Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6972836" data-attributes="member: 6775031">In order to establish reasonability for everything that the game rules cover, you would need to have as much GM-produced content as is covered by the game itself. Or going by in-game experience, the only way to determine (with confidence) how the GM would rule in every situation is to literally experience every possible situation; and even then, that precludes the possibility of planning for the future - you can't plan to do something tomorrow, or even learn how tomorrow's ideas might play out after the GM explains everything to you, unless you know how today's actions are likely to plan out. You can't even plan what you might do after you slit the guard's throat, until you can make a reasonable approximation of whether you can slit the guard's throat, and what complications might arise while doing so. I think someone is confused about the concept of the metagame (not necessarily you). If you assume that the rules of the game reflect the physics of the in-game reality, then the question of climbing a tree is entirely an in-character one; it's simply a fact that characters in some worlds are better climbers than characters in other worlds, and they all understand how well they can climb even though we can't guess until we've read the rule book (or had the GM explain which rules they're using).If you instead assume that every different ruleset is just a reflection of our own reality, and make decisions as though our real-world physics were applicable, then that would be a textbook case of metagaming. That's why you can't just use natural language and let the GM handle all of the mechanics - because your experiences in the real-world, which form the basis of your natural language understanding, represent information that your character can't possibly know.</blockquote>

Verification