Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9230401" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Yes it is. You can argue all you want that red is blue, but it doesn't make it so. If the GM can reject the stake the player is suggesting, that is a form of saying no.Yes, it is likely that the safe exists for some narrative purpose. This being a possibility is obvious. That being said, it could also be just part of 'set dressing' in certain situations. (Now what probably doesn't exist for some specific narrative purpose is doors.) Furthermore, unless the game is really railroady it is perfectly possible the choices of the players create a situation where they encounter the safe before talking to the NPC who has info on its contents.&nbsp;In a sense that there are certain things that logically follow from these axioms, yes.Then it must be a hella error prone game! This is game where characters frequently visit towns, which I presume also contain buildings with doors. And I also assume that this is a game where players can decide what their characters do. Well, that's an accident waiting to happen!You started this thread by talking about imagination. It is weird game of imagination if it falls apart when perfectly easily imaginable action is attempted. To me that seems more like some sort of computer game where you are only allowed to click specific things. Not that I think that DitV is like that at all, I think you're just making overly broad normative claims about how it ought to be played which probably do not align with the reality.Yes, they are. Well, they are somewhat vague social constructs, so &quot;realish.&quot; <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937.png" title="Person shrugging&nbsp; &nbsp; :person_shrugging:" data-shortname=":person_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson Longinus, post: 9230401, member: 7025508"] Yes it is. You can argue all you want that red is blue, but it doesn't make it so. If the GM can reject the stake the player is suggesting, that is a form of saying no. Yes, it is likely that the safe exists for some narrative purpose. This being a possibility is obvious. That being said, it could also be just part of 'set dressing' in certain situations. (Now what probably doesn't exist for some specific narrative purpose is [I]doors.)[/I] Furthermore, unless the game is really railroady it is perfectly possible the choices of the players create a situation where they encounter the safe before talking to the NPC who has info on its contents. In a sense that there are certain things that logically follow from these axioms, yes. Then it must be a hella error prone game! This is game where characters frequently visit towns, which I presume also contain buildings with doors. And I also assume that this is a game where players can decide what their characters do. Well, that's an accident waiting to happen! You started this thread by talking about imagination. It is weird game of imagination if it falls apart when perfectly easily imaginable action is attempted. To me that seems more like some sort of computer game where you are only allowed to click specific things. Not that I think that DitV is like that at all, I think you're just making overly broad normative claims about how it ought to be played which probably do not align with the reality. Yes, they are. Well, they are somewhat vague social constructs, so "realish." 🤷 [/QUOTE]

Verification