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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7344686" data-attributes="member: 20564">[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], you always have great comments, and I enjoy your adventures & encounters.  This is surprising to me because of just how incompatible it would be at my table.  The two big problems I have is that (a) players shouldn't have the right to declare actions for another player's character that that other player doesn't agree with and (b) characters may get interrupted by other characters.Can yu tell me how it would go down for a scene with player conflicts like this?Here's the scene:  The group has a developed a procedure of checking a chest for traps before opening after hitting several that exploded.  The barbarian (not the barbarian's player) is bored and would want to just throw it open, but they are out in the hall with several people between them, all who have had a bad experience in getting blown up.  The rogue is also out in the hall.Who gets to declare first?  The rogue who would be the oen most would want to agree?  The person closest?  The barbarian because they are the most impulsive?If the rogue declares spending time to carefully look for traps, does that lock the barbarian out of walking over and opening it up even though that would take less time?If the barbarian goes first, can she declare going over and open it, even though there are several other characters in the way that would try to stop it?Now, I could see this working if the players work with really small time steps and respect each other.  The barbarian's player declaring "The barbarian strides impatiently towards the chest" could get a lot of ANDs tacked on, and it won't get negated if he chooses to stop before opening it since that was not declared.  But that seems like people who always be declaring just a short next action and it would be unwieldy for getting things done.</blockquote>

Verification