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="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9697602" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I think it's both trivial and pedantic.  More importantly I think all of these things can be better explained by different phenomena.IMO.  Players ask so many questions because there is an objective world that exists and the GM's words are the only true source of information on that.  There's no CGI where they can see what precisely is and isn't there themselves.  And while a verbal description does a good job of saying things that are there, verbal does a terrible job of telling what isn't there.That is translating 'looking and listening' into verbal descriptions is always going to be flawed.  I mean we could represent the scene with 1,000,000 words per scene and that might get close to capturing the level of a detail of a single image.I think it's mostly so that the GM doesn't have to do a 10 hour long lore dump at the start.  Practical concerns.  And also, even if he did, it's not like the players are going to retain that vast amount of detail.I would say the degree of departure there is small and there is not a more simulationist-oriented method, so in lack of an alternative the most simulationist-oriented option was chosen.I've never seen this occur in my life.  I doubt anyone has.  There may be some example that gets to your point, but dodging in combat is not one of them.Since the world in this playstyle is objective outside the PC's then there is an objective standard to measure delusion against.  There's no power struggle here, just deluded players if they think this will actually make the Chamberlain smelly.</blockquote>

Verification