NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6206296" data-attributes="member: 42582">I thought [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] referred to drakes. I assumed that these were servitors of the dragon, who sits in a cave like Smaug or Glaurung, waiting for the sacrifices.You also seem to be finding it odd that mid-paragon PCs would be peers of the king, and have capabilities that rival the king's. That is, you seem to be reading mid-paragon play through the lens of mid-heroic genre expectations.Yes. He only relented to their desires once they saved him from the drakes. It's pretty classic fantasy story of redemption via heroism - the evil doer who thinks his evil is jusitified by the greater good relents when the heroes show him that standing up to evil is a viable strategy.For reasons that I'm sure he will explain if he wants to, Manbearcat framed this as a complexity 2 challenge. Had he framed it as complexity 5 (12 successes before 3 failures) then the interaction with the chamberlain would have taken longer, and more checks, to resolve. It partly depends on how much fun one thinks it is to banter with an obstinate chamberlain, I guess.I don't understand this - where is the secret backstory in Manbearcat's example, that is shaping fictional positioning such that the players can't make choices that will have a meaningful impact on the scene? I can't see anywhere - the most dramatic bit of secret backstory, namely, the presence of a baby under the cloth, was introduced into the scene by a player. That is surely the opposite of a GM's secret backstory!Sure, there are other ways this could have played out. There are other ways it could have been framed. For the resolution, in actual play, of a scene in which (i) the noble's advisor is diametrically opposed to the PCs, and (ii) the PCs have to handle the resulting delicate situation, I refer you once again <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?309950-Actual-play-my-first-quot-social-only-quot-session" target="_blank">to this actual play post</a>. (I don't think you have yet read it, which is a pity, because it might answer via actual illustration of techniques some of your questions about how indie play works, especially what is meant by the absence of a GM's preconception as to how the scene will resolve.)No. I would change the fictional positioning so that to meet the king they must somehow dispose of the chamberlain. That changes the fictional dynamics, but within the framework of a skill challenge does not change the basic mechanical parameters. I don't think anyone said it couldn't happen in other playstyles. Indie is about techniques and play experience, not particular plot outcomes.I agree with [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] that there is plenty of rising conflict here - but in the absence of actual play examples from you other than the umber hulk one, I don't know what sorts of events happen in your games.I also don't see why you say it is a cakewalk. You seem to be projecting from the end back to the actual experience of playing it through. In actual play the players had to roll dice - not all of which were successes - and choose to use various powers and other resources in order to increase their chances of success.That the PC turned into a frog is mere colour, yes. A rat, toad, worm etc would do as well.But as to the significance of the narration of why the hex ended, maybe you misunderstood my comment: "it further establishes the basic fictional positioning of the paladin, which in turn frames what is feasible in terms of action resolution, and what sorts of conflicts I might frame to engage the player of that PC".As you can see, I never asserted that the roleplaying changed the resolution of the baleful polymorph. I asserted that it contributes to the basic fictional positioning of the paladin. What difference does it make? In future encounters with servants of the gods (or enemies of the gods), the paladin and the rogue are in fundamentally different situations, with different pathways open to them. Or, perhaps more prosaically, if they are wandering through the Abyss and get lost the paladin is in a position to use Religion to receive some guidance from his god, and the rogue is not.This is what Manbearcat is talking about when he says that 4e play, and indie play more generally, is fiction first. And it marks out the difference between mere colour and genuine fictional positioning. And it emphasises that in indie play the latter is not under the sole, or even primary, control of the GM via secret backstory.If you (or someone else) wants to explain the virtue of "roleplaying" in the sense of adding colour to situations via voices, mannerism, explaining one's PC's choice of shoe-style, etc, go to town. I'm not really into it, but plenty of people seem to be. Tell us about it! Post some actual play examples!So it's only roleplaying when it's mechanically irrational? Comedically so?</blockquote>

Verification