Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 9477948" data-attributes="member: 9053">I really have to agree here. And this is the point that I think I might upset some people who's gaming style I think is very similar to my own and that I'd enjoy playing in their games. D&amp;D is designed as you say. That doesn't mean it can't be played in a more collaborative or narrative way. That's the way I run the game. I'm not going to take over a warlock player's character based on their patron, and want to give them the opportunity to shape the game and the game world in ways more common to other game systems.But I know that I'm not doing something in the norm. I've had some mixed reactions to giving this collaborative or creative energy. I have really solid players who don't want to tell me how their character finishes off an enemy with a particularly effective attack. When I ask some players to tell me about a feature of the game world that their character knows all about, some of them look at me like deer in headlights. Some love it, of course.I think that each edition of D&amp;D gives the designers more options to make the game more narrative and give more authority to the players. I'm sure the designers have played other games where this is the norm. And yet, they really don't make that part of the rules, do they? I have been reading the new PHB in bits and pieces since I picked it up through Foundry, and there really isn't talk about collaborating with the DM. I think that's a great idea, but apparently, the designers don't want to put that up for player discussion. Maybe there will be something about this in the new DMG.So, who controls the warlock's patron? By the book, the DM. Who should control it? I think it should be a collaboration between the two. The PHB doesn't give me an indication of how that should work.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SteveC, post: 9477948, member: 9053"] I really have to agree here. And this is the point that I think I might upset some people who's gaming style I think is very similar to my own and that I'd enjoy playing in their games. D&D is [I]designed [/I]as you say. That doesn't mean it can't be [I]played [/I]in a more collaborative or narrative way. That's the way I run the game. I'm not going to take over a warlock player's character based on their patron, and want to give them the opportunity to shape the game and the game world in ways more common to other game systems. But I know that I'm not doing something in the norm. I've had some mixed reactions to giving this collaborative or creative energy. I have really solid players who don't want to tell me how their character finishes off an enemy with a particularly effective attack. When I ask some players to tell me about a feature of the game world that their character knows all about, some of them look at me like deer in headlights. Some love it, of course. I think that each edition of D&D gives the designers more options to make the game more narrative and give more authority to the players. I'm sure the designers have played other games where this is the norm. And yet, they really don't make that part of the rules, do they? I have been reading the new PHB in bits and pieces since I picked it up through Foundry, and there really isn't talk about collaborating with the DM. I think that's a great idea, but apparently, the designers don't want to put that up for player discussion. Maybe there will be something about this in the new DMG. So, who controls the warlock's patron? By the book, the DM. Who [I]should [/I]control it? I think it should be a collaboration between the two. The PHB doesn't give me an indication of how that should work. [/QUOTE]

Verification