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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 6197310" data-attributes="member: 221">I find it more than passing odd that you cannot see there does not have to be a contradiction between the two examples given. I must conclude You are suffering from a preconceived idea of what others mean and its coloring your interpretation of their words. One does not need to have some "script" being followed to recognize that the play experience is suffering. Maybe even the DM has a "script," if he recognizes its not going well and changes it on the fly so it turns out different, we again alleviate any contradiction. Or the DM applies discretion to a ruling, not because he wishes things to turn out a certain way, but because he thinks there are story factors not being covered by RAW, and he wants to account for these so as to make things more fair to the players, or more in line with things going on behind the scenes. For instance, perhaps the DM knows the Chamberlain is suffering from dementia. There are no rules in the rulebook for this, so he makes something up and goes with it, deciding the Chamberlain is going to act childlike and diplomacy is impossible while the Chamberlain is so afflicted. Perhaps the DM actually wants the PCs to see the king, but the story demands, because of ingame events, that they deal with the Chamberlain first and the DM's actions actually hinder his desire to have the players get to the king (I know there have been times where I want the game to be somewhere it is not, but act in a way that counteracts this desire because it seems like the right thing to do at the time. So no inherent contradiction if viewed properly. Again your preconceptions are coloring your interpretation. I challenge you to try to envision a game in which the DM strives both for a thematic sort of framing and resolution and maintains an in-game verisimilitude through the use of NPC reactions (both short and long term) to PC choice.I see no difference in having the Chamberlain serve as a major plot point, and in having him resent being charmed, or reacting to the attempt to be charmed. I cannot see an inherent contradiction here because I can easily see how I can have both at the same time.I am sorry but that just makes no sense. Perhaps we are using different definitions of arbiter. I rarely have a preconception of how a scene will resolve. Events often surprise me. But I am still the final arbiter.For instance, in a fairly recent episode, First AP of the Shattered Star campaign to be exact, while the PCs were visiting an informant, the 1st level rogue sees some people dicing, and decides to pick their pockets. This was not anything I had planned. He attempted it, and through the use of the resolution mechanics was spotted. The hoodlums gave chase, the rogue ran and hid, and discovered his attempt had netted him only a few coppers. Now, the PC choice framed the scene, not DM fiat. The mechanics and the dice decided that the attempt to pick pocket was good enough to get something from the pocket, but not good enough to escape being spotted. At the same time, I as DM, had several calls to make: what was the Perception score of the one being picked? What was the Perception skill of those nearby? What would be the reaction of the group to one of their own being robbed? And finally, how much would be in the pocket of a poor beggar playing dice. I acted as the final arbiter of the rules by deciding that the roll was not good enough to escape being spotted. As for events, I shaped the event in a number of ways, all without predetermining the outcome. I made a decision, a fairly reasonable one I thing, that one of the ones watching the betting would be a 2nd level rogue with a higher perception score than the others. I shaped events by putting copper pieces in the beggars pockets instead of gems. I also shaped events by having them give chase. Thus as the DM, I was the final arbiter of both the rules and the events within the game, all the while, not having a preconceived idea of how it would have played out.Again, you are reading something into what I wrote that is not there. Your preconceptions are coloring your interpretation. I want my player's character to make an impact on the game world, but I want there to be meaningful opposition to their doing so. Being a protagonist does not preclude that someone might not notice the wizard using charm, or the possibility that Diplomacy may not work on everyone. To reframe something N'raac and Ahn have been trying to say to you, if you, because of your desire to give your PCs great latitude, choose to ignore parts of the rules which might make things more challenging for your players, then you are doing the exact same thing as someone who is enforcing only those parts of the rules which provide challenge, though in reverse. Now granted, this loses some meaning because you are, in fact, playing a different game (4e) than us, and there are different rules and 4e does seem built in such a way as to provide for the sort of game experience and DM-Player relationship you seem to desire. But a 3x DM (or any prior edition GM) who allows a 3e charm spell to allow an NPC to do something contrary to their nature is in fact breaking the rules of the spell and is exercising DM force for the benefit of the players.I do think part of this disconnect is that some of us are thinking in pre4e terms and some of you are thinking in 4e terms, and 4e  seems to be, despite much protestations to the contrary, built on very different dynamics.</blockquote>

Verification