Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Big J Money" data-source="post: 6812548" data-attributes="member: 70533">[MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]Your post was very well-written and easy to understand, thanks.I have a question for you about what some people call &quot;ret-conning&quot;.&nbsp; What if this happened at the game table: Melias the thief missed an earlier conversation about a large gem kept in a secret stash behind one of the rocks that make up the base of an altar.&nbsp; During a long fight with a guardian in the altar room, the thief slips away and goes straight for the altar and begins inspecting it, because the player knew about the conversation.&nbsp; The player didn't do this to take the gem for himself; he did it because in case the fight went poorly, the party would at least get away with some treasure.The player realizes that characters should act off their own desires, so he says,&nbsp; &quot;Melias believed that the altar was the most distinctive furnishing in the room, and so he thought there might be some important secret there.&nbsp; That's why he inspected it.&quot;&nbsp; This is a plausible explanation, and we'll never know if the thief would have tried this if the player had not heard the conversation; however it's clear that the initial motivating force here was based on player knowledge.&nbsp; And later the reasoning was &quot;ret-conned&quot;.How much would this situation bother you, if at all?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Big J Money, post: 6812548, member: 70533"] [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] Your post was very well-written and easy to understand, thanks. I have a question for you about what some people call "ret-conning". What if this happened at the game table: [I]Melias the thief missed an earlier conversation about a large gem kept in a secret stash behind one of the rocks that make up the base of an altar. During a long fight with a guardian in the altar room, the thief slips away and goes straight for the altar and begins inspecting it, because the [I]player[/I] knew about the conversation. The player didn't do this to take the gem for himself; he did it because in case the fight went poorly, the party would at least get away with some treasure.[/I] The player realizes that characters should act off their own desires, so he says, "Melias believed that the altar was the most distinctive furnishing in the room, and so he thought there might be some important secret there. That's why he inspected it." This is a plausible explanation, and we'll never know if the thief would have tried this if the player had not heard the conversation; however it's clear that the initial motivating force here was based on player knowledge. And later the reasoning was "ret-conned". How much would this situation bother you, if at all? [/QUOTE]

Verification