Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="baradtgnome" data-source="post: 5623771" data-attributes="member: 2722">I can see both sides.  My bias is, if I put the players in the action (scene, whatever you want to call it) as much as possible they are able to interact, use their skills and abilities, to alter the environment.  I find it breaks the verisimilitude if we switch their ability to influence their environment on and off at random times.So for example, regardless of what edition you play, there is a line where characters are no longer able to act because they are hurt. Whether hit points are zero or a negative number, the characters die or fall unconscious. If a DM rules strictly the players can take no further actions once that happens (take speaking for example) how is it not confusing to the players if NPCs can do what they cannot? Sure, there might be a special circumstance which allows it, but shouldn't that supernatural occurrence be at least hinted at somehow to the players, even if they don't fully understand it?   I like the players to use their brains to solve problems and puzzles. If the world is inconsistent on purpose some of the time - why would they try to make sense of it?Having said that, I really understand the emotional impact of the scene played out in the OPs example.  I personally would have created some explanation in the scene for why they could not have cured him.  Yes, maybe that is cliche on top of cliche but I prefer that to asking players out of character to sit and watch.</blockquote>

Verification