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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6204583" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I suspect some would refer to "thespianise their PC's" as "role play their PC's".  "Role playing" is an equal part to "game", in my view, so an opportunity to role play is typically welcome.  However, if the GM refuses to frame a scene where my character is frustrated by his inability to attain his desires, then we never get to role play how my character deals with such frustration.There is also a difference between a monologue "dispensing backstory" and playing through the attainment of knowledge of backstory, in my view.  The latter was part of the game, not a GM recitation or email, so it tends to stick better, at least in the games I've played.  Finally, you seem to approach the scene from the perspective that, unless the PC's can achieve their stated goal to see the King, nothing they do can have any meaning.  I disagree.  They can gain knowledge of the situation (backstory or current events).  They can meet other NPC's - unless the room is utterly empty of all but the PC's and the Chamberlain (which would make that Charm spell a lot less risky since no one but the target will see them cast it).  They can form a framework for future interaction - do the frustrated PC's nevertheless treat the Chamberlain with the respect due his age, wisdom and office, or do they berate him, mock him and /or try to intimidate him to get access to the King?  He will likely not forget their actions once they have resolved whatever issue is preventing an immediate audience with the King - if they were rude, they may still be sent on their way.  If they were respectful, they may gain an ally in the Chamberlain.  Perhaps that diplomacy  check actually DOES have an impact - he is friendly (or friendlier) but he cannot act upon it immediately.  Perhaps it has no impact on the Chamberlain, but deeply  moved one of the guards, or one of those Detecting acolytes, who later approaches the PC's with valuable information or an offer of assistance.  These are all ways the players' actions can have an impact - just not an immediate one.  It seems like the main hallmark of indie play being espoused is not whether the players can have an impact, but the immediacy of that impact and/or their knowledge of that impact.Doubtless, I will now be accused of retrofitting these aspects onto the original scenario.  On the boards, perhaps (though I never saw the scene as one suited merely for a monologue from the Chamberlain).  In a real game, probably not - the scene would have been set out in detail already - but perhaps some modification on the fly would occur - "Wow - a great diplomacy roll capping off some really good role playing - that should have a positive impact somehow, now what could happen - maybe nameless Detect Magicker B is swayed".You assume only one conflict possible, and that the only way the players can affect it is by immediate resolution in its entirety.  I see a broader scope.  If you don't see that as an issue of pacing, fine.If they got in to see the King, their bribe succeeded.  If their bribe did not go unnoticed, it was their attempt at concealing it which failed, not their attempt to see the King.  Again, I think you focus in on narrower possibilities.You seem to go back and forth from framing the scene or refusing it.  We're now back to "the L1 characters can see the Chamberlain and have a meaningful opportunity to see the King as a result".  Will you frame them into a scene with that Great Wyrm they were very interested in, or is that still off-limits, as decided unilaterally by the GM?You seem to think you are much more clear than you are.  You've sometimes suggested the consequences of failure rest in the hands of the GM (which means he is the ultimate arbiter of those consequences, by the way) and other times made statements like the one I responded to, being:You even acknowledge the portion I emphasized as a matter of some importance.  The consequence, to me, sounds more like the consequences of a failed roll than a successful one (those tend to be rewards, not consequences).While I could contrive one, I can agree it is difficult to envision, and would be an unusual game.  That said, who is the ultimate arbiter of whether it meets the genre credibility test?  I think it is the GM.  I also think that my players demanding I live by the consequences they have set is about equal in reasonableness as the expectation the GM will, whenever given any leeway, always rule to the detriment of the players (not your issue, but certainly the assumption  seeming to underlie the [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] model).That's the advisor I was thinking of - sorry for the error.  I must have conflated them working with him in the past with a former PC someone mentioned in another discussion.  In any case, the point stands - he did not enter the stasis chamber after leaving the PC group, but worked behind the scenes to become an advisor to the Baron and, based on your comments on the likely results had he not been goaded into battle, building his own armies.You say you will frame the Chamberlain scene for L1 characters.  He has stated he considers it a poor scene for such characters, and is framing a scene for L14 characters as illustration.  Which one is "indie play"?  I suggest both are, and in both the GM is making the ultimate decision of what level of characters this is an appropriate encounter for.  If you consider that wrong, please indicate how and why it is wrong.  As I've said repeatedly, I don't play 4e, and I'm not planning on digging through those books to find the chart in question to figure out which of you is "more 4e", nor am I remotely qualified to assess which of your approaches is " more indie".</blockquote>

Verification