Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8476737" data-attributes="member: 71699">If I follow you correctly, I have some reflections in that direction.We've talked about a PC being unable to decide to do something that their character can't do, like fly if they lack any validated means to do so. By &quot;validated&quot; I mean that something about the game-world and rules says they can do it. Everyone is okay with that. The game isn't freeform, there are tonnes of things players can't decide that their characters do. Let's call those limits.We've also seen what player characters know explained something like this. A player character who fails an insight check against an NPC's deception doesn't know that they are lying. The idea is that a DM can't tell the player what their character thinks, so cannot say that they think the NPC is telling the truth. This becomes difficult to unpack in the case of a disguise, where a player character must in some sense be thinking that apparent-Lord Frogmouth is actual-Lord Frogmouth. It's hard to see how they can simply lack possession of any facts to the contrary because they surely posses some collection of facts that says apparent-Frogmouth is not anyone else but actual-Frogmouth. I'd love someone to explain to me how identity can be asserted without appeal to anything the player character must think?Still, it seems to me that there should be something we could insert here that supplements the general rule (just as perhaps limits supplies the general rule with the formal carve out.) Any thought what that could be?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8476737, member: 71699"] If I follow you correctly, I have some reflections in that direction. We've talked about a PC being unable to decide to do something that their character can't do, like fly if they lack any validated means to do so. By "validated" I mean that something about the game-world and rules says they can do it. Everyone is okay with that. The game isn't freeform, there are tonnes of things players can't decide that their characters do. Let's call those [B]limits[/B]. We've also seen what player characters know explained something like this. A player character who fails an insight check against an NPC's deception doesn't know that they are lying. The idea is that a DM can't tell the player what their character thinks, so cannot say that they think the NPC is telling the truth. This becomes difficult to unpack in the case of a disguise, where a player character must in some sense be thinking that apparent-Lord Frogmouth is actual-Lord Frogmouth. It's hard to see how they can simply lack possession of any facts to the contrary because they surely posses some collection of facts that says apparent-Frogmouth is not anyone else but actual-Frogmouth. I'd love someone to explain to me how identity can be asserted without appeal to anything the player character must think? Still, it seems to me that there should be something we could insert here that supplements the general rule (just as perhaps limits supplies the general rule with the formal carve out.) Any thought what that could be? [/QUOTE]

Verification