Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7599912" data-attributes="member: 42582">This probably could have been in the same post as just upthread, but I didn't think of it first time round.Couldn't my example be done as a CHA check? With success/failure narrated along the lines you sketched upthread - success is fond memories and letting the PCs through; failure is either mistaken identity, or what about my poker money, etc.Is the (or one) issue that it might be hard to set a proper DC? I'll admit I haven't thought that through, but it doesn't seem too big a hurdle.I'll agree that table dynamics can get strained if the players push too hard in establishing fiction, but the same is true if the GM does: &quot;rocks fall&quot; is obviously at the absurd end, but I think most of us have heard stories of, and at least in my own case I've experienced multiple instances of, games failing because GMs couldn't get player buy in for the fiction they wanted to establish. In the player case just as in the GM case, I feel that this is something that robust table relationships should be able to handle.And to respond to a possible question, namley, why bother, that is, why not just declare that the PC talks to the guard without adding in the extra fiction? For me, a major reason is that the tendency towards a lack of PC situatedness is in my view one of the suckiest tendencies in D&amp;D. REH did it in his Conan stories for particular narrative reasons, but making it ubiquitous is something I really don't like. Oriental Adventures tried to tackle this in the mid-80s, and I'd like to think that D&amp;D has made some progress in this regard in the intervening 30-odd years.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7599912, member: 42582"] This probably could have been in the same post as just upthread, but I didn't think of it first time round. Couldn't my example be done as a CHA check? With success/failure narrated along the lines you sketched upthread - success is fond memories and letting the PCs through; failure is either mistaken identity, or [I]what about my poker money[/I], etc. Is the (or one) issue that it might be hard to set a proper DC? I'll admit I haven't thought that through, but it doesn't seem too big a hurdle. I'll agree that table dynamics can get strained if the players push too hard in establishing fiction, but the same is true if the GM does: "rocks fall" is obviously at the absurd end, but I think most of us have heard stories of, and at least in my own case I've experienced multiple instances of, games failing because GMs couldn't get player buy in for the fiction they wanted to establish. In the player case just as in the GM case, I feel that this is something that robust table relationships should be able to handle. And to respond to a possible question, namley, why bother, that is, why not just declare that the PC talks to the guard without adding in the extra fiction? For me, a major reason is that the tendency towards a lack of PC situatedness is in my view one of the suckiest tendencies in D&D. REH did it in his Conan stories for particular narrative reasons, but making it ubiquitous is something I really don't like. Oriental Adventures tried to tackle this in the mid-80s, and I'd like to think that D&D has made some progress in this regard in the intervening 30-odd years. [/QUOTE]

Verification