Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9512226" data-attributes="member: 6785785">But who here has suggested that allies can just swoop in and solve all problems? Not anyone advocating for the kind of approach I'm talking about. As a player, why would I want to render all the challenges obsolete? It would be boring play. For all the talk of setting being important... wouldn't NPC allies fall into that category? They're part of the setting. They are one of the ways the PCs connect to the setting. They are, in my opinion, pretty vital. As play progresses, the characters are likely to accumulate allies. Why would these allies not assist them? Where is the setting logic in that? I tend to look at allies... whether gods or underlings or nobles or whatever... as something earned in play. They're rewards for playing well. You help these people out, they owe you a favor. You save the Duchy, the Duke's your boy. And so on. As such, I really don't see them as different than a spell. So I don't mind when they're used in a similar manner to the way a spell would be. Like locating an object. Or obtaining an asset. Providing safety. Vouching for you. And so on. And yes, of course any and all NPCs should have their own commitments, concerns, and goals that should factor into this. No one is saying otherwise. And they can also be a burden, too. They can make demands. They can require help. They can get themselves or the PCs into trouble. I don't think anyone really wants a bunch of "I win buttons" they can deploy at will. They want to feel like their character and their relationships are just as important to the setting as any other setting element. Except in the example I gave, Odin was not the ultimate trump card. I suggested that Odin provide the location of an item warded against scrying. That's it. How is that a trump card? Now the PCs know where it is... they still have to get it. I also said he would demand a price. Because Odin's a dick. You'd think I suggested the DM go along with the player saying "Hey Odin, can you go get this hidden phylactery for me? I'll be in the tavern... let me know when you have it!" It's ridiculous. And the specifics of the example aren't really what's important so much as the idea that DM's don't need to simply shut down player ideas which may at first seem problematic to them. They can be worked with. Not necessarily granted in their entirety, but they can serve as a prompt to something different and unexpected. Something more collaborative. Imagine if DMs took player ideas and treated them as relevant as their own prep. I think for many people it absolutely is caring about the setting over the characters. And I don't mean to categorize that as something bad. It's simply a preference. But I think it tends to put the focus on the material the DM has prepared and the world that they've built as paramount. The characters are less important in those instances for sure. And I think you do have a point that other games make this kind of thing easier. I mean, yes... many are designed with this approach in mind. And D&D does default to heavily relying on prepped material, which only causes people to hold their prep above other things, which makes player contribution less likely... like a feedback loop. But it's definitely not impossible... I've done it, and the setting actually didn't suffer for it. There was no incoherence that resulted, no continuity conflicts, no players skimping their way to victory... all these concerns just aren't as valid as they are being portrayed. This is the way I was looking at it. If my character goes from level 1 to 20 and doesn't start racking up favors and friendships along the way (along with enemies and debts, too) I don't see how the world would seem real. Especially if the PCs are the heroic sort who help save the day.</blockquote>

Verification