Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8146273" data-attributes="member: 29398">Roleplay, trusting the GM to have the NPC respond in a manner consistent with itself and-or the situation.The problem with "result that the GM must honour" comes not in the moment - OK, you persuade (or bribe) the archivist to let you access the restricted section, the archivist lets you in and doesn't rat on you while you're in there - but later.  Does the archivist have second thoughts that evening?  Does the archivist notice what papers have been disturbed, realize what specific things you were looking up, and raise a stink?  Or is your success 'forever', thus making the archvist something of a robot?Usually.Yep.Of course not.  The player isn't playing the NPC, I am.You'd justifiably cry bloody blue murder if it went the other way and I-as-GM were able to use no-save game mechanics* to force your PC's reaction to something, right?  So why shouldn't it work the same both ways?* - most if not all charm and control effects grant the PC a saving throw; most social mechancics don't.If the situation is so confined as to only present one solution, then yes.  But there's almost never only one solution or resolution.I'm still willing to let them go through the motions.  It's the old "I jump to the moon" thing - sure it's impossible, but if they want to try anyway who am I to stop them?In some cases yes, in others there might be quite valid hidden reasons why what seems like a very possible task simply cannot be done.  Sometimes those reasons might become apparent or obvious during the attempt (e.g. splash - the bridge you're trying to cross is an illusion), other times not (the sword will not unsheath unless blood is first rubbed into the scabbard).</blockquote>

Verification