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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ComradeGnull" data-source="post: 5746434" data-attributes="member: 6685694">I think decision making should always be the domain of the player.  Otherwise you're limiting the player's autonomy way too much.  Characteristics, like alignment, should be a tool and not a straight jacket- in the real world, no one is ever clever, cautious, insightful, stupid, etc. 100% of the time.  Attributes and skills are an abstraction that makes mechanical and rigid human qualities that really are quite plastic and variable.Resolving the results of a decision is rightly within the realm of 'things the dice do'.  Rolling also allows you to resolve things where the player themself can not directly interact with something. I like to limit rolls to things that the game really NEEDS to resolve:-to tell if someone is lying because they contradicted themselves, you need common sense, not a roll.-to tell if someone is lying by body language and intuition, you need a roll.-to judge if you can jump a small gap, you need a roll (player can't really see the gap or measure its length)-to decide if jumping off a bridge is a good idea, you don't need a rollOne restriction I would place here is: players should not be playing characters who are of sub-human judgement and intelligence.  It just doesn't work unless you have a super-committed player (and most likely, an unconventional game structure).  Most modern systems place lower bounds on attributes, and this seems reasonable.So for me, no, I don't think it is a big deal.  I think: if a player is playing a PC with 3 Int and is constantly coming up with good ideas, and that bothers you, it probably means you and the player do not want to play the same game.</blockquote>

Verification