No, I'm saying that it's not even a question of Orcus "making the PC" a chosen one, just of the PC being born one or not. Anakin was born the chosen one, nobody else in the galaxy could have gained the power he gained. Sometimes, in particular in the genre, exceptional creatures are born, some end up PCs, other NPCs, but there is no justification for forcing the fact that all could be interchangeable.
And the only thing I'm saying is that sometimes the laws of the universe will permit it (the Lich) and some other times they won't (being born the Chosen One of Evil as a prerequesite).
I claim that there is no law in D&D or in fiction that prevents both being consistent in the world.
But that again doesn't dispute their point. Because if the PC
WAS born the Chosen One, then they'd have the powers. The entire point is that there is consistency in the reasoning for the powers existing, and if there is no reason the PC can't have a certain set of powers, then they should. If the point is "you weren't born the Chosen One of Orcus" then that is fine. If the point is "You are a player character and these abilities are for NPCs" then it isn't fine.
Again, it isn't "everyone must be able to chose to be a Chosen One of Orcus" it is that if a set of power can reasonably be obtained, then it should be available, not arbitrarily gated because of PC vs NPC.
Actually no, he was already a powerful king and sorcerer before this. None of the player characters can decide to be a sorcerer.
And again, probably not. A Ringwraith, very probably, but the witch-king, no. And the same for Sauron. They are simply different, there is no path to becoming a sorcerer or a maia-type for PCs in general, nor is there need to be for it to be consistent.
And Aargon is a powerful King. Not sure what requirements there are for being a Sorcerer in Middle Earth, but it is clearly something you can learn... since the Witch King learned it. And if it magic he was born into, then that falls into a separate thing. You have to be born with that power, and that is more like Sauron.
And sure, Sauron is particular type of being. Which is why Lanefan makes a point of monsters being different. You can't choose to become a Balrog or Glabrezu most of the time, so you can't expect access to their powers. If the point is "you weren't born an Aasimar" then, yeah, you aren't playing an Aasimar, you don't get access to Aasimar abilities. No one is disputing that. You are arguing against the wrong point.
No, again this is not what happened. To took a specific statement and said that I had to be wrong because it does not fit with your idea of the gaming world. I'm sorry, but it's not about details of my life.
I took my memory of your statement of your experience, without checking, and said it might be faulty.
Again. You want to be offended and think I called you a liar, I can't stop you, rage and be upset, but I've explained myself enough times to clear up my intentions.
And again, if it's just a different style, how come this translates into a horror story ?
It seems your specific game that you quit, that you claim wasn't a horror story, isn't a horror story. Shocking, I know, but since you have said it isn't, then there isn't much I can do to say it is. If you think it was a horror story, then share more. If it wasn't, then it wasn't. I don't know what to tell you here.
No, I'm sorry, but claiming that someone is "a Bad DM for railroading by removing player agency" is bad in and of itself. There is no such holy thing as "player agency" and over my rather long TTRPG "career", mu characters have been possessed, charmed, directed and railroaded, and I still had a lot of fun doing it.
Again, you are calling a different playstyle the mark of a "bad DM", and in and of itself, it's bad.
Player Agency does exist. I've never met someone who argued otherwise. Being Possessed and Charmed has nothing to do with the situation. Being directed and being given a choice in whether or not you follow the directions is fine, especially if the DM is clear about the situation.
I do not accept that calling out people for acting badly is bad in and of itself. I also am not calling a different playstyle bad, because if the entire party is on board with being railroaded, then they haven't lost agency, and there is nothing going on.
No, it's YOUR playstyle that refuses to trust a DM with some agency in your character history, and by participating in a DM's campaign, you should trust him anyway. After that, if you did not clarify it with him during session 0, it's at least as much your responsibility as his, because if it was that important to you, you, you, you should have said it at the start, and refused to participate.
This has nothing to do with trust, except for the fact that a DM who violates player agency loses any trust they have established. Framing this that I refuse to trust a DM when 1) I am a DM and often
work with my players to develop their character history 2) I shouldn't have to establish "I want my decisions to matter, and not just be a puppet piece in your novel" because that is the basis of wanting to play the game and make a story together. If I need to spell that out to a DM, then we definitely have a problem.
Sometimes they can, but once more I want to see both sides, especially because once more the DM has a very difficult job in addition to his preparation work, whereas players can just come, sit on their backside and complain.
And a DM can just crack open a pre-written adventure, read it at the table, and do none of the work you associate with the role. And I'm not against seeing both sides, but that is practically impossible unless players and DMs are on the same platform and interact.
And it seems that you are going to give more weight to one side's word than the other.
And on the other hand, you have no problem tossing around "he's a bad DM" and adding this to "DM horror stories".
And if the other players do not speak for you, but remain silent or speak for the DM, does it not tell you something ? That you were the odd one in the game, with just different preferences ? And that you should maybe, just maybe, consider that you were the disruptive one in that game ?
And sometimes it does not work out because of different preferences. Does this make the other people horrible players, worthy of being slandered all over the world ?
And on the other hand, there is an extremely heavy trend of blaming the DM and colporting "DM horror stories". From my experience, yes, the DMs are not perfect, but all I've seen were really trying their best, whereas I've seen tons of naughty word players that just wanted to have their way despite what the rest of the table wanted. And look at Lanefan's story.
I'm not saying that all DMs are blameless, but at least they are, in general, trying to run games for other people, whereas there are lots of players who just want to be entertained.
Horror stories don't come from amicable break ups over different preferences. Most DMs you know were trying their best, and I can respect people who just tried their best. I don't respect the DM who expected me to thank him for ruining the game, making me sick to my stomach with stress, and then exploded and railed at us because he didn't like our style of playing, when he was the guest. You've never experienced that. I'm glad for you.
And you know what, for people who expect to have the majority of the power, the majority of the authority, it is a bit sickening to see them want to take the minority of the blame when things go wrong. "We want all the power, all the trust, and when things go wrong it is because of these lazy entitled players who just expect us to entertain them like we said we would by demanding they trust us and have no say in the game."
Player's shouldn't act "entitled", but that doesn't mean they don't have rights and things that they should expect from the game.
Yep, because unless given cause to distrust the DM (and again, in 42+ years, I don't recall any instance where I was wrong to do this, ever), I just trust him and maybe, just maybe, it's why I did not have trouble with them. Because coming with the attitude of "but the rules say this and this, and I'm therefore entitled to seeing when they are casting a spell and therefore you are wrong" is the best way to appear confrontational and, yes, entitled.
Never said that. I don't want to approach a game as being confrontational. I'm also not a doormat.
But it is, the DM is describing that is happening to a specific character, why can't that annoying guy just wait for his turn, instead of butting in, which apparently he does all the time ? Let him wait for his turn, if he needs more information about playing his character, he can always ask it at that point in time.
At our tables, we multiplied the combat resolution speed by at least a factor 3 by not letting players speak out of turn (unless using reactions, etc.). Not all players were culpable of interrupting and making suggestions and generally slowing down the game and hogging the spotlight, but at least it controlled the most annoying ones.
There is only one DM, there are many players, they all deserve about the same amount of air time, you know, just for fairness and general politeness sake.
Man, your bias is so strong. You do nothing but judge the player because he isn't playing your way.
No, this is not what the rules say. Read them, they are way, way longer and technical.
I know what the rules say, but if the player didn't read them and you only tell them "you can turn into anything bear size or smaller" then it doesn't matter what the rules say, because you have effectively changed them.
But I thought what I had said was no different from reading the rules ? Please make up your mind.
It is rather easy. The player needs to know the rules. Whether they read them, or you altered them fundamentally and just told them to the player, doesn't matter.
No it does not. If you think this, prove it, I think that you will find it extremely difficult to prove, I'll be waiting.
Again, prove it. I'll be waiting.
Prove that the game expects you to follow the rules the game lays out? Um, what more do I need to do that show you that they literally wrote a whole bunch of rules? If they didn't expect people to follow those rules, why bother writing them and laying them out for people to follow? Just a bunch of theater and smoke and mirrors?
I think you are the one who needs to prove that they don't expect people to follow the rules.
Ah, I was waiting for this line. Please prove to me that I'm not playing D&D. Please show me where the designers have put limits about what can be customized in the game and still call it D&D. Again, I'll be waiting a long long time.
Official words, though: "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."
I don't need to show a limit. I just need to pull out my rulebook that says "Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition". This book isn't DnD. If I am playing Savage Worlds I am not playing Dungeons and Dragons. As the GM of a Savage World's game, I can also alter rules and generally have the final say on rules questions.
So, can I solve the problem of the Ship of Theseus? No, I can't solve a famously unsolvable philosophical puzzle. Can I prove that not every single TTRPG is Dungeons and Dragons? Yep. That is trivial.
And again, why do you have to take that to such an extreme ?
Because you have claimed an impossibility. You aren't willing to concede a single step in compromise. And that natural gives rise to extremes, because you've said nothing, no matter what, counts. "Nothing no matter what" includes extreme examples.
And yet you have, because (as with the DM using weighted dice) you are taking things to such an absurd level. Look at HotDQ. There is certainly no handing out of a script, there are plenty of opportunities for roleplaying, getting different results of encounters, and these matter. What feels like railroading to some people is just the fact that each location only points out to one next location, so the string of locations is pre-determined. We are very, very far from your claim.
And still, HotDQ is not that bad, players can have tons of fun even in the first situation, where there are at least 6 or 7 missions that can be done in the town in any order, with consequences from one to the other, etc.
And I have repeatedly said there is nothing wrong with linear adventure design if people have agreed to play that. So, you are right, playing HotDQ is very, very far away from my claim. So, I haven't called HotDQ bad. Again, shocking.
Yeah, right, more hearsay, such a great proof.
I'm not submitting a scientific thesis to a peer reviewed journal. And hearsay can be just fine evidence.
And have you ever considered that even expressing disagreement during the game is extremely disruptive ? That the usual advice is to play the game and if really important, bring it up at the end ?
And this has nothing to do with my point.
And here you go. "poor practices" according to who ? To your holy book of "good practices" ?
General consensus of the Community. Society doesn't need a holy book to function.
And again, you are wrong about this. See the standard social contract above. Nothing in the books say anything about that holy "player agency" of yours. Sometimes, bad guys charm or possess your character. This happens in books and movies and shows. Why is that a huge problem ? Why is that a "bad practice" ?
It isn't. Being affected by a charm or possessed is generally fine. Being possessed to kill your only family, not given a save, and having the DM gleefully describe the scene as he forces you to ruin the things your character held dear... that probably isn't fine.
In fact, we've established at our tables a precedent that you can call certain things off-limits. I had a character who was married, and had left home for years on a job, leaving his young wife alone. His major goal in the game was to get back home, which the DM was cool with. However, I told the DM I had zero interest in a story where the wife had cheated on or left my character. I wanted to have a return home to his loving wife, that was the story I was interested in.
I'm sure you'll say that is me being "entitled" but really, why would you want to force a player into a story they have no interest in? Maybe they don't want their mentor to have secretly been a villain and a monster, sure it is a trope and the DM might think the story is fun, but it is the player's story, so why can't they veto that?
And again, who do you think you are to think that you are right about his need to change to meet YOUR standards of a perfect person. Are you that perfect yourself ? Don't you need to change at all ?
Because, honestly, with this righteous attitude of yours and principles like "I'm entitled to my player agency", I really think that you could use a bit of a reality check on the game and how it can be played differently. Your attitude might be OK for some games, but it does not mean that it's good for others, and considering these other games inferior and in need of "calling them out" because you disagree spells "badwrongfun" all over the place again.
I'm not proud of it, but certainly I needed to have my mind expanded a bit and it was friends (real ones) who gave me a few talks down that I totally deserved before I changed my attitude about the game. And I feel much better about it, although it certainly was painful at the time.
Just think about it, OK ?
ROFLOL.
I am far from perfect. But I can't think of a single person who knows both me and my friend who would say that I was the one who needed to change. I have real friends. Few, to be certain, but I have them. I am well aware of my shortcomings, and my issues.
This isn't one of them.
I also think you need to revisit the word "entitled". Because you know what? In the USA you are entitled to an attorney, by the rule of law. A guy who goes into court and demands to have an attorney who is his vigorous advocate... is 100% correct. You keep throwing around "entitlement" as a dirty word, but there are some things you are entitled to. Freedom of Speech. Life. Ect.
But please, keep trying to psychoanalyze me and tell me how I need to improve myself until I agree with you. It isn't condescending at all.
