Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8829717" data-attributes="member: 29398">The DM always has veto power over your action declarations.&nbsp; The question is, when to use it.The moon is visible, or would be if the sky was clear:Player: &quot;I jump to the moon.&quot;&nbsp; It's impossible, sure, but the DM shouldn't veto it; instead, just narrate the obvious results:DM: &quot;OK, you jump a few feet off the ground, and come back down.&nbsp; The moon neither notices nor reacts to your attempt.&quot;The moon is not visible because the Earth is in the way; or the setting world doesn't have a moon at all:Player: &quot;I jump to the moon.&quot;DM: &quot;No you don't, there's no moon there to jump to.&quot;&nbsp; Veto.See the difference?This right-of-veto would be even more relevant at (other people's) tables where certain actions are meta-banned e.g. evil acts, stealing from or attacking other PCs, etc.Oddly enough, and from the opposite direction, I long ago arrived at this same conclusion.&nbsp; If it's what the character would do, then go ahead and do it.&nbsp; Within some wide limits of offensiveness, anything goes.Problem is, often the &quot;why&quot; doesn't square with what the character would otherwise do or have done, and to me the latter takes precedence.&nbsp; If the character would wait an hour if the scout didn't find trouble (as per what you already said he would do) but then well under the hour comes running the moment she does, that doesn't square; and something has to give.&nbsp; For me, that &quot;something&quot; is the change in declared action.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8829717, member: 29398"] The DM always has veto power over your action declarations. The question is, when to use it. The moon is visible, or would be if the sky was clear: Player: "I jump to the moon." It's impossible, sure, but the DM shouldn't veto it; instead, just narrate the obvious results: DM: "OK, you jump a few feet off the ground, and come back down. The moon neither notices nor reacts to your attempt." The moon is not visible because the Earth is in the way; or the setting world doesn't have a moon at all: Player: "I jump to the moon." DM: "No you don't, there's no moon there to jump to." Veto. See the difference? This right-of-veto would be even more relevant at (other people's) tables where certain actions are meta-banned e.g. evil acts, stealing from or attacking other PCs, etc. Oddly enough, and from the opposite direction, I long ago arrived at this same conclusion. If it's what the character would do, then go ahead and do it. Within some wide limits of offensiveness, anything goes. Problem is, often the "why" doesn't square with what the character would otherwise do or have done, and to me the latter takes precedence. If the character would wait an hour if the scout didn't find trouble (as per what you already said he would do) but then well under the hour comes running the moment she does, that doesn't square; and something has to give. For me, that "something" is the change in declared action. [/QUOTE]

Verification