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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 5995824" data-attributes="member: 3887">Getting back to this after a (mostly) Internet-free weekend... What makes you say that?The description of CaGI states, roughly, "You call enemies over and give them the beating of a lifetime". It doesn't, for example, say "You do nothing..." or "You stand stock-still...". Your argument is contingent on the player choosing to use CaGI and then declaring their character chooses to do nothing (or something else) -- like the player of an AD&D M-U deciding to cast fireball, then saying their PC doesn't wave their arms about, chant munbo-jumbo, and hurl bat guano, ie they choose to deliberately disconnect the player and character choices/action. Why would a player choose to do this? This is what puzzles me about this whole line of argumentation. Help me understand this. I've always thought reconciling mechanics to fiction is simply an ongoing part of all RPG play.What CaGI doesn't do is explain precisely why or how the taunt/challenge works, but neither does 3e explain how a rogue can evade a fireball while not moving from the 5' square they're standing in.It also seems to me this approach could be used to demonstrate any ability or mechanic is dissociated. Here, I'll dissociate  3e's Power Attack: the player decides their PC will attack using full Power Attack -- but their character decides to make a tentative swing to test their foes defense. Viola, dissociation! I mean, if you're going to posit a 4e player who chooses to use a power and then fail to reflect that choice in the fiction, what stops you from doing to 3e-style mechanics? Serious question: then what does?What connects a player's choice with their character's choice -- if not the player's declaration that they are connected?</blockquote>

Verification