Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6672443" data-attributes="member: 97077">Perhaps that's a basic conceit of how you choose to play roleplaying games, but I don't fool myself when it comes to knowing that the DM isn't objectively deciding how things play out. The guy or gal isn't a computer and the game system itself isn't robust enough to simulate it without some measure of human input into the matter (when an outcome is certain or uncertain, what the DC will be, which check applies, etc.). I know that every adjudication I make for a player's described action is made with the goals of play in mind - my rulings have to be fun for everyone and lead to an exciting, memorable story. When I'm a player, I also choose to do things that serve the goals of play without a single thought about the objectivity of the setting or the rules as physics.Sure it can. Until it's established, the box doesn't exist. If I haven't established the non-existence of boxes (e.g. empty alleyway) and the player says his or her character looks around for boxes, then I'm free to say there are boxes there.If the wall isn't established as un-climbable, then it's conceivably climbable. When describing the environment, the DM should establish it as un-climbable if this is an obstacle he or she is throwing in the characters' way.If it has already been established that it's an impossibly smooth cliff face or that there is no dishwasher, then most certainly the DM should answer "no" if the character wants to climb the cliff face without some preparation that will overcome its smoothness or plant a bomb in a non-existent dishwasher. If I haven't established either of those things and the player takes an action like that, then as far as I'm concerned, we're moving forward with the player's idea - the cliff is climbable, the dishwasher is present. I really gain nothing by saying "No."If the DM is even a little bit capable at framing scenes, this simply isn't a problem.</blockquote>

Verification