NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8286733" data-attributes="member: 6785785">So let me ask you something. Let's say I'm running 5E D&D and I have a PC who's some kind of chosen one type character. He's got a greater destiny and is working toward that destiny. It's baked into his character at the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, & Flaws level, and it comes up regularly in play; many of the adventures that the character gets up to are about learning this destiny, and moving toward it.I think this is a common enough trope that I think we all get it. So let's say we're a few levels in....it's clear this kid is meant to be a big hero, and the campaign villain is connected to him, and a lot of the events in the fiction revolve around these concepts. The bad guys largely know he is some kind of chosen one and want to stop him from acheiving his power/birthright/destiny. The PCs get into a dangerous combat, and the dice start to turn. GM A decides to have the opponents spread their attacks around a little bit, or to maybe spend a turn here or there boasting, or some other less than optimal action. This GM is doing so because he wants to keep the story of the chosen one going. He is curating that story. GM B decides to continue as established and have the bad guys target the chosen one PC almost exclusively. Eventually the PC goes down, and they still target him, ensuring that his death saves are failed. His story ends here. It seems you hold the view that both of these GMs are valuing the story of the chosen one equally; would you say that's the case? Both GMs are of course influencing how the campaign will proceed from this point, but one is doing so out of a sense of "The Story" and the other is simply proceeding according to what's been established in the fiction, and let's it turn out however it may.</blockquote>

Verification