Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8399749" data-attributes="member: 6801228">But that again doesn't dispute their point. Because if the PC WAS born the Chosen One, then they'd have the powers. The entire point is that there is consistency in the reasoning for the powers existing, and if there is no reason the PC can't have a certain set of powers, then they should. If the point is "you weren't born the Chosen One of Orcus" then that is fine. If the point is "You are a player character and these abilities are for NPCs" then it isn't fine.Again, it isn't "everyone must be able to chose to be a Chosen One of Orcus" it is that if a set of power can reasonably be obtained, then it should be available, not arbitrarily gated because of PC vs NPC.And Aargon is a powerful King. Not sure what requirements there are for being a Sorcerer in Middle Earth, but it is clearly something you can learn... since the Witch King learned it. And if it magic he was born into, then that falls into a separate thing. You have to be born with that power, and that is more like Sauron.And sure, Sauron is particular type of being. Which is why Lanefan makes a point of monsters being different. You can't choose to become a Balrog or Glabrezu most of the time, so you can't expect access to their powers. If the point is "you weren't born an Aasimar" then, yeah, you aren't playing an Aasimar, you don't get access to Aasimar abilities. No one is disputing that. You are arguing against the wrong point.I took my memory of your statement of your experience, without checking, and said it might be faulty. Again. You want to be offended and think I called you a liar, I can't stop you, rage and be upset, but I've explained myself enough times to clear up my intentions.It seems your specific game that you quit, that you claim wasn't a horror story, isn't a horror story. Shocking, I know, but since you have said it isn't, then there isn't much I can do to say it is. If you think it was a horror story, then share more. If it wasn't, then it wasn't. I don't know what to tell you here.Player Agency does exist. I've never met someone who argued otherwise. Being Possessed and Charmed has nothing to do with the situation. Being directed and being given a choice in whether or not you follow the directions is fine, especially if the DM is clear about the situation. I do not accept that calling out people for acting badly is bad in and of itself. I also am not calling a different playstyle bad, because if the entire party is on board with being railroaded, then they haven't lost agency, and there is nothing going on.This has nothing to do with trust, except for the fact that a DM who violates player agency loses any trust they have established. Framing this that I refuse to trust a DM when 1) I am a DM and often work with my players to develop their character history 2) I shouldn't have to establish "I want my decisions to matter, and not just be a puppet piece in your novel" because that is the basis of wanting to play the game and make a story together. If I need to spell that out to a DM, then we definitely have a problem.And a DM can just crack open a pre-written adventure, read it at the table, and do none of the work you associate with the role. And I'm not against seeing both sides, but that is practically impossible unless players and DMs are on the same platform and interact. And it seems that you are going to give more weight to one side's word than the other.Horror stories don't come from amicable break ups over different preferences. Most DMs you know were trying their best, and I can respect people who just tried their best. I don't respect the DM who expected me to thank him for ruining the game, making me sick to my stomach with stress, and then exploded and railed at us because he didn't like our style of playing, when he was the guest. You've never experienced that. I'm glad for you. And you know what, for people who expect to have the majority of the power, the majority of the authority, it is a bit sickening to see them want to take the minority of the blame when things go wrong. "We want all the power, all the trust, and when things go wrong it is because of these lazy entitled players who just expect us to entertain them like we said we would by demanding they trust us and have no say in the game." Player's shouldn't act "entitled", but that doesn't mean they don't have rights and things that they should expect from the game.Never said that. I don't want to approach a game as being confrontational. I'm also not a doormat.Man, your bias is so strong. You do nothing but judge the player because he isn't playing your way.I know what the rules say, but if the player didn't read them and you only tell them "you can turn into anything bear size or smaller" then it doesn't matter what the rules say, because you have effectively changed them.It is rather easy. The player needs to know the rules. Whether they read them, or you altered them fundamentally and just told them to the player, doesn't matter.Prove that the game expects you to follow the rules the game lays out? Um, what more do I need to do that show you that they literally wrote a whole bunch of rules? If they didn't expect people to follow those rules, why bother writing them and laying them out for people to follow? Just a bunch of theater and smoke and mirrors? I think you are the one who needs to prove that they don't expect people to follow the rules.I don't need to show a limit. I just need to pull out my rulebook that says "Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition". This book isn't DnD. If I am playing Savage Worlds I am not playing Dungeons and Dragons. As the GM of a Savage World's game, I can also alter rules and generally have the final say on rules questions. So, can I solve the problem of the Ship of Theseus? No, I can't solve a famously unsolvable philosophical puzzle. Can I prove that not every single TTRPG is Dungeons and Dragons? Yep. That is trivial.  Because you have claimed an impossibility. You aren't willing to concede a single step in compromise. And that natural gives rise to extremes, because you've said nothing, no matter what, counts. "Nothing no matter what" includes extreme examples.And I have repeatedly said there is nothing wrong with linear adventure design if people have agreed to play that. So, you are right, playing HotDQ is very, very far away from my claim. So, I haven't called HotDQ bad. Again, shocking.I'm not submitting a scientific thesis to a peer reviewed journal. And hearsay can be just fine evidence. [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiqjd7aooLzAhV-nWoFHc-6BoEQFnoECA8QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fericbachman%2F2019%2F11%2F21%2Fyes-you-can-use-hearsay-to-prove-your-case%2F&usg=AOvVaw2UthnjBf7LK0pd-wMIt-GT[/URL]And this has nothing to do with my point.General consensus of the Community. Society doesn't need a holy book to function.It isn't. Being affected by a charm or possessed is generally fine. Being possessed to kill your only family, not given a save, and having the DM gleefully describe the scene as he forces you to ruin the things your character held dear... that probably isn't fine. In fact, we've established at our tables a precedent that you can call certain things off-limits. I had a character who was married, and had left home for years on a job, leaving his young wife alone. His major goal in the game was to get back home, which the DM was cool with. However, I told the DM I had zero interest in a story where the wife had cheated on or left my character. I wanted to have a return home to his loving wife, that was the story I was interested in. I'm sure you'll say that is me being "entitled" but really, why would you want to force a player into a story they have no interest in? Maybe they don't want their mentor to have secretly been a villain and a monster, sure it is a trope and the DM might think the story is fun, but it is the player's story, so why can't they veto that?ROFLOL. I am far from perfect. But I can't think of a single person who knows both me and my friend who would say that I was the one who needed to change. I have real friends. Few, to be certain, but I have them. I am well aware of my shortcomings, and my issues. This isn't one of them.I also think you need to revisit the word "entitled". Because you know what? In the USA you are entitled to an attorney, by the rule of law. A guy who goes into court and demands to have an attorney who is his vigorous advocate... is 100% correct. You keep throwing around "entitlement" as a dirty word, but there are some things you are entitled to. Freedom of Speech. Life. Ect. But please, keep trying to psychoanalyze me and tell me how I need to improve myself until I agree with you. It isn't condescending at all.</blockquote>

Verification