Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8168383" data-attributes="member: 6795602">On (3)1.&nbsp; Frame it however you want but it can also be truthfully framed as the player attempting to add some setting or faction detail to the world.&nbsp; You don't have a problem with that, but we do.&nbsp; Gating the success for an act like this behind a die roll doesn't change what's going on.2.&nbsp; Given how the game works the player isn't privy to all the established fiction.&nbsp; The DM may very well have established things in the fiction that haven't been revealed yet.&nbsp; Essentially making it impossible for the player to stay consistent with established fiction.3.&nbsp; Besides, what is consistency?&nbsp; When additional details can change the entire meaning of situations, motivations, etc - is it enough to simply not violate a mathematical truth table (overwrite specific fictional details) - or does consistency demand that the meaning of situations and motivations, etc need to also remain unchanged even when new details are added?&nbsp; And if so, then we are back to the player not having the knowledge to be able to ensure he does this.4.&nbsp; The DM and player may have somewhat different expectations for agreed upon genre.5.&nbsp; What happens on the failed check?&nbsp; Does that mean that such a thing doesn't exist at all, that it exists but not at the location the PC remembered, that it exists exactly where the player wanted but there's some complication around it, etc?&nbsp; Contrast with failure on checks 1 and 2 where existence of such things are never in question - only whether the player finds such things.The difference in your 1 and 2 vs 3 is so vast and obvious I don't understand why you keep asking this kind of question.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8168383, member: 6795602"] On (3) 1. Frame it however you want but it can also be truthfully framed as the player attempting to add some setting or faction detail to the world. You don't have a problem with that, but we do. Gating the success for an act like this behind a die roll doesn't change what's going on. 2. Given how the game works the player isn't privy to all the established fiction. The DM may very well have established things in the fiction that haven't been revealed yet. Essentially making it impossible for the player to stay consistent with established fiction. 3. Besides, what is consistency? When additional details can change the entire meaning of situations, motivations, etc - is it enough to simply not violate a mathematical truth table (overwrite specific fictional details) - or does consistency demand that the meaning of situations and motivations, etc need to also remain unchanged even when new details are added? And if so, then we are back to the player not having the knowledge to be able to ensure he does this. 4. The DM and player may have somewhat different expectations for agreed upon genre. 5. What happens on the failed check? Does that mean that such a thing doesn't exist at all, that it exists but not at the location the PC remembered, that it exists exactly where the player wanted but there's some complication around it, etc? Contrast with failure on checks 1 and 2 where existence of such things are never in question - only whether the player finds such things. The difference in your 1 and 2 vs 3 is so vast and obvious I don't understand why you keep asking this kind of question. [/QUOTE]

Verification