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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6845539" data-attributes="member: 97077">No, because the the player action declarations are not limited. A player is free to declare whatever he or she wishes. The player whose character is under threat of harm or hindrance narrates the result. In practice, this means that no conflict occurs (or is very short-lived) unless all parties agree to it.Expecting or demanding a player restrict action declarations in accordance with whatever the DM thinks an Intelligence score means is self-evidently a restriction on action declaration. I make no such restrictions in my games.I have no issue with folks thinking the way I do things sucks. It's when they claim their way is right and my way is wrong by some objective measure that I object, as I have done in this thread.Yes, you have made the same incorrect assertion before. They're not closed off from this type of action at all, as I have explained.My method still allows for inter-character conflict, which is what I assume you really mean.Neither do I. In fact, I don't step in at all. The players will work it out on their own.The example was pretty clear in my opinion. It just looks like you're being evasive here. It's a simple question: What about the established fictional situation is complicating the action of turning the dial to "S?" I could see illiteracy being a problem here, but a low Intelligence doesn't mean the character is illiterate. So what is it?In my view, there's nothing complicating it. The player declared an action and I narrate the result "The dial turns to 'S' and the door unlocks." If, as you say, the DM denying the player the ability to make that declaration ("Nope, you're too stupid to do that...") is not acceptable, then what is?</blockquote>

Verification