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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8156210" data-attributes="member: 7025508">I think most common situation would be when there is something that the player doesn't know about the situation that prevents the thing from succeeding in the manner envisioned by the player. I think trying to find food in the necrotic death zone was used as an example of such earlier in this thread, though that was rather extreme case of it. When attacking the orc, perhaps the orc is actually an illusion, and instead of harming an orc (because it doesn't exist) a hit reveals the illusion as character's sword passes harmlessly through it (this or something very similar certainly has happened in many a game, probably in yours too.)Good question.In this thread a lot of different GMing principles have been bandied about. I think many of them are laudable and applying them most of the time might indeed be a good idea. Most of the time. Roleplaying is such a complex affair, that that I am personally very sceptical of axiomatic principles  that should always be followed (beyond always making sure that the players are not actually traumatised and other such real life safety concerns and good manners.) A thing can be a good idea 99% of the time, but that 1% will happen and then you need to 'break the rules.' I don't feel that unliving block of text such as game rules document can sufficiently capture the nuance needed for such decision making and take into account every possible situation. I feel that it is best if an actual human being makes that call. As a GM I want to have the power to make such calls, and as a player I trust my GM to use their power wisely.</blockquote>

Verification