Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6682908" data-attributes="member: 996">Yet 5e is trying to be a game for a wider audience.&nbsp; At worst, if it puts in something you don't like, you opt out of it.It'll certainly be a more limited experience if you play exclusively in that sort of echo-chamber.&nbsp; Personally, I don't find such tight &amp; absolute categories necessary nor even valid.&nbsp; Somewhat different styles easily co-exist at the same table, it's only extreme attitudes that get in the way and need to self-segregate.&nbsp; Which is fine, at the table level - at the game-design level, it's dictating to everyone how to play.&nbsp;Thing is, you have the information, and you can decide which of it, how much of it, and with what confidence your character knows the corresponding things in the fiction.&nbsp; So if you have a luck-based re-roll available, you might decide to consider it IC (the character is 'feeling lucky') or you might decide that's out of character (maybe the character believes &quot;there's no such thing as luck&quot;).&nbsp;Maybe if he's a statistician.&nbsp; But, people don't usually think that way, they give greater meaning to some events or possibilities than others.&nbsp; It's easy to think that way about a PC who's just a collection of stats, but we're already assuming we're making IC, not meta-game, decisions.&nbsp; We've been going on the premise that you make decisions on the IC level, so if the character is brave, he acts brave, even when he has no way of knowing he's virtually invulnerable ATM for some meta-game reason, if he's cowardly, he acts cowardly even in the same circumstance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6682908, member: 996"] Yet 5e is trying to be a game for a wider audience. At worst, if it puts in something you don't like, you opt out of it. It'll certainly be a more limited experience if you play exclusively in that sort of echo-chamber. Personally, I don't find such tight & absolute categories necessary nor even valid. Somewhat different styles easily co-exist at the same table, it's only extreme attitudes that get in the way and need to self-segregate. Which is fine, at the table level - at the game-design level, it's dictating to everyone how to play. Thing is, you have the information, and you can decide which of it, how much of it, and with what confidence your character knows the corresponding things in the fiction. So if you have a luck-based re-roll available, you might decide to consider it IC (the character is 'feeling lucky') or you might decide that's out of character (maybe the character believes "there's no such thing as luck"). Maybe if he's a statistician. But, people don't usually think that way, they give greater meaning to some events or possibilities than others. It's easy to think that way about a PC who's just a collection of stats, but we're already assuming we're making IC, not meta-game, decisions. We've been going on the premise that you make decisions on the IC level, so if the character is brave, he acts brave, even when he has no way of knowing he's virtually invulnerable ATM for some meta-game reason, if he's cowardly, he acts cowardly even in the same circumstance. [/QUOTE]

Verification