Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TaranTheWanderer" data-source="post: 7976625" data-attributes="member: 15882">This says a lot of what I wanted to say.  (I'm finding hard to keep up with the layers of text and who is defending what point)My point previously is that allowing players some narrative control doesn't have to be limited with certain games that have mechanics tied to it.  The games with mechanics tied to narrative control (such as spending a Fate Point to give a player narrative control of a scene aspect) just focuses more on that angle of the game.  The fact that 5e doesn't have mechanics (though, I'd argue, that's exactly the intent of Inspiration), it doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't run a game that way.  It is just another style and/or tool in a GMs toolbox.Narrative games like FATE usually involve the GM creating an adventure with a specific plot and Red Herrings and Set Pieces the same as a D&D module.  So, even in a narrative game, the GM often has to decide what is possible(like the difficulty of declarations or skill checks.)  But that's the job of a referee in most games.  Having run both games for 15+years, I find there's a lot of cross-over.In the end, The players took narrative control by attacking the Lord.  While there were no FATE-mechanics to 'compel' the players to use diplomacy, asking them if they'd want to knock the Lord out or asking them if they thought there would be a more interesting outcome than 'the Lord is dead' is just a style of running the game. That said, I think this was a very interesting outcome and it might have been the desired outcome even if the DM had asked the players.</blockquote>

Verification