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="wrecan" data-source="post: 5626791" data-attributes="member: 64825">Right, because you the player are trying to force the other players to accept your description.  Go back and read the paragraph I wrote about associating mechanics.  Better yet, let me reprint it for you, with my emphasis added:We don't perceive combat.  All that happened is the DM rolled a die and  described what happened. The player accepted that description, rolled a  save and decided to associate the effect of that save to a specific  cause.  And the DM in this case accepted that association.  (He could  have negated that association and substituted his own -- "No, the spell  only lasts a few seconds at any rate; the Raven Queen had nothing to do  with it" -- but he chose not to.) In your quoted example above, you rolled dice and then described how you envisioned it happened.  And by your description of the other players' faces, they didn't accept that description.  This is a shared gameworld.  In the end, the DM will have to decide how to describe what happened, particularly since he decided to allow you to have some pretty potent mind control powers outside of combat.You don't really think that anybody who isn't a complete jerk would behave in the way you're quoting.  Once again, you're proposing an argument ad absurdum.  The game presumes everybody is at the game to have fun with friends.  And in those competitions where people are not gaming with friends, it is expected the DM will run tables with a bit more firmness.  (In other words, the DM will dictate what the dice mean, rather than letting the gaming group as a whole create a shared experience.) When people are reasonable, this is not a problem.  When people are unreasonable, they generally don't game together, or the event is such that the DM is given absolutely authority to dictate the narrative.But now you've completely changed what we were discussing.  Before we were discussing whether people can accept the association between the mechanics and the fiction.  On that sentence it should be pretty obvious that everybody has a different tolerance for association, not only in quantity, but in quality.  You're now appearing to make an argument that a system that requires us to associate the mechanics to the fiction is inherently doomed to failure, and that argument appears to be based on the notion that players are going to purposefully come up with the most inconsiderate narrative and then unilaterally impose that narrative on their gaming companions.</blockquote>

Verification