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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9748825" data-attributes="member: 6790260">My assertion is that, all too often, they don't.Because the GM assumed that that was part of the "social contract" and thus beneath discussion, and the player couldn't have possibly known to ask, because nothing in the rules makes even a hint of the possibility, and the fluff text is fluid and ambiguous to begin with.That's--again--why the "social contract" argument falls so flat. It is functionally saying, "All the rules we need are completely obvious to every single person at the table, so we can just never say anything about them, and everything will be fine." No, everything will not be fine. A lot of things will go wrong, actually, because you're going to be constantly bumping into things that one side or the other thought were so boneheaded obvious that no one could ever even theoretically think differently, and the other side literally never even conceived of the possibility that that someone might think that way.Because yes! I have seen this. Many, many times. Far too many to think that it is somehow a bizarre trait I personally have. Far too many times from friends, acquaintances, reports on the internet, discussions on this forum and others, etc.Communication is absolutely vital. It is the only way anything actually gets figured out. Rules are one of the tools--arguably the most important tool--for how we communicate anything about a game. "Social contracts" are inherently hidden from view, invisible, unspoken. Trying to navigate by a map you can't see is not going to produce very many safe landings.</blockquote>

Verification