That is one case, yes. Pretty much the only one that I would invoke, though it could also be 'genre logic', like "no you cannot make Dynamite in this D&D game, even if you can describe the necessary steps to do so, and carry them out in character." That can usually be colored as 'physically impossible in this world' too of course.
Agreed.
I honestly am not disputing this, in the sense that from a certain kind of play, this is true. I mean, its really the point
@Ovinomancer often makes when he talks about how 5e is generally run. In the kind of play that I prefer, there simply isn't such a thing as an 'unclimbable wall' that will probably come up in play. It is quite possible that nobody CAN actually climb a given wall, but that supposition should be tested and could be found untrue. Different story games actually have various approaches to this, and they certainly don't all use a 'say yes or roll' approach either. A game might, for example, demand certain resources be expended, or that a PC display certain traits before they can act in a given way. I mean, fictional position is a thing in most games. However, a 'wall' in the terms I play represents some sort of fiction that could be overcome to move towards a character goal, and it exists not to channel play in a designated direction, but to be an obstacle of some sort. Canonically in some games, like DW, an 'unclimable wall' could exist, but only so as to provoke the players into making moves that assert how they face that obstacle. Its like the canonical dragon who cannot be hurt by Hack and Slash (its scales are invulnerable to mere swords and such). The PC maneuvers himself into provoking a bite from the creature and then stabs it in the mouth! This is clearly quite dangerous and says something about this character. Likewise the wall might be unclimable until the character accepts help from his rival, or expends something precious, etc.
For me, the metaphorical 'unclimbable wall' is there to encourage (or force) outside-the-box thinking. The Dragon example is a good one here.
In the literal example, we can't climb this wall? OK, can we go around it? Can we bash a way through it? Is there anything up there we really need anyway? Should we turn around and go elsewhere? Should we go back to town and bring someone back who can cast
Fly or
Levitate for us?
I think it is everyone's game, there's nobody to put one over on. If the wizard wants to have a free robe, chances are the other participants in the game are going to see that dimly. At best there's a very pissed merchant who's likely to denounce him at an inopportune moment and claim he was 'bewitched' or something. Mostly I just don't see that kind of toxic behavior much from players.
If one starts with the very common philosophy in games and sports that says "
Rules are made to be broken" it gives a whole new viewpoint.
Further, I don't see this as "toxic" behavior at all - instead, I see it as typical normal play: a player is trying to get the best for her character (or, sometimes, the players collectively are trying to get the best for the party) by pushing the envelope, and the DM has to push back.
I'm not so sure about that. I think the players are interested in the quality of the game.
In the here-and-now, yes.
But how often does a player ever think now about the game-state two real-time years down the road? I'd posit the answer is close to never. Contrast this with a DM, who has to think about both the here-and-now and the long-term.
I don't have this problem either. We are all playing the game and the point of it being a game is to 'play to see what happens', there's no logic that would lead to fudged rolls or any sort of bad faith. OTOH I would rather produce an interesting outcome in the end than just be hard and fast with "the way things are." We fought a combat in my last HoML game, and the PCs got crushed. The player's dice were abysmal, and on top of that the base DCs probably need to be tweaked a bit. I think they SHOULD have been able to win, but I'm not wiping out the party because I had some monster jump them and their dice were cold. Call it what you like, but now they have a fun mystery to solve, why are they still alive?
Were I a player and got the sense we'd been spared purely out of DM mercy, it would seriously cheapen the whole game for me.
If our number comes up then bloody well kill us off - or try your best. If at least one player is smart enough to have a PC run or hide or otherwise find a way to survive (yes, even if it means hanging their ex-companions out to dry) then the party, the story, and the game - goes on. I've killed many a PC in my time but I am constantly amazed at the resiliency of parties as a whole; someone always* survives to keep things going and either recruit a new party or find means of reviving the old one.
* - well, almost always: I'm allowed my one TPK in 38 years, aren't I?
I don't think that's the greatest most perfect way for the game to go, maybe it even undermines playing to see what happens a little bit, but the point is to have fun in the end. This becomes especially clear when you're running a game you wrote, its like "everything I did was because I wanted to do it, there's no arbitrary game rules here to blame it all on!"
Meh, in my experience the logistics of play rarely lead to a specific game continuing for more than a few years. Nor does anything I do seem to undermine my campaigns particularly. I am just going to have fun now, and if the story that comes out of it was interesting to play, people DO keep playing.
I try to plan for ten years, and then see what ends up happening. One storyline leads to the next sometimes, other times what they do stands alone from any overarching story either of mine or theirs.
Well, so Gary said. I never paid too much attention to that, frankly. I mean, I guess in 1979 I pretty much accepted it at face value, though even then I recall being rather dubious about it. I mean, yes, you can run a game like that, time could be a resource of that sort. OTOH even Gygax didn't necessarily run all these games in strict linear time order. I'd even bet that there was a retcon or a flashback or two in there. Regardless, I don't have to run Gary's campaign, mine is a bit different and it can handle a flashback here or there. I don't really do it very often anyway.
Luckily there isn't a licensing authority for GMs. People keep coming back. Nor frankly do I remember the last time I did any sort of retcon myself. The most I've done is provide a bit of a post-hoc explanation for something in combat, like when the Warlord pushed the orcs. When the fighter reacted to that my description was that the Warlord gave him some advice or an order that provoked the orcs to change direction. So even though their minis technically occupied a certain square at a given time in the turn order, FICTIONALLY what the Warlord did on his turn, which came next, modifed that, they actually moved to a different place, one he chose.
I am still asking why? If they had fun, and if it lead to a determination that there should be some other different fiction it doesn't seem pointless at all. Certainly these sorts of categorical qualifications of things don't work well for me.
I mean, OK, I'm certainly not telling you to have different preferences. As I said before, I have not found a retcon to actually be necessary, not in long enough that I cannot really recall when it was.
Which is good, and I get mixed up as to who tends to advocate for which system here, but doesn't Blades in the Dark somewhat rely on retcons and flashbacks as part of its play?
Well, I think that players DO identify with their characters. However, when the action in the game is dramatic and interesting, and leads to fun outcomes, what more can people ask for? Yep, the Dragonborn Sorcerer was slimed by bullywugs and he kicked the bucket. Everyone thought that was pretty amusing, as he was played as being super picky about his appearance. Maybe the player would, in theory, keep the character around. OTOH she got to play a Pixie Wizard instead, and that character was a lot of fun.
Cool!
