Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8399980" data-attributes="member: 7032025">On that, I agree that YCMV, but you see I think this is also where we differ in our conceptions (again, just discussing here, not saying right or wrong): The fact that technically there might e no difference, does not mean that, story- or universe-wise there is no distinction.LotR has Aragorn who is very different from most humans due to his lineage for example, but also hobbits who don't differ much from each other or actually many hobbits. But Harry Potter has his prophecy despite being otherwise unremarkable. Rand al'Thor is the Dragon Reborn.There are tons of different cases in the genre, my personal preference is not to force similarity, it's not mandatory for consistency, although I understand your perspective.See above, lots of cases exist in the genre, one direction or another.While I agree that it forces some sort of creativity, it is along specific paths and has clear limits in terms of what it can produce, compared to being more open in general. Both are good, but I stay on my position that, in the long term, fewer constraints generate more creativity.I'm still not sure consistency of what here, because natural screening will make sure that Orcus never sees a petitioner without reason.The Witch-King was a simple human to start with. But he was still a powerful sorcerer before he was ringwraithed, something that does not seem to be available to all the other PCs. And I'm not even speaking about the rest of the path.Gandalf, like Sauron, is a demi-god to start with, it's another matter.Saruman had a chance because he was a demigod like Gandalf and Sauron, but Isildur, although a king and a powerful man never came even close for example.See what I mean ? The problem is always with absolutes and people thinking that even a bit of railroading becomes an intolerable assault on their "player agency".Really ? Honestly, it might be that I have thick skill and I like good stories, but my only problems with railroading is when it is absolutely massive. The best recent example that I can think of is Waterdeep Dragonheist where the "campaign" is just a series of tableaux, with no flexibility about the sequence, arbitrary time limits and (and this his the part which really bugs me) where what you do in one scene has absolutely zero impact on the following ones because it's all written from A to Z.But it's the only example that I can recall in a long long time, and I'm sure that although you think you are guilty now and then, it stays within what should be more than acceptable limits to most players.If they are of one mind about it, fine, but often it's only a few that want to derail the thing for more personal reasons. This is also where the social contract should come into force, don't be a wangrod, play collectively and that means with the DM as well.But if the whole party wants to do something else, I would certainly agree with you.They don't. As a reminder, the rule is: "You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."So a few words during your turn, and we allow using your reaction to communicate a bit more out of your turn, for example, signalling that orcs reinforcements have arrived.I've been in litteraly hundreds of LARP fights and I can guarantee that there is no free flowing conversation. But you can certainly roleplay really well with just "brief utterances and gestures", you know... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But there is no need for it. We are no so concerned about rules, if a ruling was made by the DM, he had good reasons and only the best intents at heart, and if really necessary we'll process it at the end so that it gets even better next time.I guess you are far more technical than we are and concerned about rules. For us, a really cool flowing game with a good story far outweighs small technical recriminations.</blockquote>

Verification