Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9511566" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Right, and I said how I'd take that and use it as an opportunity. I wouldn't just shut it down... I'd explain that Odin doesn't just tell him because, as it did for Odin, knowledge has a price. As I've said... the DM doesn't need to just give in to a player suggestion. But they also don't need to deny everything. I mean, I'd probably categorize this as a problem of its own. I mean, I'd not be against a mechanical penalty if that's what matters to the player. Let's say Odin demands an eye. Okay... now the PC suffers disadvantage or a penalty on ranged attacks and Perception checks. Or perhaps if that's too harsh, their missing eye occasionally weeps blood and never fully heals, giving them disadvantage or a penalty on Charisma based checks, though it also marks them as touched by the All-Father, so they get advantage or a bonus on Charisma checks with followers of Odin. I mean, there are a lot of ways you can go with it. I am not dismissing what you've said. I accept that it happened and that it is an incredibly common way for such things to be handled. That I personally wouldn't do it that way is not me dismissing it. As you yourself point out ALL THE TIME... differing preferences are not dismissals. You assert your own preferences very often, and claim that you are not dismissing anyone else's when you do so. But if other people assert their preferences, you read that as a dismissal of yours. It's a bit frustrating. I mean, magic that can oppose a god sounds a bit like it violates the rules of the game... or at least the spirit of the setting. It smacks very much of "the DM does not want you to find this thing except how they've already decided you may." If that's not a railroad to you, cool. I personally would feel it leaned that way. That at that point, I'm trying to guess the DM's solution to the problem rather than my own. Now, if your group was satisfied with the way it was handled, then it's all good for you and your group. I am simply offering an alternate view and why I hold that view. The topic of the discussion has been about player authority, stemming from the change in description of rule zero. So my suggestions have been more in line with the new version.</blockquote>

Verification