Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8219434" data-attributes="member: 16814">This doesn't require prep, though, it can be done just as well in play.Again, I find this an odd distinction.&nbsp; You found out when the GM made up what happened, and are disappointed by the timing?Not to say you don't have a point, just that it's not making any sense to me as presented.Is it bad, though?&nbsp; I'm not an 18 INT wizard, with lots of time, but rather just a GM with a few hours here and there.&nbsp; If it's reasonable that the wizard has this spell, then it doesn't create any internal inconsistency, because it's not real until it enters play and is shared with the table.I mean, I prefer to not do this, myself, but it's not because of fear of inconsistency.I also doubt it, but more because I think you've really latched onto when fiction is written as a key element, and so would be strongly biased at trying out a game where prep is not allowed.&nbsp; It requires a willingness to embrace the concepts and lean into it, because your role as a player is vital in making it work.&nbsp; Starting with the belief you're not going to like it is a strong indicator you won't.I used to think so as well, but when I took a critical eye to play, I've come to my current understanding.&nbsp; It was painful, and required unlearning some things, but the words &quot;metagame&quot; are only used in game design discussions at my table now, not play.It's pretty straightforward -- a principle of your play is that you advocate for your character's wants, desires, and goals.&nbsp; This doesn't mean that you do the best thing all the time, but that you do the thing that best suits your character.&nbsp; If your character has a flaw that they gamble too much, then engaging in gambling, especially when ill advised, is advocating for the character -- the character wants and desires to gamble.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8219434, member: 16814"] This doesn't require prep, though, it can be done just as well in play. Again, I find this an odd distinction. You found out when the GM made up what happened, and are disappointed by the timing? Not to say you don't have a point, just that it's not making any sense to me as presented. Is it bad, though? I'm not an 18 INT wizard, with lots of time, but rather just a GM with a few hours here and there. If it's reasonable that the wizard has this spell, then it doesn't create any internal inconsistency, because it's not real until it enters play and is shared with the table. I mean, I prefer to not do this, myself, but it's not because of fear of inconsistency. I also doubt it, but more because I think you've really latched onto when fiction is written as a key element, and so would be strongly biased at trying out a game where prep is not allowed. It requires a willingness to embrace the concepts and lean into it, because your role as a player is vital in making it work. Starting with the belief you're not going to like it is a strong indicator you won't. I used to think so as well, but when I took a critical eye to play, I've come to my current understanding. It was painful, and required unlearning some things, but the words "metagame" are only used in game design discussions at my table now, not play. It's pretty straightforward -- a principle of your play is that you advocate for your character's wants, desires, and goals. This doesn't mean that you do the best thing all the time, but that you do the thing that best suits your character. If your character has a flaw that they gamble too much, then engaging in gambling, especially when ill advised, is advocating for the character -- the character wants and desires to gamble. [/QUOTE]

Verification