Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LepcisMagna" data-source="post: 9524189" data-attributes="member: 6750753">With the caveat that all this assumes both interpretations of the hypothetical are implemented:I only mentioned NPCs (which includes monsters) because that seems to be the place that GMs would retain the greatest authorial control in the world.Not at all, I'm just drawing a line between &quot;game&quot; and &quot;play&quot; (after all, there are improv games).&nbsp; But on the scale of &quot;miniatures wargame&quot; to &quot;improvisational theater,&quot; accepting both versions of the hypothetical puts you very, very close to the latter rather quickly.Ah, like an enemy who has a specific weakness you must figure out how to exploit in order to defeat it!&nbsp; Or a door that only opens if you push on it the right way!&nbsp; More seriously, though, the trouble I would run into here is how the GM would tell the players they failed (or present any puzzle with a predetermined solution) if they aren't allowed to say no.It seems to me the most likely thing that will happen if you come across a door you don't know how to open will be the question: &quot;I try [x]: does that open the door?&quot;&nbsp; To which the only answer is, of course: &quot;Yes.&quot;&nbsp; Alternately, I suppose, you'd could be equally likely to have the rogue say &quot;I look for a way to open the door.&quot;&nbsp; They roll to Find Traps/Open Locks and, of course, they succeed.If we're not bypassing the game rules, it should be easy for you to choose two or three specific game rules from any system which wouldn't be effectively ignored by both assuming all chances of failure are nonexistent and always saying yes to player suggestions.But the roll will always be a success, so we can't do that, and the players can also make up whatever they want.&nbsp; The hypothetical is exactly what is removing those options.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LepcisMagna, post: 9524189, member: 6750753"] With the caveat that all this assumes both interpretations of the hypothetical are implemented: I only mentioned NPCs (which includes monsters) because that seems to be the place that GMs would retain the greatest authorial control in the world. Not at all, I'm just drawing a line between "game" and "play" (after all, there are improv games). But on the scale of "miniatures wargame" to "improvisational theater," accepting both versions of the hypothetical puts you very, very close to the latter rather quickly. Ah, like an enemy who has a specific weakness you must figure out how to exploit in order to defeat it! Or a door that only opens if you push on it the right way! More seriously, though, the trouble I would run into here is how the GM would tell the players they failed (or present any puzzle with a predetermined solution) if they aren't allowed to say no. It seems to me the most likely thing that will happen if you come across a door you don't know how to open will be the question: "I try [x]: does that open the door?" To which the only answer is, of course: "Yes." Alternately, I suppose, you'd could be equally likely to have the rogue say "I look for a way to open the door." They roll to Find Traps/Open Locks and, of course, they succeed. If we're not bypassing the game rules, it should be easy for you to choose two or three specific game rules from any system which wouldn't be effectively ignored by both assuming all chances of failure are nonexistent and always saying yes to player suggestions. But the roll will always be a success, so we can't do that, and the players can [I]also[/I] make up whatever they want. The hypothetical is exactly what is [I]removing[/I] those options. [/QUOTE]

Verification