Hoihe wrote:Your OOC description of brandishing still remains godmodding of actions, and we are awfully limited in animations as it is.
How about you take a step back and re-read the whole thing. Because I can ask one very simple rhetorical question:
What gives you the right to decide my character's reaction on your character's actions? Perhaps it might be reasonable to ask you to tone down your god-modding before you accuse others of it.
Hoihe wrote:If a player makes an emote describing a lore-friendly, non-godmodding, physics compliant emote that clashes with the animations the game engine provides without requiring rolls to be done, then the player's statement is absolute.
Go on, brandish your quarterstaffs in front of a guard NPC and see how absolute your player statements are. Poor form role-play is just poor form role-play. Poor form role-play tends to lean towards the direction of god-modding.
Hoihe wrote:If the emote might break physics, or require a roll - then make the appropriate roll. The roll decides. For instance, using make up to disguise oneself. We have a skill for that - if that skill roll passes, then it's the law. if it fails, it's the law.
I am a big fan of those proper D&D rolls and difficulty checks. But while a player can roll and ask another player to play along, I would like to remind how only Dungeon Masters can enforce skill roll results. Therefore, you cannot expect, or even demand other players to follow the results of your dice rolls. If you do it, I would like to know what makes you think that it is different to god-modding.
Hoihe wrote:Mechanically, the button is called "Equip." No description of hostile intent presented here.
Did you know that one of the definitions to the word "equip" is as follows:
- - to furnish with intellectual or emotional resources; prepare.
Here is the example of its use:
- - Education and travel have equipped her to deal with all sorts of people.
Thus, when you "equip" a weapon in game, you basically prepare yourself to deal with all manner of adventuring threats and dangers.
Hoihe wrote:Furthermore, where the hell would you put a staff, a greatsword or a pike? Back-scabbards kind of don't exist. Closest approximation is a rifle sling, and that still semi-occupies a hand. However, historically we have no records of riflesling style scabbards. We do have records of cradling a greatsword to carry it however...
And once again this entirely moot point gets repeated because you have nothing else to say.
When you "unequip" that weapon of your choice, you are still carrying it on your person and the exact method of it does not exactly matter in the slightest.
When you "equip" that weapon of your choice, you are now wielding it in a manner that enables you to use it in order to inflict harm on others.
Hoihe wrote:Furthermore, if we're being anal about stuff...
That is actual in game footage of a player doing some 'Tightrope Walking' in order to gain mechanical advantage over other players.
