Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8994907" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Not at all. But I know what I was trying to say! Well there's no actual time in fiction. It's all artifice. We can do whatever we want. I think how suitable such a rule may be depends on the game and the genre/vibe. The impact of such a rule on how real the fiction may seem to someone will vary. As I said, if I'm playing a warrior and I say I unsling my shield, and the DM says &quot;Oh, you didn't say you brought it&quot; that's going to be much more jarring to me than if I'm allowed to retroactively declare that I have it. It's very contextual in that sense. But I will add that D&amp;D retroactively determines things pretty routinely. Sometimes what people find acceptable and what they don't seems a bit odd to me. I think it depends. In 5E, there are backgrounds that say you can declare such connections, and they don't mention needing DM approval to do so. The rule itself implies that no such approval is required.... otherwise, why would it exist? I agree with the first two sentences here. For the third, I think this is an example of you mixing up the player and the character. No? They seem to impact each other, I'd think. Like if a character finds himself in a burning building and the player says &quot;My character jumps through the window&quot;. If the DM has to decide if there are windows present at the moment of play, that would seem to give them a good deal of control over what the player is allowed to do, no? This is a clearly stated preference. Previously, it seemed you were mixing up player and character, or claiming the world was more objective the more the DM had control and so on. So you think that the DM needs that level of control? Or is that just the way you like the game to work?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8994907, member: 6785785"] Not at all. But I know what I was trying to say! Well there's no actual time in fiction. It's all artifice. We can do whatever we want. I think how suitable such a rule may be depends on the game and the genre/vibe. The impact of such a rule on how real the fiction may seem to someone will vary. As I said, if I'm playing a warrior and I say I unsling my shield, and the DM says "Oh, you didn't say you brought it" that's going to be much more jarring to me than if I'm allowed to retroactively declare that I have it. It's very contextual in that sense. But I will add that D&D retroactively determines things pretty routinely. Sometimes what people find acceptable and what they don't seems a bit odd to me. I think it depends. In 5E, there are backgrounds that say you can declare such connections, and they don't mention needing DM approval to do so. The rule itself implies that no such approval is required.... otherwise, why would it exist? I agree with the first two sentences here. For the third, I think this is an example of you mixing up the player and the character. No? They seem to impact each other, I'd think. Like if a character finds himself in a burning building and the player says "My character jumps through the window". If the DM has to decide if there are windows present at the moment of play, that would seem to give them a good deal of control over what the player is allowed to do, no? This is a clearly stated preference. Previously, it seemed you were mixing up player and character, or claiming the world was more objective the more the DM had control and so on. So you think that the DM needs that level of control? Or is that just the way you like the game to work? [/QUOTE]

Verification