NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6103366" data-attributes="member: 42582">I personally don't think in terms of "rights" here, but if I'm obliged to put it in those terms than I don't think the GM has that right. I prefer an approach (of the sort put forward in BW, epecially the Adventure Burner, and also in HeroQuest revised) which emphasises the role of player leads/flags in settling the question of how to frame.It depends a lot on the details, I think.Suppose the PC buys a new horse, then not long after I (as GM) narrate that it loses a shoe and becomes lame. The PC investigates, and I explain to the player that the horse hadn't been properly shoed, and on close inspection seems to have had a previous weakness in its leg. Is that permissible introduction of retrospective facts into the game? I think a lot depends on group expectations, mechanics in play, etc.For instance, if upon buying the horse the PC did a Handle Animal check and succeeded, subsequently introducing the lameness complication would seem pretty poor to me. But if the player didn't both to make the check, what then - is the burden on the player to call for checks (potentially grinding the game to a halt in the same style as checking every square with a 10' pole), or is the burden on the GM to call for checks (leading to the well-known problem of signalling all possible complications in advance by calling for checks), or is all this stuff to be handled via some other tecnique, such as no checks being made until the horse is actually being ridden, and then skill challenge failures get narrated into retropsective facts ("Schroedinger's horseshoes")?Different tables and different systems look for solutions in different places, with various balances of responsibility and power across mechancis, free narration/fiat, etc.In the hireling case, if the players just want to hire the hirelings and clearly aren't interested in playing that out in any detail, I would let them get the hirelings without anything but (depending a bit on system) a reaction roll or something similar to settle price. Whether I then introduced a cowardice or abberation-loyalty complication downstream would depend on all sorts of questions of judgement that can't be reduced to a simple formula. But at that point the role of Sense Motive or something similar to see the treachery/cowardice coming becomes crucial - that's where you can both allow the players to leverage their PCs' resources, and allow them to make choices that will shape the outcome of the situation.</blockquote>

Verification