Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6306261" data-attributes="member: 87792">No.&nbsp; You are here assuming two things.1: Players who care about game world consistency will have characters who don't. 2: There is no such thing as a difficulty modifier.&nbsp;Is it harder for characters showing up at town covered in blood and piss to see the King?&nbsp; Much.&nbsp; This doesn't mean that it's impossible.And I think the word &quot;impossible&quot; should be reserved for things that are&nbsp; actually impossible.&nbsp; &quot;You can not get in to see the King because the King is not there&quot;.You mean the stuff that should also be reflected in mechanics but D&amp;D doesn't do?Penalty.&nbsp; Not impossible.And this is cross purposes.&nbsp; I don't think that anyone is advocating getting through by a single roll.No.&nbsp; The assumption is that where the player's sense of what is consistent and viable does not match the DM's it is because the DM has failed to communicate the world clearly.&nbsp; As such this is either secret information or a straight up failure on the DM's part.&nbsp; As such the DM can do three things.1:&nbsp; Go with what they communicated rather than what they planned.&nbsp; Canon is&nbsp; what exists in the game world.&nbsp; This enhances immersion and adds&nbsp; richness to the gameworld.2: Continue with what they were doing.&nbsp; As&nbsp; such they should accept that they have failed and have a post-mortem as&nbsp; to why they screwed things up to the point they needed to undermine the&nbsp; consistency of the game world (which is an entity distinct from their&nbsp; notes) and the players' immersion.3: Split the difference.&nbsp; Tell the&nbsp; players what they should know but the limited communication has&nbsp; prevented them realising.&nbsp; This is a softer version of 2.If&nbsp; you already know how it's going to play out there's no point in playing&nbsp; it out.&nbsp; If the DM has already decided how it is going to play out they&nbsp; should then <a href="http://www.publishingcrawl.com/2013/11/20/kill-your-darlings/" target="_blank">kill their darling</a>, put that section of the notes through the paper shredder, and let the players get on with roleplaying.This is true in exactly the&nbsp; same way that stabbing a knife into a side of beef on the plate is&nbsp; exactly the same thing as stabbing a knife into several hundred pounds&nbsp; of at least soon to be angry bull.&nbsp; One is something people should do&nbsp; every day to eat and the other is dangerous enough to be a spectator&nbsp; sport.&nbsp; And auto-yes is something that rarely happens; PCs are very good at messing things up.That depends how and why you have said no.&nbsp; See Hussar's example.&nbsp; And how arbitrarily you said no.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6306261, member: 87792"] No. You are here assuming two things. 1: Players who care about game world consistency will have characters who don't. 2: There is no such thing as a difficulty modifier. Is it harder for characters showing up at town covered in blood and piss to see the King? [I]Much[/I]. This doesn't mean that it's impossible. And I think the word "impossible" should be reserved for things that are actually impossible. "You can not get in to see the King because [I]the King is not there"[/I]. You mean the stuff that should also be reflected in mechanics but D&D doesn't do? Penalty. Not impossible. And this is cross purposes. I don't think that anyone is advocating getting through by a single roll. No. The assumption is that where the player's sense of what is consistent and viable does not match the DM's [I]it is because the DM has failed to communicate the world clearly[/I]. As such this is either secret information or a straight up failure on the DM's part. As such the DM can do three things. 1: Go with what they communicated rather than what they planned. Canon is what exists in the game world. This enhances immersion and adds richness to the gameworld. 2: Continue with what they were doing. As such they should accept that they have failed and have a post-mortem as to why they screwed things up to the point they needed to undermine the consistency of the game world (which is an entity distinct from their notes) and the players' immersion. 3: Split the difference. Tell the players what they should know but the limited communication has prevented them realising. This is a softer version of 2. If you already know how it's going to play out there's no point in playing it out. If the DM has already decided how it is going to play out they should then [URL="http://www.publishingcrawl.com/2013/11/20/kill-your-darlings/"]kill their darling[/URL], put that section of the notes through the paper shredder, and let the players get on with roleplaying. This is true in exactly the same way that stabbing a knife into a side of beef on the plate is exactly the same thing as stabbing a knife into several hundred pounds of at least soon to be angry bull. One is something people should do every day to eat and the other is dangerous enough to be a spectator sport. And auto-yes is something that rarely happens; PCs are very good at messing things up. That depends how and why you have said no. See Hussar's example. And how arbitrarily you said no. [/QUOTE]

Verification