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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7358905" data-attributes="member: 16814">Sure, you had all of the assumptions! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I think, again, it's a bad comparison because the intent and declaration are outside of the scope of the model -- the model is that there is only the maze, but the declaration both presents something outside of the maze and a way to achieve it, neither of which are part of the model.  It's like searching the study for a ray gun - it breaks the assumptions of the game.  In doing so, it doesn't represent what you intended it to represent, and actually takes on characteristics that go against the model of player-facing games and right into some of the easy but incorrect criticisms made against player facing play, ie, that the players can just make up whatever they want.As such, your example does more against your point that for it.No, I understand all of that, I pointed it out because, given the simple model, the player declaring that there is a yuan-ti jungle in a world defined as only a twisty maze is introducing their own challenge and the fiction necessary to support it, ie that the spherical cow now has a tumor that's yuan-ti jungle shaped.  And then the player proposes their own solution to this inserted problems with the declaration of a secret door.  There's a mechanical check, which prevents a complete violation, but a success looks very much like one and a failure leaves the problem of whether or not the cow tumor yuan-ti jungle is negated as well.</blockquote>

Verification