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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9370844" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Can't spoil it, I don't like it anyways. But do you truly not understand the entire premise of suspension of disbelief? Sure, he rewrote it to get it closer to his vision. I'm an author, I understand that process, but I also get that much of rewriting is because things aren't "correct" for the story. You don't rewrite something (usually, I'll get to that) because you rolled a die. I'm actually distinctly familiar with the difference, as much of my current writing is the in the Quest format, meaning I have a group of readers who roll dice and vote on what they want to happen. And consistently in all of my stories, I have been unable to have plans for the story, or plans I did have were completely derailed. Now maybe I am the only person on earth who can't see someone roll a die, be on the edge of my seat on the result, then roll my eyes when they begin insisting "exactly as planned!" when they write down the result, but I doubt that.Of course all fiction is made up, that isn't the point. Would you be satisfied solving a mystery plot if the GM said "okay, whoever you guys decide is the culprit, I'll go back and make them the culprit"? Would that make it feel like your investigation had meaning and that you were uncovering a truth? Is there truly no difference for you between a mystery with an actual perpetrator, or one where the perpetrator is simply decided once the table agrees it must be them? Because, from what you keep insisting, there isn't. You keep insisting that, as long as you can declare it was always so, then there is absolutely no difference between a planned outcome, and a randomized outcome. And you have gotten increasingly insulting about the fact that I'm insisting there is a difference.And yet, if I declare other possibilities for that same result, you deride me that those cannot possibly be true or make sense, because you know it was the Raven Queen and nothing else. Which makes it increasingly seem like YOU think otherwise.I know the spell effect had a duration. I know that duration did not change. I know you specifically stated that they did nothing and that the duration just naturally expired. So, this has all the hallmarks of having nothing to do with the Raven Queen, just like the fact that a longsword does 1d8 damage, or a shield gives +2 AC. Sure, there is no in-fiction reason given for these numbers. Maybe the Paladin's Ac is a purely an extension of the Raven Queen's Will and if he put on heathen armor his armor class would go down... but once we go down this path, then literally anything can be claimed to be divine will for no reason other than the paladin wants it to be. And that isn't the narrative of Providence.Did they accept that the Raven Queen actually acted... or did they accept that the Paladin gave a bad-ass line? I accept that the Paladin believes what they said. I accept that the paladin has faith. I even accept it was a pretty good line of witty banter. I don't accept it was actually Providence within the fiction of the story, an immutable plan by an omni being that could never be altered. That sort of story doesn't function in a story telling medium where the results are random, and where the beings are fallible. Heck, the Raven Queen was a mortal woman at one point who had to kill a god of death. Who planned that part of the divine plan so that she could save the paladin as part of her divine plan?You know, for someone who keeps insisting that they know EXACTLY what type of person/GM/ect I am, and that they know EXACTLY what I am arguing and that they are very familiar with all of this.... you keep saying things that showcase how much you don't understand my position. I was not saying the fiction was vague. I was saying the destiny was vague. If the GM and the player are negotiating the facts of the fiction, then you can't say "My Destiny is to the be True King, by pulling the Sword from the Stone, and marrying a princess who will betray me and I shall be nearly slain by my illegitimate son." because each one of those events needs to be negotiated and rolled. Each step requires figuring which of multiple paths you will be on. Which means the clearest you could be is "My Destiny is to be a ruler and face a great betrayal"... which is pretty darn vague!And the worst part of all of this, is that while you are still trying to browbeat me into saying that you can create a compelling tale of Providence by randomizing key events and just declaring that that was always the plan... you seem to have completely ignored the entire part of my previous post where I point out that such stories are actually the weakest paladin stories, not key to the entire premise of paladins as you claimed. You keep insisting that players should be able to declare the actions of Gods, but completely ignored my entire post where I laid out why I do not think that is the case. When you incorrectly assumed I was talking about the Problem of Evil, you never went back to actually address the point I had actually been making, you ignored it. I don't feel like you have even once tried to understand my position. You just want to browbeat me for gaming wrong and not accepting your words as gospel. And it is exhausting. Yes, you can declare anything to be true in the fiction you feel like. But just like retcons and declaring the culprit of a mystery based on it being the person no one guessed, declaring "This was Providence" after the fact feels hollow. It doesn't convey the correct impact. It feels like a farce, because it is rooted in nothing except the fact that this time, the dice sided with what you wanted.</blockquote>

Verification