Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deadguy" data-source="post: 924628" data-attributes="member: 2480">Well, I waded my way through the entire thread - boy was that a challenge in its own right! <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=":)" />As has been previously commented, this discussion is predicated on at least two different DMing styles. I think fusangite has received affirmation from those who share his style that he has got his session aright: he applied the rules fairly as he saw them, and the consequences that flowed therefrom were just desserts.Others, notably mmu1, Numion and Tsyr, are of a different school of gaming, and they prefer to see the rules as a framework to help them run adventures. Consequently, they are happy to flex rules to make the story better from their own and their palyers' perspectives.I'll put my cards on the table and say that I come from the same line of school of play as Numion et al, so my perspective is coloured thereby. My feeling is that when running such an event I would not start counting off in combat time from the explosion. I'd treat time as far more fluid until I had to deal with combat-related action. As such, I would treat actions such as adjudging the situation and discussing matters with the Duke as taking far more time than a strict 'round-by-round' count would indicate. To me verisimilitude would demand a little more explanation with the Duke (and probably the man getting independent confirmation of events). I also know from personal experience that in panic situations large crowds rarely behave conformly, so I'd have had more milling about, begging and panicking time. In other words, I would have regarded the rules and simple calculation to be insufficient to determine these events, and thus would have a lot more elasticity in events.I know that some of you regard this as mollycoddling the players. I will say that that is from your perspective, one which focusses more on the 'gaming' aspect of D&D. I assure you that my own approach does not preclude making PCs deal with consequences - it just frames those consequences differently.Ah well, one of the things I enjoy about role-playing games generally is that they allow for a very flexible approach to play. This event in fusangite's game merely emphasises that all the players and the DM need to understand the others' approaches to the game, and finds them compatible. Otherwise someone (and often the entire group) finds themselves unhappy and wasting time.</blockquote>

Verification