.. Or I fail to see the significance of the distinction. Players will have their characters do or not do many hazardous things based on calculated risks. A classic is 'Do I take the opportunity attack?'. At certain hp levels the opportunity attack would be life threatening. At others, it would not. In either case the player is using the metagame knowledge of their current hp, and the potential damage to make the choice. Other examples may include 'Do I run through that wall of fire&quot; or &quot;do I try to block that doorway&quot;. Somehow it's only specifically 'falling' where this behavior becomes unacceptable?Ah. Is it as 'blindingly obvious' as it is that different weapon strikes even from the same wielder (much less different wielders) vary? And yet somehow we don't ask the DM to make a ruling for every weapon strike. Instead we rely on weapon damage tables and rules abstraction to save the day. It's almost as if D&amp;D is a game rather than a simulation. You realize this was a direct comparison between the OP's stated scenario and Fanaelialae's acceptably heroic example right? The point is in 'real life' heroic actions are on average more reckless than planned ones and, as such, more likely to fail. Yet here we want to act as if the opposite is true. I mean there's a question here, are we more concerned with maintaining verisimilitude, or with punishing metagaming?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gammadoodler, post: 8030379, member: 6914290"] .. Or I fail to see the significance of the distinction. Players will have their characters do or not do many hazardous things based on calculated risks. A classic is 'Do I take the opportunity attack?'. At certain hp levels the opportunity attack would be life threatening. At others, it would not. In either case the player is using the metagame knowledge of their current hp, and the potential damage to make the choice. Other examples may include 'Do I run through that wall of fire" or "do I try to block that doorway". Somehow it's only specifically 'falling' where this behavior becomes unacceptable? Ah. Is it as 'blindingly obvious' as it is that different weapon strikes even from the same wielder (much less different wielders) vary? And yet somehow we don't ask the DM to make a ruling for every weapon strike. Instead we rely on weapon damage tables and rules abstraction to save the day. It's almost as if D&D is a game rather than a simulation. You realize this was a direct comparison between the OP's stated scenario and Fanaelialae's acceptably heroic example right? The point is in 'real life' heroic actions are on average more reckless than planned ones and, as such, more likely to fail. Yet here we want to act as if the opposite is true. I mean there's a question here, are we more concerned with maintaining verisimilitude, or with punishing metagaming? [/QUOTE]

Verification