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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8142312" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yes, you tool of the Capitalists!I think the counterargument has two parts. Combat, and any other analogous subsystem, presents randomized inputs into the system, which some versions of D&D (pre-2e) present as being fairly sacrosanct (I think Gygax would say that the only license a DM has to fudge is if the rules produce a patently absurd result). Later versions famously tell the DM to fudge things, and other non-D&D games of this ilk take various positions, or more generally don't address the topic at all. So, the player has a right to expect that the details of if the orc hits, or of what happens when he climbs the cliff, are dependent on a factor which is out of all the game's participants control, chance. In some of these games the player may be empowered to either completely or partly obviate chance by virtue of some resource or specific 'power' granted to their character. Normally this would be flavored with some genre-appropriate in-game explanation, but again a few games allocate this as a player resource.Outside of these randomization points, the DM simply dictates everything which happens, except the PC's in-game actions. Anything beyond that will then venture into the territory of 'players deciding game content'. The argument here, and above, being that player input in the form of the PC's actions is 'enough' to shape the narrative however they want, with the exception of whatever happens by chance. Of course, you and I and others disagree with that assertion, or at least it isn't satisfying enough.</blockquote>

Verification