Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Discuss: Combat as War in D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8265310" data-attributes="member: 6802765"><p>How many organizations are just sitting around with spare resources looking for hypothetical future threats rather than being currently busy using those resources to oppose current threats or pursue the organization's primary goals?</p><p></p><p>Even if the PCs happened to be causing problems for all of Faction A's enemies (and were seen doing it, which is itself a failure on the PCs' part), that makes the PCs the enemy of Faction A's enemies. In what world would it be generally reasonable for Faction A to reallocate resources from its fight with its enemies to go after a potential ally?</p><p></p><p>Sure, if Faction A has specific evidence that when the PCs are finished with Faction A's enemies they'll turn on faction A, <em>and</em> has sufficient resources to be able to fight its enemies at the same time it goes after the PCs, then premptively eliminating a potential threat could be a reasonable choice for Faction A. But even in that case, trying to appease the PCs to avoid becoming a future target might be cheaper. So the DM has to make a choice, and if the DM bases that choice on IC factors, like whether Faction A is more pragmatic or more paranoid, that's just run-of-the-mill DM adjudication. It's only when the DM starts consistently making all such adjudications in a particular direction to achieve a desired outcome that DM Fiat can be said to enter into the equation.</p><p></p><p>Also, your scenario isn't very likely to arise in an CaW game in the first place. If Faction A's enemies are peers of Faction A and the PCs are causing multiple such enemies serious trouble simultaneously then Faction A probably isn't strong enough to be a threat to the PCs. If Faction A's enemies <em>aren't</em> peers of Faction A, then the PCs' success against those enemies isn't evidence that they're strong enough to be a threat to Faction A.</p><p></p><p>And besides, if the PCs know they're hitting all of Faction A's enemies, in a CaW game there's a good chance the PCs proactively allied themselves with Faction A. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Adjudicating the logical outcome of the PCs' actions is literally the DM's job. If you're going to call that DM Fiat then you're using an unhelpfully broad definition. Note that by your definition, deciding that what the PCs did would <em>cause</em> them to be targeted would equally be an exercise of what you're calling DM Fiat.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 8265310, member: 6802765"] How many organizations are just sitting around with spare resources looking for hypothetical future threats rather than being currently busy using those resources to oppose current threats or pursue the organization's primary goals? Even if the PCs happened to be causing problems for all of Faction A's enemies (and were seen doing it, which is itself a failure on the PCs' part), that makes the PCs the enemy of Faction A's enemies. In what world would it be generally reasonable for Faction A to reallocate resources from its fight with its enemies to go after a potential ally? Sure, if Faction A has specific evidence that when the PCs are finished with Faction A's enemies they'll turn on faction A, [I]and[/I] has sufficient resources to be able to fight its enemies at the same time it goes after the PCs, then premptively eliminating a potential threat could be a reasonable choice for Faction A. But even in that case, trying to appease the PCs to avoid becoming a future target might be cheaper. So the DM has to make a choice, and if the DM bases that choice on IC factors, like whether Faction A is more pragmatic or more paranoid, that's just run-of-the-mill DM adjudication. It's only when the DM starts consistently making all such adjudications in a particular direction to achieve a desired outcome that DM Fiat can be said to enter into the equation. Also, your scenario isn't very likely to arise in an CaW game in the first place. If Faction A's enemies are peers of Faction A and the PCs are causing multiple such enemies serious trouble simultaneously then Faction A probably isn't strong enough to be a threat to the PCs. If Faction A's enemies [I]aren't[/I] peers of Faction A, then the PCs' success against those enemies isn't evidence that they're strong enough to be a threat to Faction A. And besides, if the PCs know they're hitting all of Faction A's enemies, in a CaW game there's a good chance the PCs proactively allied themselves with Faction A. ;) Adjudicating the logical outcome of the PCs' actions is literally the DM's job. If you're going to call that DM Fiat then you're using an unhelpfully broad definition. Note that by your definition, deciding that what the PCs did would [I]cause[/I] them to be targeted would equally be an exercise of what you're calling DM Fiat. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Discuss: Combat as War in D&D
Top