Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rystil Arden" data-source="post: 3143790" data-attributes="member: 29014">This is grabbing him.  They had him in their arms, admittedly treating him, but they had him.  This is where Erekose thought they had him as well, if you'll recall.You made him into an idiot, a complete imbecile, by not mentioning the absense of the soldier, not because they didn't have him in the first place.  He can count to three, and this was of primary importance.  He was willing to sacrifice his body to make sure all the soldiers were taken with us--there is no way he would have missed that without being portrayed as a buffoon.I'm not sure if you can't understand where I'm coming from when I say you've 'destroyed the character concept' or think it's hyperbole, so I'll present a few more clear examples that might show how it is possible for a GM to do this, even though the player is nominally in control of their character--how it can go from something that's a mere GM 'oops' where all that's needed is an apology to something that destroys the character:Let's say I'm playing a socialite whose character was staked on her good image, and through a GM omission, the character winds up performing a social blunder that causes her to be reviled in her city and unable to mingle anymore--that's a character-destroying moment.Perhaps more apropros--let's say that a Paladin is in a burning building with three orphans.  One orphan is in the front door, but another is all the way in the back of the burning building.  Two other party members have grabbed and stabilised the orphan in the front door, so the Paladin charges into the back of the building, gets burned, has a wood plank that is burning fall on him, and pulls out the last orphan while another party member saves orphan #2.  Then the GM lets the Paladin run past with the third orphan, and meanwhile the rest of the party left orphan #1 in the doorframe and he burns to death.  This is only actually discovered several weeks later in real time, when the Paladin tries to Lay on Hands the three orphans and the GM says there are only two orphans.  The GM apologises and says he won't take away the Paladin's powers, even though the Paladin violated his Paladin's Code by running past the boy in need in the doorframe, but that isn't the point for the Paladin's player--the GM let him leave the boy to die.</blockquote>

Verification