Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8227078" data-attributes="member: 16814">There has to be a very bad communication breakdown, here.&nbsp;&nbsp; Let me see if I can find out where we've broken down, because this seems to be a very strange argument.Which of these do you have the problem with (it can be more than one):1.&nbsp; There is an undetected guard atop the wall, as detailed in the GM's prep.2.&nbsp; This guard automatically sees the climber when then crest the top of the wall, because they have a clear view of them in this situation.3.&nbsp; That this guard then raises the alarm that the PC hoped to avoid by climbing the wall.I think that once we nail this down, we can probably proceed.&nbsp; I mean, I don't think that your position is that there cannot be a guard on the wall because that would violate the goal of the action declaration.&nbsp; If it is -- if you're talking about it being bad faith to NOT change prep because it would violate the player's goal for an action, then I'm struggling to understand why you're running D&amp;D and not a game that does this kind of play better.&nbsp; Or, maybe it's that you think that the GM should just skip straight to the narration of the guard atop the wall raising the alarm, because you called for a check?&nbsp; That's an interesting take, although I'm not sure you're going to actually get a lot of traction on the with the D&amp;D players -- there was a very recent thread about climbing a tower with a rope where the majority of posters felt that the physical act of climbing absolutely required the check, regardless of goal, so they'd absolutely call for the check to see if the wall was climbed and the goal to avoid notice wouldn't have been part of what the check was meant to resolve.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8227078, member: 16814"] There has to be a very bad communication breakdown, here. Let me see if I can find out where we've broken down, because this seems to be a very strange argument. Which of these do you have the problem with (it can be more than one): 1. There is an undetected guard atop the wall, as detailed in the GM's prep. 2. This guard automatically sees the climber when then crest the top of the wall, because they have a clear view of them in this situation. 3. That this guard then raises the alarm that the PC hoped to avoid by climbing the wall. I think that once we nail this down, we can probably proceed. I mean, I don't think that your position is that there cannot be a guard on the wall because that would violate the goal of the action declaration. If it is -- if you're talking about it being bad faith to NOT change prep because it would violate the player's goal for an action, then I'm struggling to understand why you're running D&D and not a game that does this kind of play better. Or, maybe it's that you think that the GM should just skip straight to the narration of the guard atop the wall raising the alarm, because you called for a check? That's an interesting take, although I'm not sure you're going to actually get a lot of traction on the with the D&D players -- there was a very recent thread about climbing a tower with a rope where the majority of posters felt that the physical act of climbing absolutely required the check, regardless of goal, so they'd absolutely call for the check to see if the wall was climbed and the goal to avoid notice wouldn't have been part of what the check was meant to resolve. [/QUOTE]

Verification