Quote:
Originally Posted by FeiLin
That’s what I’m trying to emulate: haggling situations with high stakes and high uncertainty. Yes, I know that unknown goods give -3 to reactions, and yes, I understand – even agree with most of – the comments in this thread. If GM fiat is the best solution, so be it. Perhaps it’s best to “throw [RAW] away”, anyway, as per SE73, but I still want to understand the RAW to explore possibilities. I find it preferable to have robust rules to fall back on, allowing the GM (me) to focus on portraying the interactions (especially in what I want to achieve here).
|
Well, I think we all often think we'd like a good rule to handle a situation and perhaps in this case you may be right. I think though that such thinking in general can lead to rules that are cumbersome and unwieldly. The reason for many that ttrpg's will never be replaced by computer games is the GM. So it's not a "bad" think if the GM uses his common sense on occasion and makes a ruling. That is the game working as intended.
Now given the initial reaction roll was affected but you are finely parsing the rules after that and not seeing a satisfactory result, I think you as GM just applying the "principles" from the rule would be fine.
Never let a bunch of rules lawyers try to dictate the reality of your campaign. I tell my players up front that anything relating to rules that their "characters" know are just the best guesstimates about how things work. So if they see something right before their eyes that seems to contradict their understanding of the way the world works, like good scientists they should reevaluate based on new observation data.