|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 10:53AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
Well the logical thing for any intelligent creature would be to see if they could kill the mage when it was taking a dump or in town doing solitary business or something, if that mage were it's enemy. Other logical things would be, in a dungeon for example, going 2 doors down instead of sticking in the room fighting and going and get some help. However, what makes sense if creatures were logical sometimes has to be discarded in order to have a playable game. They don't need to act stupid per se, but strictly acting the way we would "in the real world" would lead to many unfun fights.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:15PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2013
|
...
Couldn't disagree more. Using the your player's surroundings and descriptions of environments to your tactical advantage is in no way a metagame at all. Quite the opposite; you're being told things in role, you're making interpretations of that information in role and you're acting in role when you take advantage of it.
Moving on the basis of whether you trigger an attack of opportunity is almost by definition not in role, based on information that is not in front of your character and is not described to your character in role.
Whether you're bogged down has a lot to do with the specific terrain in question and whatever's around your character, but actually that's exactly how fighting works if you've got one team vs another team unless you're fighting in some kind of boxing ring.
I have no problem at all with character abilities that enable movement or bypass terrain, but their use should be motivated by the environment getting in your character's way, not some construct that dictates an attack of opportunity because you move in a certain way.
The introduction of mechanics to affect the behavior of your players happens in both case. Placement of obstacles or taking attacks while not defending yourself is neither exclusively in or exclusively out of role. The player is either making his decisions based on in role reason or he is not. Moving for cover or charging passed a enemy with weapons drawn are in role decisions. Looking down on a map to locate a chock point their character couldn't possibly be seen from their characters perspective or weighing the likelihood they will get hit by a AoO based on what the player believes the enemies has for a +hit is out of role. Your simply trying to put what you like into a good light, while putting what you don't like in a bad light when they are basically the same.
That in metagaming knowledge however is a representation of the game world. So using that knowledge to make decisions is roleplaying so long as your style of decisions matches that of the character. Deciding to move based on the +hit you think the character has is an analog to deciding whether or not you can run away from a guy without getting hit based on how good a fighter he seems.
So long as playing a character as opposed to a game does not gimp a player in general use then I think it's safe to say a mechanic doesn't hinder roleplay or introduce huge meta-mechanical obstacles. AoO to me feel like a good mechanic to actually encourage roleplay in a way as they represent a choice characters are faced with. The game knowledge in this case will generally align with the character knowledge.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:27PM
#53
|
|
|
...
Couldn't disagree more. Using the your player's surroundings and descriptions of environments to your tactical advantage is in no way a metagame at all. Quite the opposite; you're being told things in role, you're making interpretations of that information in role and you're acting in role when you take advantage of it.
Moving on the basis of whether you trigger an attack of opportunity is almost by definition not in role, based on information that is not in front of your character and is not described to your character in role.
Whether you're bogged down has a lot to do with the specific terrain in question and whatever's around your character, but actually that's exactly how fighting works if you've got one team vs another team unless you're fighting in some kind of boxing ring.
I have no problem at all with character abilities that enable movement or bypass terrain, but their use should be motivated by the environment getting in your character's way, not some construct that dictates an attack of opportunity because you move in a certain way.
The introduction of mechanics to affect the behavior of your players happens in both case. Placement of obstacles or taking attacks while not defending yourself is neither exclusively in or exclusively out of role. The player is either making his decisions based on in role reason or he is not. Moving for cover or charging passed a enemy with weapons drawn are in role decisions. Looking down on a map to locate a chock point their character couldn't possibly be seen from their characters perspective or weighing the likelihood they will get hit by a AoO based on what the player believes the enemies has for a +hit is out of role. Your simply trying to put what you like into a good light, while putting what you don't like in a bad light when they are basically the same.
That in metagaming knowledge however is a representation of the game world. So using that knowledge to make decisions is roleplaying so long as your style of decisions matches that of the character. Deciding to move based on the +hit you think the character has is an analog to deciding whether or not you can run away from a guy without getting hit based on how good a fighter he seems.
So long as playing a character as opposed to a game does not gimp a player in general use then I think it's safe to say a mechanic doesn't hinder roleplay or introduce huge meta-mechanical obstacles. AoO to me feel like a good mechanic to actually encourage roleplay in a way as they represent a choice characters are faced with. The game knowledge in this case will generally align with the character knowledge.
I don't disagree with your assessment. I was disputing kadim point that an AoO mechanic is more gamey then an arbitrarily placed chock point. I think they are equally gamey in that they can and do support roleplay.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:40PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I agree with Jenks.
Given that you can literally run circles around your opponent without provoking OAs, I find that combat is much much more fluid than in previous editions. Toss in some interesting terrain, and classes using maneuvers are fully incentivized to shove away, bull rush, and apply all sorts of interesting effects as combat organically becomes more varied and interesting.
I agree with Jenks and mrpopstar. I like how you can Break a Move, and move freely into enemies's reach and think it makes combat more fluid. Coupled wiith Disengage, Shift etc..as alternative methods of moving away without provoking opportunity attacks makes a good middle ground by offering enought mobility options while preserving a sense of risk if moving recklessly.
I agree with Mr Popstar, Jenks, and Plaguescarred. I really like the way you can move around within an enemy's threat reach, but you can't step out of it. I think it makes combat far more dynamic and fluid than it was in the past. This edition makes combat feel something like the dual in princess bride: when two foes enter into combat with each other they start dancing around each other with fancy footwork and using maneuvers to push the boundaries of their movement.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 2:45PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
So completely deny any sort of tactical process in movement, and allow people to just walk aorund wepaon wielders to get at the squishies?
Huh? If a squishy steps away from an engagement between a foe and an ally that foe cannot move up to the squishy and attack it in the same round without provoking an attack of opportunity. Meanwhile, some characters can stand next to squishies in order to soak up damage or cause foes to provoke opportunity attacks when they attack the squishy. There are plenty of tactical process going on in next...
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 4:25PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
I don't vision characters moving at full speed when they are dancing around each other, they would use reduced movement (acting defensively) to ensure the opponent does not get the upper hand. As long as you move by, or retreat at a slower pace then you maintain your defensiveness. If you move at full speed, then you primary concern is getting from point A to point B without alot of concern for anything in between. There are always other options like tumble, but those types of movement have the same consequence should you fail the roll.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 4:32PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Did you block Kadim or something that was a direct response to one of his posts going on about how horrible it was that people couldn't completely ignore weapon users when moving around the battle theatre.
|
|
|
