Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2249249" data-attributes="member: 4937">I believe that that is precisely my point.  The only thing we are actually disagreeing over is how the 'internal integrity' of the game world is best represented - by firm adherance to the rules, or by adherance to the reasonable expectations of the player of what is possible in the reality being simulated.  Looking at your mystery novel analogy, you see that you don't need rules to give you a reasonable expectation that a 10' ladder doesn't let you climb over a 50' wall.  You wouldn't let a PC use a 10' ladder to climb over a wall even if he pointed out a place in a text that said: "This is a 10' ladder.  It let's you climb over walls.", and said to you, "The rules don't say anything about how high the wall has to be.  I have a reasonable expectation based on the rules that my ladder can let me climb over any wall.  If you want to make a house rule about ladders only allowing you to climb over 10' walls, you should have told me about it."  Likewise, your PC probably wouldn't accept as reasonable that the NPC climbed over the 50' wall using the 10' ladder if you could point out the above text.  Granted this is a rather silly example, but the general point is that sometimes a strict and literal interpretation of the rules inhibits the internal integrity of the game world. As for the poker analogy, I've already pointed out what I find wrong with that, and you have done nothing but repeat it.But you and I don't disagree on that, although we might disagree on what 'role-playing' actually is given that the example you sited was explicitly related to rules mechanics.   Let's just say that in addition to agree with you that the DM should never try to regulate role-playing, that I also agree with the broader assertion that the DM should respect the sanctity of the PC's character sheet and give the PC broad latitude in making choices related to it.  Broad but not perfect latitude.  For example, the DM in question was being a little silly and overly controlling in asserting that a cleric engaged in combat had to take levels of fighter; but on the other hand, the DM wouldn't necessisarily be silly and overly controlling if he denied a request by the PC to take a prestige class on the grounds that the PC lacked the necessary background and needed engage in some ammount of RP with the organization in question first.  But in fact, this whole section of your argument is a red herring and isn't at all related to what is being argued. Again, no one is talking about controlling the PC's.</blockquote>

Verification