Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 8031401" data-attributes="member: 53980">Just because you've faced peril and survived, doesn't mean that you assume you can walk off a 1500' cliff and live. The men who survived the storming of Normandy endured extreme peril, but I seriously doubt any of them would expect to walk off a 1500' cliff and be fine.I believe that it matters whether the player is trying to meta game and abuse the rules vs playing their character like a believable person who fits the tone of the campaign. Laziness is the simplest in-character &quot;justification&quot; for that meta gaming in this circumstance, but certainly not the only possible one.I'm not sure why you're claiming that I'm expecting everyone to see things as I do. I've said multiple times to play as you like, as well as qualifying many of my statements with subjective modifiers such as IMO (in my opinion) or IMC (in my campaign).As for taking issue with their characters functioning differently than the rules describe, everything is subject to rule zero. You,&nbsp; yourself, stated that stabbing yourself in the heart falls outside the hit point rules. That's also making characters function differently from what the rules describe. From a purely RAW perspective, stabbing yourself in the heart with a dagger should deal 1d4+modifier damage. If a character declares that they are stabbing themselves in the heart and you decide it does something other than 1d4+mod damage, you've changed the rules on them (probably unexpectedly, unless you have a house rule for stabbing yourself in the heart).The rules are a framework for adjudication of circumstances that are expected to come up in a game of heroic fantasy. They can't be expected to cover every possible corner-case situation. That's one of the&nbsp; GM's primary roles IMO. To bridge the gaps between what the finite rules cover, and the infinite options that the players might attempt.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 8031401, member: 53980"] Just because you've faced peril and survived, doesn't mean that you assume you can walk off a 1500' cliff and live. The men who survived the storming of Normandy endured extreme peril, but I seriously doubt any of them would expect to walk off a 1500' cliff and be fine. I believe that it matters whether the player is trying to meta game and abuse the rules vs playing their character like a believable person who fits the tone of the campaign. Laziness is the simplest in-character "justification" for that meta gaming in this circumstance, but certainly not the only possible one. I'm not sure why you're claiming that I'm expecting everyone to see things as I do. I've said multiple times to play as you like, as well as qualifying many of my statements with subjective modifiers such as IMO (in my opinion) or IMC (in my campaign). As for taking issue with their characters functioning differently than the rules describe, everything is subject to rule zero. You, yourself, stated that stabbing yourself in the heart falls outside the hit point rules. That's also making characters function differently from what the rules describe. From a purely RAW perspective, stabbing yourself in the heart with a dagger should deal 1d4+modifier damage. If a character declares that they are stabbing themselves in the heart and you decide it does something other than 1d4+mod damage, you've changed the rules on them (probably unexpectedly, unless you have a house rule for stabbing yourself in the heart). The rules are a framework for adjudication of circumstances that are expected to come up in a game of heroic fantasy. They can't be expected to cover every possible corner-case situation. That's one of the GM's primary roles IMO. To bridge the gaps between what the finite rules cover, and the infinite options that the players might attempt. [/QUOTE]

Verification