Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7598950">Ah, ok.&nbsp; Then that's something else.&nbsp; I was misled by your focus on the word &quot;would&quot;, which seemed to be a concern not about allocation of roles but fairness of adjudication.&nbsp; Which definitely seems to be a concern of some other posters: their primary concern is that players will be greedy, or DMs will be arbitrary and/or manipulable, and seem to want rules systems that are designed to prevent bad play.&nbsp; To me, that's simply a trust issue.&nbsp; Untrustworthy players will find ways to be untrustworthy regardless of the system, so I find it easier to just not play with those people.I find their position puzzling.&nbsp; Sort of like being opposed to...oh, let's say freedom of speech, just because some people will say hateful things.&nbsp; Yeah, they will.&nbsp; But dealing with them is vastly preferable to not having that freedom. (Ok, against the best advice I've received I've now let that analogy loose in this thread...can't wait to see how it's tortured and abused to prove that I'm contradicting myself.)But if we're talking about boundaries, mine are basically the same as @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=97077" target="_blank">iserith</a>'s, although...I'm hazarding a guess, here...I think mine are a little looser. I welcome players adding to the fiction outside of their character, especially if it's about their background; not sure if iserith does that.In last night's session some low level characters encountered a partially used necklace of fireballs.&nbsp; One of the players announced he was going OOC and said, &quot;I'm pretty sure I know what this is but I don't think my character would know.&quot;&nbsp; I said that's cool, he can have his character know or not know; it's all the same to me. But if he chooses to know, maybe he also knows why. The player said, &quot;Ahhh...&quot; and immediately invented a 'well-known' fairy tale from his homeland.Another player (first time at my table; he kept saying things like, &quot;I'll use Insight...&quot;) wanted to know if he had any friends/associates in the city who might have some particular information.&nbsp; I said, &quot;Describe this friend.&quot;&nbsp; He did and...poof!...that friend existed.&nbsp; I added some personality, the player added a name, I added the backstory to the name, and by the end of the session this character was fully integrated (and completely annoying) in the adventure.But I'm not sure I can give a concrete, specific rule for when it's ok for players to add details to the world outside of their own character.&nbsp; New players just have to listen to what other's do, and participate.&nbsp; If somebody is too hesitant I'll ask for details (&quot;describe the friend&quot;) and if somebody goes too far over the boundary I'll work with it but give some feedback, too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7598950"] Ah, ok. Then that's something else. I was misled by your focus on the word "would", which seemed to be a concern not about allocation of roles but fairness of adjudication. Which definitely seems to be a concern of some other posters: their primary concern is that players will be greedy, or DMs will be arbitrary and/or manipulable, and seem to want rules systems that are designed to prevent bad play. To me, that's simply a trust issue. Untrustworthy players will find ways to be untrustworthy regardless of the system, so I find it easier to just not play with those people. I find their position puzzling. Sort of like being opposed to...oh, let's say freedom of speech, just because some people will say hateful things. Yeah, they will. But dealing with them is vastly preferable to not having that freedom. (Ok, against the best advice I've received I've now let that analogy loose in this thread...can't wait to see how it's tortured and abused to prove that I'm contradicting myself.) But if we're talking about boundaries, mine are basically the same as @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=97077"]iserith[/URL][/U][/B][/I]'s, although...I'm hazarding a guess, here...I think mine are a little looser. I welcome players adding to the fiction outside of their character, especially if it's about their background; not sure if iserith does that. In last night's session some low level characters encountered a partially used necklace of fireballs. One of the players announced he was going OOC and said, "I'm pretty sure I know what this is but I don't think my character would know." I said that's cool, he can have his character know or not know; it's all the same to me. But if he chooses to know, maybe he also knows why. The player said, "Ahhh..." and immediately invented a 'well-known' fairy tale from his homeland. Another player (first time at my table; he kept saying things like, "I'll use Insight...") wanted to know if he had any friends/associates in the city who might have some particular information. I said, "Describe this friend." He did and...poof!...that friend existed. I added some personality, the player added a name, I added the backstory to the name, and by the end of the session this character was fully integrated (and completely annoying) in the adventure. But I'm not sure I can give a concrete, specific rule for when it's ok for players to add details to the world outside of their own character. New players just have to listen to what other's do, and participate. If somebody is too hesitant I'll ask for details ("describe the friend") and if somebody goes too far over the boundary I'll work with it but give some feedback, too. [/QUOTE]

Verification