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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 6198004" data-attributes="member: 6701124">I don't recall anyone on the "pro-forcing" side being against the players having a lot of say in how things are going, especially for their players in particular.  Aren't we saying that once in a while it seems to work better for our games if RAW or the dice-rolls are over-ruled by the DM?  (And that this is explicitly sanctioned by all the versions except maybe 4e and OD&D).Swiping the context of post #700, is saying that the rare use of DM forcing removes all agency from the players like saying that employees lose all personal investment in projects if their manager steps in and over-rules something even once?   On the other, just like regular micro-management seems like it would make the employees feel un-invested, I think most of the pro-forcers would agree that over-use of it is definitely taking away say from the players and isn't a good thing.---Yes to the first paragraph and the first two sentences of the second.For the "presuming bad faith" -- I don't think that the pro-forcing side is doing that any more than a manager or NCO (back in #700) who has powers to step in and take various actions automatically assumes that the employees or non-officers are working in bad faith.  That a parent can discipline a child doesn't mean they go around with bated breath waiting for the child to misbehave. (The problem with all of these analogies is that the person in place of the DM has more power over the others than the DM does... but I can't think of one where that isn't the case.) For example,seems like good DMing to me regardless of the forcing side one is on.  Is the difference that the forcing side would judiciously use fudging or over-turning RAW to maintain the consistency of the game world and to account for the NPCs place in the world as if he were a real character in that role, while the non-forcing side would have the Chamberlain fully fledged out and if they missed something in the description that led to something un-Chamberlainy happening then so be it?    (Is forcing needed if one doesn't fully stat up major NPCs?)On a tangent, this is why I have trouble with putting together a campaign that goes to the really high levels. What would the world be like if there were lots of high level people/creatures around who could charm/bluff/diplomacy there way in to see the king (or do lots of other things)? Would any castle from a really old successful empire default to having magically hardened walls, anti-teleportation auras, spells to automatically detect the invisible and evil intented, and have its main guards be charm proofed? If not, how did they manage to survive so long? ---I liked all five paragraphs there (#719 from "What does Gygax..." to "... in his writings.").I had to go check that I had put "partly tongue-in-cheek" and a smiley face around the quote in question (bottom of #694).  I was just disagreeing with primarily using the PhB to discuss the player-DM balance described in 1e.</blockquote>

Verification