Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7377146" data-attributes="member: 42582">You said what [the player] decides may or may not truly be the best way. In other words, the player's action declarations following his/her decision as to how his/her PC will further his/her goal don't determine that matter.And I'm 99% sure that you don't have in mind the possibiity that the player's chosen approach may turn out to be a mistake because eg an aura reading check fails; because I'm 99% sure you dont' run a system in which these elements of setting are established as consequences of checks rather than inputs into them.This looks very similar. The resolution of the theft of the necklace is not established with finality. The GM is the one who is making decisions about whether the lord hires a wizard, where the wizard walks and detecs, etc. This is not being done as part of consequence narration, or as the setting of stakes in scene framing.A contrast would be the resolution of this as a skill challenge in 4e: at a certain point, for instance, the GM might narrate - as part of the framing of a check during the course of resolution - "Word reaches you that a wizard is wasndering the stressts, apparently looking for an enchanted item." The player can then declare an action to indicate how s/he overcomes this obstacle (anything from a Streetwise check to stay ahead of the wziard, or some sort of magical action to conceal the magic of the necklace, as takes the player's fantasy and fits the fiction of his/her PC and whatever is already established about genre and setting). If the skill challenge eventually succeeds, that is finality: the PC's theft of the necklace has defeated the lord's attempt to recover it.Of cousre if the player deliberately restakes it, that's a different matter. But walking around in it is probably not going to be an instance of that - as opposed to, say, trying to use it to pay off a debt to the self-same lord!</blockquote>

Verification