Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4017845" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yes and no. But it also frees up the players to contest, in play, the GM's portrayal. For example, what happens if one of the players decides to align her PC with a human sacrifice cult? With mechanical alignment rules we already know the answer - without them, this is something the implications of which have to get resolved at the table.Of course the GM might just say "The Gods strike you down" but that would be fairly poor GMing, I think. Once things unfold in a more likely fashion - NPCs react to the PC in a different way, she finds herself trying to justify her decision to them and/or to her fellow PCs (which means also to the GM, and to her fellow players) - then we have RPGing right there which is driven by the players and not solely by the GM or the designers own choices.I'm not meaning anything very profound by this example - just trying to illustrate one loosening of a bond on players.The question is, why not cast them in stone? I'm sure you have a reason not to. I have my reasons, derived from my own play experience and preferences, for preferring the "cast in stone" approach for at least some locations. As I see it, at least in this respect 4e is being written to better support someone with my preferences.That last sentence is too strong even for me! It's just that the bad events the GM can set up are challenges, not outcomes of those challenges. The latter are to be worked out jointly between the players and the GM, by using the relevant mechanics (including APs and Second Wind).I'm not sure how 4e approaches this issue. It is still true to a significant extent, but we haven't seen what role (if any) players will have in deciding gameworld elements outside their own PCs (eg can players specify mentors, safehavens, guilds etc which the GM is then obliged to incorporate into the gameworld?).Now this is good stuff! Within the logic of 4e, what is wanted is some mechanical way of modelling this (eg half-hearted Orcs never gain Combat Advantage, and/or are easily persuaded to retreat in a social challenge, or whatever) so that the players can take note of it and factor it into their mechanical decision making.The "that said" is doing a lot of work there! Unless your players are desperate, it's always going to be a game shared between the players and GM. What I think 4e is doing is putting more of that sharing into the system. The GM no longer has to guess what his or her players want, because they can (to an extent, at least) produce it themselves in the course of play.</blockquote>

Verification