Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9098718" data-attributes="member: 70468">I was expecting something about seeking permission, but the only requirement is that stakes and consequences have to follow from what’s been established already in the game world, and they have to be within the capabilities of those performing them (either the PC attempting the Skill Check or the agents enacting the consequences). If it’s that there’s some back and forth before we arrive at understanding of what is to be resolved, then okay. That’s a negotiation.Sure, and it’s happened. Until the dice are rolled, the Skill Check is incomplete and the situation in the game world has not changed. A <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/commentary-thread-for-that-“describe-your-game-in-five-words”-thread.682741/post-8987093" target="_blank">couple of sessions ago</a>, Deirdre wanted to scout the area around their camp. When I pointed out that she risked drawing the attention of raiders who were looking for them, she decided not to go ahead with it. Of course, nothing stop sone of the other PCs from barreling forward anyway, and that’s what happened. Dingo went up in the tree, and the raiders noticed a little, anthro fox guy up in a tree.That seems preferable to the situation where the player declares an action and rolls, the GM narrates the result, and the player is upset because the result didn’t match the mental model of the game state they had. The point of foregrounded consequences and transparent resolution is to make sure everyone is on the same page about the game state, what’s at stake, and what’s at risk.Something like Pathfinder 2e’s skill system with various actions and activities defined for skills (except presumably with some kind of standard for determining DC rather than what level of challenge the GM wants)?</blockquote>

Verification