Search results

Yes, one would think so. Yet here we are!

Yes, that's possible. It is also possible for many other things to happen. It's all contextual. What if the house is on fire? Then is the failure to unlock the door the same as if the house was not on fire? Or would you say the consequences are then different?

Common sense in life. Forget play for a minute and think about how things work in the real world. If you forget to pick up milk at the store, no milk may not be the only consequence. Maybe your spouse will he annoyed with you. Maybe your kids will go without breakfast in the morning. Maybe one...

What I am talking about doesn’t really have anything to do with the game and is not me telling you anything about bad-wrong-fun. I’m simply talking about common sense. If you are trying to pick a lock, the consequences are more than “the lock does not open”. I mean… this is obvious. Why...

Because we’re talking about consequences. There are probably going to be at least a few, and potentially many, depending on so many different factors. Looking at any kind of ability or skill check divorced of the fictional situation seems like a poor method of analysis.

This is probably the silliest bit about this whole branch of the discussion. What it says to me is that people try to pick locks simply to pick them, and for no other purpose.

It seems fairly safe to assume that "we" means literally everyone RPGing since no one playing an RPG is in fact playing a real person in a real world.

A few thoughts on this. If there are new players discovering things for the first time, that doesn't mean that seasoned players will also be doing so. They discovered some of this stuff decades ago... that doesn't change because there are new players involved. Now, as I said, it may be that...

Yeah, even then, you have to be aware of the entire group. Now, I have young kids, and so if they joined us to play, my players would be far more willing to indulge this type of play. But otherwise? It’s easy to get a more compelling game that just avoids the monster as puzzle trope. See I’ve...

Even then… it’s a pretty crappy defense since the player is the person who made the character.

Well it's not about "the story"... we're playing a game, after all... one which many people often cite things like "as long as you're having fun, you're not doing it wrong" and so on. I therefore will actually try to present things to my players that I expect will be fun or interesting or...

My experiences as both player and GM have been very different than that. I find that there can often be such discrepancies in understanding the shared fiction of the game. And yes, asking questions is part of the process of clarifying. But I would say so is sharing as much information as...

There's also a difference between not worrying as much about the divide between player and character knowledge (which is what I was talking about) and telling them everything (something you've now introduced to the discussion). What I'm trying to describe is to not make everything a puzzle. I...

Because like I said, the GM will never be able to provide the amount of information that would be available to the character. For the character, there is no cypher through which the world is filtered. So, for me and others, a small breach in the character/player gap is far less problematic than...

Mmmkay.

For me, I think the abundance of information of information makes me feel as informed as my character would be. It’s not necessarily about a one for one tradeoff of information. Like I realize I may be privy to something as a player that my character would not be. But I also realize that no...

Max, go back and read what I was responding to. You can click on the name in the quoted bit to go back to the previous post. Then do it again. This will give you the context you meed to actually accurately comment on what I was talking about. In relation to the thief/cook example, @Lanefan had...

For you it may be. But I’m not asking you to adopt this method for your game. I’m explaining the way these games work because you asked me. It’s like if I tried to explain soccer to you and you asked where are the players sticks, and when I explained there are no sticks, you say well then this...

Okay. I’ll make sure to quote this in the future when you complain that people are inconsistent with their definitions! Any metric the poster in question values! I’m not sure I understand the example offered by @AnotherGuy … but I also didn’t read all the back and forth between you two that...

Well, no… the quotes were around the “metagame”… a concept that makes no sense for those games. It’s all part of the game. Insert a bit about reading to respond here if you like.