Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9501198" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I don't know if they did. I feel like if they had, the goal of the insight check would have been more specific, and the stakes of the roll would have been established before hand. Then the player would have had a chance to back off if they did not want to risk the stakes. If they proceed, the roll would have been binding. And just to be clear about the broader point, I agree that if they had flat out ignored the result, there'd be a problem in the sense that I don't think that's a great way to handle it. I just don't think that the OC dynamic really worries about that as much? I mean, Brennan kind of decides for Erika how their character feels and responds... but from the sketch in the article, we don't know that's what's at stake. Most OC play leaves the emotional state of the character up to the player. This is why I used 5e's Flaws as an example... it's a character element that is established, and then it's entirely up to the player when and if it ever comes into play. So I think the example is one of a GM in neotrad or OC play kind of overstepping in a way, but the player being open to it because the nature of their game is a bit different in and of itself in that it's meant to be performative for an audience and not just the participants. But it's definitely an interesting example for discussion!</blockquote>