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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8156806" data-attributes="member: 7016699">Yes. I think some understandings are baked into the games, and others are baked into people's preferences regarding games and/or playstyles. I think it's plausible you and I don't have radically different ideas about good faith play/GMing, though we have, I suspect, markedly different preferences as regard playstyle and systems. I'm pretty sure neither of us is entirely wrong;Aren't the Dragonlance modules a pretty notorious railroad? I've never played them (or, for that matter, read the books) but it's my impression that the modules are pretty specifically about giving players a chance to experience the books as a D&D campaign. Given my feelings about books and TRPG play being very different types and experiences of fiction, that seems like a very, very bad idea.That said, I agree that killing one of the main characters of the books, early in a campaign through those modules, would almost certainly be against the players' expectations (and probably the DM's, too).That is consistent with your descriptions of play. You mentioned early that plausibility-checking in TRPGs is interesting, and I agree; how is it handled in BW--who, if anyone, could say it was implausible for there to be a secret door in that wall? Also, if the GM ended up narrating (IIRC, because the player failed at the action-resolution check) I believe their options would include "there's not a secret door" as well as "there's a secret door and  you can't open it" or "there's a secret door and it leads to something even worse," yes?I think there's a case for all three being in the realm of fiction-framing. Which, in D&D, means they're placed by the DM, yes.</blockquote>

Verification