Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6152868" data-attributes="member: 2067">See, because I'm a fan of improvisational play, that kind of thing is toxic to me. One of the big rules of improv is &quot;don't deny.&quot; You don't contradict or negate a previous person's contribution. You accept it, and move forward with it, and it becomes part of the scene. If it is established (by being said) that you enter a room full of orcs, then that's what happened, and your choices now are about what you do about that, not about the scenario itself. But I don't think this means that only the wizard has the power of narrative change, because the wizard doesn't deny that the orcs were there, either. The wizard just changes them into chickens. Mechanically, this is roughly identical to the fighter killing them all (ie: it removes the entire threat from the scenario). I'm into letting fighters massacre more orcs. I'm not so into denial.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6152868, member: 2067"] See, because I'm a fan of improvisational play, that kind of thing is [b]toxic[/b] to me. One of the big rules of improv is "don't deny." You don't contradict or negate a previous person's contribution. You accept it, and move forward with it, and it becomes part of the scene. If it is established (by being said) that you enter a room full of orcs, then [I]that's what happened[/I], and your choices now are about what you do about that, not about the scenario itself. But I don't think this means that only the wizard has the power of narrative change, because the wizard doesn't deny that the orcs were there, either. The wizard just changes them into chickens. Mechanically, this is roughly identical to the fighter killing them all (ie: it removes the entire threat from the scenario). I'm into letting fighters massacre more orcs. I'm not so into denial. [/QUOTE]

Verification