Something about 'height advantage' and it's kin
Filip Luszczyk:
Well, I don't know what a tabletop RPG is, I'm afraid (and I'm pretty sure it would be very difficult for most people at this site to agree on a single definition that wouldn't be grounded exclusively in the common fan and product base). I can discuss games I know and play, and you refer to some.
Either way, consider Directly, Covertly and with Violence. Those often apply to the details of physical actions, if not to physical space directly. I don't think there's a different fundamental mechanism behind them than behind with Love.
Christopher Kubasik:
Filip,
If you look at the second post I made in reply to you, you'll notice that I'm granting that they all these things are, ultimately modifiers decided by someone.
I get the feeling you're spoiling for an argument with me - but we're agreeing!
My guess is that how the modifiers are decided is too arbitrary for some (you and Calan, I'm guessing), while for others (me, for example) feeling my way through the judgments involved socially is part of the fun of the game.
I truly believe that this is what is at stake here. For some folks the fact that there's no hard and fast mechanistic determination of modifiers means it's just crazy-land. For others, the use of creative decisions based on aesthetic judgment (how I play) not based on "how things would really be" is why I play.
Filip Luszczyk:
Essentially, yes, I think the core of the issue is how those things are processed.
I'm still not sure whether they always have to be decided by someone. SMB aside, in D&D we don't decide how far from each other combatants stand. It's on the battle grid, we measure it, not decide. Even when we fail to measure this accurately, we still don't decide. At most, we could decide that despite our measurements, there is no range penalty involved, for reasons. When the rule says "-2 to hit when the opponent is more than 30 feet away", that's a rough equivalent of deciding to smash the pad with a hammer in SMB, I'd say, or tossing the cartridge out the window.
contracycle:
We're walking down the road, and we see a car headoing towards a junction. I say to you, "I bet you ten bucks that car will turn left". We watch, the car turns right.
You can now demand ten bucks from me. Nothing "real" happened. All just gums flapping, all just words. And yet the debt is real, the ability to demand it is real, because we have memories, and comprehension, and we both know the bet was offered and accepted.
Once upon a time you said "you can get a +2 bonus for having a height advantage". You also accepted it when I said "I back up the stairs". I can now claim that +2 bonus on the basis of prior agreement, just like the bet. Those rules were offered and accepted. The prevoius statements of positioning were offered and accepted. That is the agreement between us, and I'm entitled to invoke it.
The IS is not "real", but the statements people make and the things they agree to are.
Christopher Kubasik:
Right. Absolutely. I was thinking specifically of 4e on this point this morning, since it plays to the pleasure of this kind of play so strongly.
That said, there are other kinds of pleasures. For some people, saying or hearing why or how an action is "For Love" is the pleasure. It isn't a problem to be dodged. It is the point of play. It is, as they say, a feature -- not a bug.
But I can absolutely see how it might be a bug for many people!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page