Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9479588" data-attributes="member: 42582">None of this makes much sense to me.Let's suppose that, at the table, play unfolds like this:The players declare that they leave town, having set up a pub. The GM tells them it is such-and-such a date. Then various things happen, including a meeting between the PCs and a King. Then the GM tells the players that the King is killed the day after his meeting with the PCs.Then, someone notices that no pub employees were hired. Now that's pretty bizarre in itself - the retention of staff seems to go hand-in-hand with setting up a pub, and I don't see how any calculation of the time required to establish a pub in a pseudo-mediaeval work could be so accurate that it is an exact calculation of the time required except for the hiring of staff, which must require another 2 days.But anyway, everyone at the table agrees that another 2 days is added to the calendar. So now the departure happens 2 days later; all the encounters etc that took place occurred 2 days later; all the weather that was rolled up happened 2 days later; etc.Now it seems that the natural concomitant of this is that the killing of the King also happens 2 days later, that is, still the day after the meeting. But for someone reason this is supposed to create a crisis that none of the other changes to dates did. Why? Our sense of a coherent gameworld can handle adding two days to the PCs' stay in the town with the pub, can handle changing all the dates of those other events and weather etc, but it can't handle this? Because the calculation of the date of the King's death was scientifically accurate to within 2 days, and that accuracy remains even though all these other things have been changed by 2 days?As I said, none of that makes sense to me.Why would it be the King's assassination that has that effect, and not every thing else that is having the date it happened on change? As I've said, that makes no sense.</blockquote>

Verification