Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6834808" data-attributes="member: 6787503">No, just Intellgence-based. I get it, and I think that's a double standard. On this we agree. This is not a great analogy. In an RPG, a player identifies with and advocates for his/her character at the table. This puts the player in a very different position from a screenwriter who is not only writing the character of Otto, but every other character and plot element in the story. This is much closer to what the DM does in creating an NPC to fulfill some role or other, determining what the character does and doesn't know as it relates to the plot. But for argument's sake, let's say John Cleese is playing the Intelligence 5 PC Otto in a game of D&D, and knowledge about the true nature of the Underground becomes relevant to the plot during gameplay. Should player Cleese be expected to sublimate his own knowledge of the Underground and give Otto his erroneous idea so that some other character with higher Intelligence can be the one to reveal what everyone at the table probably already knows? If knowing and acting on what the Underground is is that important to the plot then it would have served the game better for the DM to choose a piece of information about the game world that isn't known to the players at the table, and put the acquisition of that knowledge behind an Intelligence check of appropriate difficulty.</blockquote>