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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7501747" data-attributes="member: 57112">It's because I wasn't explaining myself very well.So in games and systems with a lot of built-in world-building and lore, or where the onus on world-building and lore is on the GM, there will always inevitably (if not frequently) be a gap between player knowledge and character knowledge. Because players should be able to have their characters act on their knowledge, gatekeeping character knowledge behind character action is a poor mechanic, for all of the reasons I described up-thread. Such gatekeeping actively inhibits player agency.In systems where the art of world and lore-building are shared by all at the table (and not just in occassional one-off example, but where this deliberately built into the system, again using Dresden Files as the typical example), player agency regarding character knowledge is much more desirable (if not necessary). <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance" target="_blank"></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance" target="_blank">[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance</a>[/URL]Unless  the statue is hidden in some corner of the room or like... really  really tiny, or otherwise obscured (like... it's one statue out of  twelve with a minor discrepancy) the idea that my character would know  something about the statue and not immediately notice said statue is  absurd. If the statue is one of the only significant features in the  room, and you still force me to declare that I am looking at the statue  and actively recalling any knowledge I might have as to what it  represents, that will annoy me to no end.I'm not trying to  badwrongfun anything, if that's the way the two of you play and it works  for your players that's your prerogative. But stop trying to pretend  that it isn't gatekeeping character knowledge; it is. You as DM have  knowledge, the characters might also have that knowledge, but you don't  give it to them until the player declares a specific set of actions. If  they don't, there's no chance at all that the character would have that  knowledge. I'm not sure how much closer to the literal definition of  gatekeeping you expect to get. Again, if that works for you and your  table, more power to you.You and iserith might say that me calling for your character to make a knowledge roll would be a deal-breaker for you, as a player. Your gatekeeping of character knowledge behind player action is... well it's not exactly a deal-breaker for me (it would be endlessly annoying, even if I eventually got somewhat used to it), but it is indicative of a certain exacting style of DMing that, if present in aggregate, would be. And as I stated way up-thread back when this conservation was still on its original topic, there's very little that would get me to actually walk away from a game. A game which is not fun for me would be one of those.</blockquote>

Verification