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="pemerton" data-source="post: 5416339" data-attributes="member: 42582">These are fair points. I'll leave it to the sandbox players/GMs to talk about how they handle these issues. What I was trying to say is that, in the way I play, the choice is made not by considering ingame consistency, but on the sort of metagame basis I described.(Of course one doesn't want to contradict ingame consistency - but in a fantasy RPG I tend to find that ingame consistency is pretty forgiving.)I've got no interest in doing that. In this thread most of the discussion has been about scenario/world design, and in 4e there is no rule that has to be broken or changed to make it snakes rather than spiders.Luckily I don't have this problem. I don't play a game where the rules of the game are at odds with the ingame causal logic of the gameworld. But nor do the rules of the game model that logic. They are to a significant extent external to it. For example, resolving a skill challenge doesn't model ingame processes - rather, it tells us at the table whether or not ingame actions have achieved certain things, and specifies the parameters within which the GM and players can stipulate various states of the gameworld.The burden of maintaining the coherence of the gameworld falls on the GM and players when they undertake that stipulation within the parameters that the action resolution mechanics yield. (For example, if the skill challenge involved a PC going from A to B, the player of that PC cannot in the next stage of the skill challenge declare some action which presupposes the PC being located at  point A.) Again, I find that this is typically not all that hard to achieve.</blockquote>

Verification