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="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9716025" data-attributes="member: 7025577">Agreed. In my conceptulation they are not following the directive produced by the mechanics. So this absence of diegetics is not reflecting upon the mechanics, but the GMs decission to ignore them.In my conceptualization you honor the prescription of the mechanics. However you immediately bake in something more on your own. The powers prescribed to DM in D&D allows for this.I fully agree. I tried to get clarification on someone else's concept. A major motivator for me to do that was that my then understanding of their concept didn't seem to pass such standards.I would say the check mechanics do provide some information, if we accept certain GM guidelines is in play. For one thing it has been argued that what the inputs to the check is (skill, particular difficult or simplifying circumstances, magical bonuses etc) should inform the narration. I would argue that what is considered valid inputs to a mechanic is part of the mechanic. The "output" of success/failure is an important modulator, but it isn't the entirety of the mechanic.I think the players can ask the same kind of questions on a check, and the DM can use the inputs of the mechanics allongside the exact roll to inform their answers. If the players can ask any question in wich there is impossible to find an answer consistent with what is expected from the fiction, I would consider that instance of mechanic use not diegenic from my current understanding of the term. (My understanding is still evolving, as this is a new term for me, that I can not remember having encountered outside this thread)Agreed.</blockquote>

Verification