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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9228325" data-attributes="member: 7025508">So the answer is to not prep situations where it is possible that the prepared facts could block the action declaration? I don't see how this can be done as you don't know beforehand what the action declarations will be. I don't think examples where the issue doesn't arise will much help us here, as I am not saying it will always happen.I see the issue arising in a situation where the players believe something to be true that actually is not. Let's get back to the documents in the safe to illustrate. In traditional mystery there tends to be all sort of layered secrets and red herrings. So the players might have learned that a person who they are investigating keeps mysteries papers in their safe and have due some other circumstantial evidence reason to believe those are the specific papers they are looking for. However, as this is layered mystery with red herrings where every suspect has something to hide, they have actually misconstrued the situation. The person they are suspecting has nothing to do with the actual thing they are investigating, they might have erotic poetry they've written and embarrassed about or something like this in the safe. But as the players do not know that they make the sort of action declaration like in the original example: their intend is to find the specific documents that are related to the case, and they honestly believe them to be there. So now what?EDIT: I am making this too complicated. The literal point of the original safe example was that it is the roll that establishes whether the papers are in the safe so it is obvious that this is incompatible with pre-established myth about the location of the papers, regardless of the reasons.</blockquote>

Verification