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: 6206559" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I raised the question specifically in response to your statement that any player group should be able to succeed in getting past the Chamberlain to see the King, but that this same “any group can succeed” methodology should not extend to defeating enemies in combat. I find that inconsistent.   Some games can reduce or remove the inconsistency – typically games which are not designed on a “zero to hero” model, so games which lack character levels through which the characters become steadily and markedly more powerful as the game progresses.  Maybe the other Indie examples are not focused on substantial power gains as the characters gain experience. Or it contradicts the setting backstory (backstory we don’t, because we are dealing out of context, have).  When the party arrived, I perceived them seeking the blessing of the good and noble king for their quest. When that scene ended, do they still even want that blessing? Their quest seems to have vanished as an element of play with all the new issues raised, diverting them from a quest I hope would have been relevant to that time.   The players previously had no idea dragons/drakes are ever seen in the city, but now we find they routinely visit the King to collect tribute (including, apparently, his subjects).  It’s unreasonable that the players don’t know in advance whether they have any chance, or whether it is likely, to get an audience with the King, but it’s perfectly reasonable that the kingdom they perceive as noble, righteous and secure is actually routinely trading, in a heavily populated area, with dragons they must appease at any cost.Could it be an awesome game? Sure.  Is this somehow superior from discovering the obstinate Chamberlain will not let us see the king, and needing to regroup to plan how to deal with that issue?  Not automatically.  That could also be an awesome game. Again, what I really saw from that example was “shared storytelling”.  The scene either created or modified substantial backstory and set up challenges very different than those the players began the scene focused on (ie their Quest).  The Ranger scene was a step along the way through a broader storyline (and a setback rather than a success, but that’s all part of the story). Very different from “the Chamberlain points to the King to deal with it – he’s out of here”?  Either way, the Chamberlain seems much less a player than he was at the start of the scene. My vision saw the Chamberlain as an important NPC, and one who starts out as an adversary. The Chamberlain we received was a bit part.  His elimination wouldn’t seem to mean much. Let us assume that the “tactically best choice” in further negotiations with the King is to offer him a way to just sweep the whole “commiserating with dragons” thing under the rug, or even to allow it to continue – that’s the best way to get what we want to continue with our quest.  Is it good role playing for the Paladin to take that route, or would good role playing see him take a more difficult approach, or perhaps even forego the King’s blessing rather than compromise his beliefs? And this is where I see “tactics override personality”. I want a game where PC’s can have strengths and weaknesses, where they may well make suboptimal choices tactically because that is where their personalities would lead them, and where the game play is capable of accommodating this. So when a situation arises where the better tactic is to seek an understanding and accommodation, does your Paladin still (in a tactically poor approach) use his typical overbearing approach, or does a hand on his shoulder and a cautionary word from another party member cause him to override his personality and shut up for the scene so those with better Insight can bring the best tactical approach to success? The goal of the specific roll in question, which succeeded, was to avoid retribution on the city (or at least that is how it was presented in context). It succeeded. “You can’t fail by succeeding, full stop” and “a greater threat to the city brought by the Drake” seem inconsistent.  The latter seems like great gaming but contradicts what I believe @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=205" target="_blank">TwoSix</a> indicated to be a hard and fast rule of Indie style. Yes, I am fine (as both a GM and a player) with a scene of that nature.  I am much happier with that than the GM saying “Your fictional positioning means you cannot succeed – I will  not run a scene with the Chamberlain”.  As I think on it, however, both come to the same result – we must determine how to alter our fictional positioning to enable success in such a challenge. However, I want to learn of the issues as a player through the actions and experiences of my character. An example from play – the group was told flat out by the GM that the swamp we are about to pass through is ruled by a Dragon we can’t hope to defeat, so guys, please don’t go there. The player response was that his character (and the rest of our characters) have no way of knowing that the dragon is there, or that we can’t possibly defeat it (I forget which – it has been a lot of years), so he needs an in-character reason.  Result:  the character (a multiclass character) experienced a vision from his deity that night, reflecting ill omens should the party proceed through the swamp.  In character reason given so we can move on. It seems incongruous to me that, after our wily rogue gathered info on the town and the kingdom, let us assume successfully, that no indication of these Drakes came to light, that the King is viewed as good and righteous, and that his vigilence means we all sleep securely in our beds.  That secret backstory would seem jarring to me in a non-Indie game. It seems no less jarring because a player, rather than the GM, threw this new development in.  It seems far more jarring than “No, the Chamberlain will not arrange a meeting with the King”. That’s a decent summary. I don’t find it any more conducive to a good game whether created by the GM or a player. How your characters react to failure is as relevant to their personalities as how they pursue, or react to, success.  I mentioned way upthread that the manner in which the Chamberlain is treated in this scene could well influence results when the impediment preventing his co-operation is removed.</blockquote>

Verification