NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 7461963" data-attributes="member: 6787503">This isn't what I'm advocating, though. You don't seem to get that in the fiction there is no break between one round and the next. The story doesn't include a moment where PC B is stopping at the edge of the chasm. The story I'm imagining is that B runs up to the edge and leaps across, which I think is the same story you imagine. So our difference isn't in the resulting story, but rather it's in how we choose to adjudicate the game at the table, specifically how we set the timing of the ending of one turn and the beginning of the next one.I think this is what the issue seems to be about, despite the protestations of "story first". You feel the player is owed that 10 feet of movement in this round and is entitled to extract every last bit of movement from the system possible. I feel the game plays better when movement is divided into resolvable chunks. The player's character will get to cross that 10 feet in the next round when it can be resolved. Movement is only limited per turn. It isn't a finite resource. Feet are everywhere. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Again, there's no change in the story, just whether we get to that part of the story in this round or in the next round.Because the round isn't primarily a measure of time. It's a measure of action (and movement). You can only do so much on your turn.I don't understand how you actually think the story is constrained, so it seems like a false argument to me. All we're talking about is in which round does a certain part of the story take place.</blockquote>

Verification