Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 4618268" data-attributes="member: 386">This makes sense.&nbsp; I think it's bound up in a certain way of playing D&amp;D.&nbsp; I think it's the reason why you have % in lair, the number of creatures that make up an orc warren (even level and % chance of there being an ogre or whatever!), etc.&nbsp; All that stuff.The idea is that there's a functioning world out there for the PCs to explore.*&nbsp; The DM referees the world as the players explore it.&nbsp; It functions logically and if something strange happens that the players don't expect the DM probably has a good reason for it going on behind the scenes.&nbsp; (Or he has a different worldview - he sees the real world through a different lens - which is why I find this a really hard gamestyle to get right.)* - This is not simulationism.So you say &quot;Yes&quot; when it makes sense, when it follows with the world you've created.&nbsp; You say &quot;No&quot; when it doesn't.I find this means, in practice, much more &quot;No, that doesn't work&quot; than &quot;Yes, give it a shot.&quot;&nbsp; In my last game (4E), the PCs created a cursed magic item.&nbsp; If there had been more detailed rules for creating magic items, they wouldn't even have been able to try.&nbsp; If there had been rules about failing to craft items, it wouldn't have been cursed.&nbsp; If there had been fluff describing the process it wouldn't have been cursed.I would have had to have said &quot;No&quot; to their idea because it didn't fit with the world.Without that restriction, I can say &quot;Yes&quot; as long as it's going to be good for the game.Agreed - though I think 4E can be flexible in combat too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 4618268, member: 386"] This makes sense. I think it's bound up in a certain way of playing D&D. I think it's the reason why you have % in lair, the number of creatures that make up an orc warren (even level and % chance of there being an ogre or whatever!), etc. All that stuff. The idea is that there's a functioning world out there for the PCs to explore.* The DM referees the world as the players explore it. It functions logically and if something strange happens that the players don't expect the DM probably has a good reason for it going on behind the scenes. (Or he has a different worldview - he sees the real world through a different lens - which is why I find this a really hard gamestyle to get right.) * - This is not simulationism. So you say "Yes" when it makes sense, when it follows with the world you've created. You say "No" when it doesn't. I find this means, in practice, much more "No, that doesn't work" than "Yes, give it a shot." In my last game (4E), the PCs created a cursed magic item. If there had been more detailed rules for creating magic items, they wouldn't even have been able to try. If there had been rules about failing to craft items, it wouldn't have been cursed. If there had been fluff describing the process it wouldn't have been cursed. I would have had to have said "No" to their idea because it didn't fit with the world. Without that restriction, I can say "Yes" as long as it's going to be good for the game. Agreed - though I think 4E [i]can[/i] be flexible in combat too. [/QUOTE]

Verification