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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8519737" data-attributes="member: 29398">The ball's still in the players' hands, though to start them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And once in a while those players have a point.Yes you are.  You're saying I have to play it within a bounded area of ethos, outlook, and actions regardless what the character might otherwise be or do; and that's telling me how to play.Out-of-character conflict around the table is bad but in-character conflict within the party is not, and one just has to trust one's players to be wise enough to keep the two separate.And this alone is a good reason to spin the first few levels out longer than just a session or two each; as it's during these very low levels that the characters in-character can get these conflicts out of their systems and sort out who's welcome in the party and who isn't.The history of the character is part of the campaign, yes; but the future of that character still belongs to its player.Orwellian groupthink has come to D&D.  By this stricture individual thinking is banned.  Individual or unilateral in-character action is banned.  A character acting on its own agenda is banned.  Chaotic PCs might as well be banned.This type of advice intentionally ignores the fact that an adventuring party is made up of free-thinking individuals.  Part of the true joy of D&D is that as your character - as well as your party - you can (try to) do what you want, often without the fetters imposed by real life.I'm not one for burning books but if all of Tasha's is like this I might change my stance.If it's done in character it should be sorted out in character; and the players all have to remember that not every character is going to think like theirs do.A common example is a party dithering on its tactics planning, which can get boring as hell after the first few minutes for characters (and players) not directly involved - i.e. the non-tacticians of the group.  In these cases the sooner someone does something crazy the better, whether its my PC or someone else's.If the party splits in X directions it's my job as DM to run that many parallel games however I can until-unless they get back together.Sure; but the same underlying mechanics are being used, right?  The barrel example is a simple case of passing one Hide check and failing the next - no problem there as it reflects the reality of the Rogue not being perfect every time.What I'm talking about are precedent-setting rulings where the DM doesn't adhere to the precedent.  An example: say my PC has got hold of an Adamantine Axe whose main property is that is cannot lose its edge no matter what.  So, we get to a stone door our Rogue can't open and as my action I declare "I'll try using my axe to chop through it."  The DM, who never considered idea this when dreaming up the Axe, thinks about it a moment then says "Well, if you don't mind spending half an hour at it and don't care how much noise you make then yes, you chop through the door" (i.e. makes a ruling and grants auto-success).Simple fleeting moment in play, right.  But wait.  With that ruling the DM has just set and locked in a precedent: Adamantine Axes can cut through stone, albeit slowly.  Which means I-as-player can now expect - or certainly should be able to expect - this to be a consistent thing going forward and thus can base decisions around this information; and if the next time I meet a similar stone door I'm told I can't cut though it I'm going to both in and out of character be asking why.Edit: typos</blockquote>

Verification