Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8282242" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Call it what you like, you keep not answering the question.Incorrect. The example I gave is that I spent one month working on a thing, rolled, and failed. Then, I spent another month working on the thing.I understand that this wouldn’t happen in your game. What I’m trying to understand is why not. So far, the only reason I’ve been&nbsp; able to deduce is one that is completely removed from the fiction: specifically, the agreement between player and DM that you insist must be made about how long the character may spend on the activity.That isn’t a thing that happened in the fiction. You and I don’t exist in the fiction and therefore can’t make an agreement in it. We, in the real world, can make an agreement about what will happen in the fiction. What I’m trying to understand is what, if anything, in the fiction prevents the character from doing something other than what we agreed on. So far, it seems abundantly clear that the answer is nothing. The agreement alone prevents it. Which is why I say this ruling isn’t based in the fiction. It’s based in the social contract only.There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. It just isn’t what I want out of D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8282242, member: 6779196"] Call it what you like, you keep not answering the question. Incorrect. The example I gave is that I spent one month working on a thing, rolled, and failed. Then, I spent another month working on the thing. I [I]understand[/I] that this wouldn’t happen in your game. What I’m [I]trying[/I] to understand is why not. So far, the only reason I’ve been able to deduce is one that is completely removed from the fiction: specifically, the agreement between player and DM that you insist must be made about how long the character may spend on the activity. That isn’t a thing that happened in the fiction. You and I don’t exist in the fiction and therefore can’t make an agreement in it. We, in the real world, can make an agreement about what will happen in the fiction. What I’m trying to understand is what, if anything, in the fiction prevents the character from doing something other than what we agreed on. So far, it seems abundantly clear that the answer is nothing. The agreement alone prevents it. Which is why I say this ruling isn’t based in the fiction. It’s based in the social contract only. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. It just isn’t what I want out of D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification