Search results

You don't need alignment to have Planes where the concept of abusive and controlling hierarchy is how the reality is built to justify the existence of LE(or vice versa). Pathfinder removed alignment and replaced it with semi-factional cosmic 'Good vs Evil' and it didn't remove every version of...

Nothing. But the fiction of the Warlock is that they do have a sacrifice/payment to get their powers, whether or not those powers are better than those who didn't bargain for it is a secondary concern to Micah

If everyone in the table ended up not following the premise of the campaign then the premise of the campaign must be wrong then 🤷‍♂️. Sure if 1 or two are against it then it's fine to reprimand them fromnot following the path, but if everyone's pushing left then left is where the campaign will go.

And that's exactly what happens anyway. If the table as a whole wants Coffee Shopping than Slaying Strahd is going to be a pain for both parties in the end, better turn Strahd into the corporate magnate that wants to shut down that shop.

If a game asks you to be king later on, it should start you of as a village chief. This is the fundamental problem of Domain play in DnD.

I'm glad you agree that alignment is bad.

Not if a game rule says so. If a GM can take away a major source of power or even characterization of a PC through rules on a whim, then a player table can do those thing to a GM's precious setting through rules by consensus. Which, I remind you, is very much harder.

And a GM whose a tyrant is the same thing.

Clearly the best way to do this is that the players can, once per campaign and if they're all in consensus, decide that whatever challenge or setting element or character infront of them is not up-to snuff and have it be skipped over or retconned out. This is the price I'm setting for alignment...

Rules to me are, fundamentally, mental toys--the reason for each existing is that both create a different gameplay experience on the table and in char-building. They're there to also inspire players to create an in-fiction construct of themes and aesthetic they're into, but that's a secondary...

Well I don't need directors and lead writers in my table so.....

And is a ROleplaying something of a great scale? Yeah, you contribute but the leader isn't infallible and neither is that direction something that only those who agree and create it have a say in.

Seems like a good thing that that DM authority has become more and more questioned then.

and DM has made a mistake if the group decides to go to the Isle of Dread but then next session retcons it so that they go to the Mountains of Death.

I think music bands and most creative production do have a less strict hierarchy. Like in some of those groups the Leadership is a collective, and we have the word tyrant for a reason. And there's plenty of shared group leadership in Video Games development. Most importantly they are small...

Well that's a ludicrous opinion in my eyes. Imagine if a stealth game's progression makes your skin more bulletproof and your guns bigger and explodier but treats anytime you get into a gunfight as a failure in play.

Partially yes, that is part of the social contract no? Here's my end of the bargain; Participation, politeness, and respect of the world and scenario you created with the payment that I have final say over my character.

I don't see how a GM prevents that in my experience.

Then the otherway around, is Alice Is Missing reflects a more selfish society? Why is a GM game more collaborative than a GMless? Doesn't a lack of GM means that everyone will have to at least shoulder some responsibility instead of letting the GM control and create everything on its own?

Do you think Alice is Missing promoted more selfish society than DnD?