Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7924726" data-attributes="member: 42582">By disregarding it, adding to it in ways that don't honour it, ignoring it's impact on a DC (in systems that have them), etc.A classic example I have frequently seen advocated in published adventures: if the PCs kill the leader of a gang, a second-in-command takes over so the plot of the module rolls on unabated.That seems likely to be a cause of dysfunctional play. For instance, if the game is fairly typical D&D and one player thinks a TPK is a loss while another doesn't, I don't see how friction will be avoided for very long.And so does the player of the ranger with training in Animal Handling need to make a check so the GM will tell him/her what the best way is to befriend an upset dog? Or is that meant to be built into the skill system already - so that a successful Animal Handling check includes having reached out to it in the right way?Also, is starting attitude meant to be a baseline, or is it meant to very radically in response? Eg if a NPC is indifferent/neutral and then a player narrates his/her PC's greeting and it's rougher/more colloquial than the NPC would prefer, is that grounds to change the outlook to hostile? Or should it impose a slight penalty? Or neither - perhaps being super-genteel should confer a bonus!Any system that leaves a trained ranger with only a 10% or 20% chance to connect with a feral dog; or that might allow a silver-tongued bard only a 10% or 20% chance to get the time of day from a frightened waif;  has, in my view, obviously failed. And in my experience this sort of thing - resulting from some of the factors I've mentioned in this post - is a common manifestation of poor GMing that, in fantasy gaming, pushes players towards spells over ordinary actions as solutions, subverts genre and generally causes frustration.</blockquote>

Verification