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="Cadence" data-source="post: 6229557" data-attributes="member: 6701124">The thought that the rolls matter, matters to the players.  And the rolls do matter the vast majority of the time.  (Is it kind of like trying to have a cutscene in a video game without the players realizing it was one?)If the DM has a world design that that the player's choices clashes with, shouldn't the player change what they were going to do?   ("But the king doesn't have any neices or nephews for you to be... how about duke so and so" or "there actually isn't anyone in you home village who could have taught you that... there aren't any fire sorcerers within a 1,000 miles of there" or "its bronze age tech... where would you get that Katana?").  On the other hand, I think I've always played with groups where the DM would incorporate any ideas the players had that didn't strongly clash with the world design (like @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=59082" target="_blank">Mercurius</a> talks about in the post just above this one).EDIT: Removed a few things because @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=59082" target="_blank">Mercurius</a> said them more succinctly above.Semi-related, who does the tie-breaking when there is a disagreement because fiat attempts clash?    Does the DM have greater knowledge of where things are going in general?  If so, should that give them the tie-breaking vote when its otherwise split?   Or should they just get it simply because the role of DM is different from that of the player and all of the players have agreed to make that person the DM?</blockquote>

Verification