Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8649520" data-attributes="member: 71699">I'd like to take a closer look at this. First let's confirm that a rumour is - a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth. There shouldn't be a path to a false rumour, because rumours are never guaranteed veracious. However, what I feel the intuition here suggests is something reasonably straightforwardWhen I readMy intuitive response is always &quot;Huh? What's at stake is getting dirt on the supervillain!&quot; But one can reply &quot;Sure, but you don't know/guarantee that the safe is a means to that, right?&quot; One ordinary response in line with your Traveller example is &quot;I do know/guarantee, because player did something else to lock in that content: they used social skills to get information from lackeys confirming the location of the dirt. It's in this safe. That's why we're here.&quot;Of course, I can come back to that with &quot;Sure, but it's still not really guaranteed, is it?!&quot; I believe that will generate a sense of not really getting it from many DMs. It comes down to principles. One set of principles has it that efforts by players can constrain or lock in content. That can come as description or description and system, such as social interaction.I can picture a possible Traveller GM (not one I'd like) chuckling and pointing out that &quot;rumours&quot; are not facts, and the safe is empty. Gotcha! Alternatively, and in a wide ranges of RPGs, I can picture a GM working with player on a narrative/system path to this specific safe, that has the dirt in it. A gotcha at this point, as I hope is evident from that first possible GM, would for many groups break their social contract... make the GM a spoilsport.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8649520, member: 71699"] I'd like to take a closer look at this. First let's confirm that a rumour is - a currently circulating story or report of [B]uncertain [/B]or [B]doubtful [/B]truth. There shouldn't be a path to a false rumour, because rumours are never guaranteed veracious. However, what I feel the intuition here suggests is something reasonably straightforward When I read My intuitive response is always "[I]Huh? What's at stake is getting dirt on the supervillain![/I]" But one can reply "[I]Sure, but you don't know/guarantee[/I] [I]that the safe is a means to that, right?[/I]" One ordinary response in line with your Traveller example is "[I]I do know/guarantee, because player did something else to lock in that content: they used social skills to get information from lackeys confirming the location of the dirt. It's in this safe. That's why we're here.[/I]" Of course, I can come back to that with "[I]Sure, but it's still not really [U]guaranteed[/U], is it?![/I]" I believe that will generate a sense of not really getting it from many DMs. It comes down to principles. One set of principles has it that efforts by players can constrain or lock in content. That can come as description or description and system, such as social interaction. I can picture a possible Traveller GM (not one I'd like) chuckling and pointing out that "rumours" are not facts, and the safe is empty. Gotcha! Alternatively, and in a wide ranges of RPGs, I can picture a GM working with player on a narrative/system path to [I]this[/I] specific safe, that has the dirt in it. A gotcha at this point, as I hope is evident from that first possible GM, would for many groups break their social contract... make the GM a spoilsport. [/QUOTE]

Verification