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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9293704" data-attributes="member: 29398">If the rules of the game are good enough, they reflect the physics of the setting; in which case the characters would, to a point, know the rules just like we know the rules of physics in the real world.What's impractical about a DM roleplaying an NPC well?All I was trying to point out is that other than court trials (of which I've seen at least a few dozen over the years) those sort of situations have IME been either very rare or nonexistent; certainly nowhere near frequent enough to be worth designing a whole new rules subsystem for.  And I say this as a happy designer of new subsystems, when they're justified. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And sure, other tables might hit those sort of big-implication social situations more often.  That said, they rarely if ever come up in published modules I'm familiar with (though I'll quickly admit there's many modules out there I've never read) and IME the published modules usually give at least a vague idea of how play is expected to go in general.  Now I'll also admit that might be a chicken-and-egg thing; the design isn't there because it never comes up, and it never comes up because the design isn't there.Two reasons:1. Many tables won't be able to choose to ignore them; for example, if they were core they'd have to be used in all organized play.2. The rise of player entitlement has made it far easier these days for a DM to add optional things in than to strip core things out.</blockquote>

Verification