Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="niklinna" data-source="post: 8920258" data-attributes="member: 71235">It's a sticky subject for me. As [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] said, much depends on whether the system encourages it or makes it difficult. But also, there are fundamental matters of plausibility with regard to genre and table expectations. Something that's fully allowed mechanically but requires some explanation of what exactly your character can doing can devolve into bad feelings on both sides (as recently happened to me in my first-in-decades go at GMing). Fortunately we are adults and managed to move past that.One thing that irks me as both player and (newly starting) GM is when players clearly don't know the rules and fish for things they can get away with, often on the outer bounds of plausibility. And when their first fishing attempt fails, and they try another, and another...it bogs down the whole game, for everybody. And if I try to put in a time or attempt limit, that's going to breed ill will too, especially as I'm alternating with a GM who's pretty relaxed about that.The flip side is, if you know the rules and abide by them, it can really limit your creativity. I know what can and can't be done mechanically in said game, so while I am always ready on my turn, as a player, what I do tends to feel kind of samey to me. This is more a problem in turn-by-turn, task-resolution games, which are already really limiting by that very nature. But hey, this was posted in the D&amp;D forum for some reason so here we are.Generally, if a player proposes something and the vibe of the table is one of excitement over the idea, I'm inclined to do that. As opposed to players wanting to let someone get away with something. It's nebulous and hard to codify.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="niklinna, post: 8920258, member: 71235"] It's a sticky subject for me. As [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] said, much depends on whether the system encourages it or makes it difficult. But also, there are fundamental matters of plausibility with regard to genre and table expectations. Something that's fully allowed mechanically but requires some explanation of what exactly your character can doing can devolve into bad feelings on both sides (as recently happened to me in my first-in-decades go at GMing). Fortunately we are adults and managed to move past that. One thing that irks me as both player and (newly starting) GM is when players clearly don't know the rules and fish for things they can get away with, often on the outer bounds of plausibility. And when their first fishing attempt fails, and they try another, and another...it bogs down the whole game, for everybody. And if I try to put in a time or attempt limit, that's going to breed ill will too, especially as I'm alternating with a GM who's pretty relaxed about that. The flip side is, if you know the rules and abide by them, it can really limit your creativity. I know what can and can't be done mechanically in said game, so while I am always ready on my turn, as a player, what I do tends to feel kind of samey to me. This is more a problem in turn-by-turn, task-resolution games, which are already really limiting by that very nature. But hey, this was posted in the D&D forum for some reason so here we are. Generally, if a player proposes something and the vibe of the table is one of excitement over the idea, I'm inclined to do that. As opposed to players wanting to let someone get away with something. It's nebulous and hard to codify. [/QUOTE]

Verification