Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9097093" data-attributes="member: 4937">You aren't really contradicting me.  If there are no rules that punishing you for walking past a rampaging barbarian, then in the constructed universe it's logical to walk past them and characters will.  The constructed reality will be determined not by the reality of our world, but by the reality created by the rules.  And if you as a participant in those games don't like that, then you'll either have to alter the rules or just live with it despite the annoyance.If your rules say that jumping off a 100 foot cliff carries no risk to a character, then logically the character would be willing to in the right circumstances jump off a 100 foot cliff.  The character is behaving according to the logic of the setting.  If you don't like the logic of the setting, then you need different rules.   Throwing a temper tantrum about metagaming or how the character wouldn't do that is just bad GMing.  Those are big blatant examples, but there are also more subtle ones.  Typically, where I see problems is world building based on the real world and a deep understanding of real-world history, but where you are using very different rules than exist for the real world leading to frustration when the PC's start interacting with your world per the rules and "break" the setting in various ways.</blockquote>