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="steenan" data-source="post: 5181783" data-attributes="member: 23240">The discussion about the "jumping tavern" made me think:How can we tell that the tavern was moved? It would need to be somewhere else previously. And if it wasn't encountered (or even talked about) before, how can anybody say that it was somewhere else?What I mean is that nothing can be said to exist in game (or to exist in a given state) unless it entered the shared imagination of players. To exist, something needs to be described in some way and accepted by others, according to group's social contract and rules of the game. Of course, this description does not need to be done during the session - it may be, for example, in a setting book for the game all participants agreed to play. But if it wasn't shared, how can it "exist" in what is a consensual imagination of all participants?After something has been established as a part of the game world, it is there. It cannot be changed by a handwave. To contradict something that already entered the game, one needs a good reason, supported by the rules and group's play style. One needs consistency. For example, in D&D, if the PCs encountered a tavern but didn't enter it, it could later be stated as being an illusion (ok by the rules - no interaction, no roll for disbelief) - but then, a question would follow, who created it and why.The idea of sharing and accepting something as a key for its in-game existence also ties to the topic of meaningful choices. No matter what the consequences are, a choice cannot be meaningful if it is not informed. If there is no way of predicting the consequences, each choice is essentially random.Thus, if there are two ways, one leading to a treasure and the other to a monster's lair, with no way of distinguishing which is which, there is no real choice there, even though the players are free to say "we go left" or "we go right". Switching the destinations by the GM does not change anything. It's creating such a situation to begin with that may be seen as problematic in some play styles.But when the PCs search for clues and find them, we have some established facts. The choice is informed now, and it has meaning. If the GM decided to switch the monster and the treasure now, it would both remove the choice from players and create a contradiction with what is already accepted to exist in the game world.Of course, the contradiction is not always absolute. There are thousands of ways to shape the situation in given way. That is where plausibility comes into play. If, to introduce a new fact without contradicting previous ones, one needs an acrobatic and extremely improbable explanation, it is, in most cases, a bad idea. It will break the suspension of disbelief. And, of course, the "in most cases" clause is important here. A world where nothing improbable happens is just as implausible as the one with too many improbable events.</blockquote>

Verification