But everyone can. ANYONE can say 'I leap onto the table' and have the same consideration from the referee.
> Allowing one player to 'dream up' terrain
> isn't dramatic, it's just unrealistic when taken to extremes.
Taken to extremes = straw man argument
> I don't
> mind the "I'll hide behind the furniture" sort, it's the "I'll throw
> the pot of hot soup off the hearth at him" I don't like. If you think
> up hot soup, you find out if it exists first. If the referee agrees,
> THEN you can use it.
Err. Well, if you say 'I throw the hot soup at him', the referee still has the option of saying 'there is no hot soup'. But why say no if a good time is had by all? Allowing players to invent terrain is not the same as the referee discarding control.
Do you allow players to improvise new feats for their affinities?
> Chandeliers are not miraculously conjured out of
> thin air for the use of one player only, unless you're an Illusionist,
> the character (and so the player) should not be allowed to dictate the
> terrain.
Suddenly, the camera angle changes and we see that the ceiling has a chandelier. It was there all along, of course, but we never noticed it before.
> That's the ref's job,
Only if the referee insists so.
> it's part of the scenario, possibly the
> plot.
...
If the referee allows players to invent things that destroy the plot, the referee is an idiot. The referee can say no.
> That's not a restriction on the players' imagination, it's just
> common sense.
I'd say it was common sense to allow players to contribute to scene descriptions in a game that emphasizes a shared approach to storytelling.
Powered by hypermail