Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9217220" data-attributes="member: 6690965">This division exists in board games as well, and is usually a matter of agreed upon game etiquette. Generally speaking, you have two camps, one that holds action declarations to be absolute and requires they be resolved once initiated, and the other that holds they can be modified or taken back until a specific trigger in the game state is reached. Nearly always, that trigger is the introduction of new information that could not be attained before the action, i.e. another player playing a card from hand, revealing a hidden resources on the board, or even just beginning their own action declaration that hinges upon the information gathered from the first.There's differing schools of thought, but the second position is usually thought to be more friendly, and whether "mistakes" that are possible under the first are good and interesting for gameplay is something that's only decided on a game by game basis. Guards of Atlantis has specific rules enforcing the former perspective, while it would be considered quite rude to assume it in a game of Netrunner at anything but the highest levels of competitive play.In the RPG case, I'd argue the necessarily obscured nature of the game state makes a compelling case for the latter, barring as you said "hidden information" the player is not privy to. I personally have staked out a position that the rules should take a quite firm standardized stance on action difficulty precisely because it leads to better gameplay. In the loose 5e world I have to live in, my compromise is to consistently reveal target difficulties to players before they commit to actions.</blockquote>

Verification