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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6208084" data-attributes="member: 42582">Where is all this backstory coming from. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] never stated any of it. Much of it is contradiction to the scene that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] actually outlined for us upthread. So why are you positing it?As to particulars - maybe the PCs didn't know the king was trafficking with dragons. And maybe the king is not an evil tyrant. Maybe the paladin is hoping that he is noble and this is his chance to find out.Maybe the dragons fly to a secret rendezvous point. Or are cloaked. Or maybe this was the first time.I think that Manbearcat's scene, and the discussion aroudn it, is more broadly illustrative of the idea I've mentioned upthread, that one of the goals of "indie" play is to shift the decision point from prep and planning ("transition scenes") to the moment of action resolution ("action scenes"). Discovering, at crunch time, the king and chamberlain are about to hand over a baby to the dragon would be an instance of that.Now that would be cool!As Manbearcat spelled out in post 1532, the intention of the action was to impress the Chamberlain in a certain fashion. Not to save the city. And that intention was realised.The answer to the first is "no", for two reasons: (i) it is already establsihed that there is a ruling king; and (ii) there are no formal mechanics for this in 4e (as I mentioned upthread) and in Manbearcat's explanation of his scene there was never any invitation to the players to contribute on this particular point.The answer to the second presumably is "via GM narration".I don't believe that you have read the Eero Tuovinen blog to which both I and LostSoul have linked. It sets out the difference between "indie" play and group storytelling pretty clearly. In partcular, notice that the only time that Manbearcat's players got to contribute backstory was when the GM expressly invited them to.Are they mechanically identical? They're both wizards - do they really use the same spell load-out all the time?I don't really follow any of this. Because I don't know where you think player goals come from - though I get the sense you assume they come from the GM and the GM's story - I don't know what you mean by "tactical excellence". Do you mean something like "mechanical efficiency in achieving the goals set for the PCs by the GM"?I also don't know what you mean by "valuing roleplaying". In your example of the fighter who charges the umber hulk, does the GM value roleplaying by having the umber hulk confuse the fighter, or by having the fighter not be confused by the umber hulk? Or simply by resolving in the standard mechanical fashion, which is what seemed to happen at your table if I read the anecdote correctly.I also don't know what you are talking about with "rewards". Upthread you suggested that Glabrezus won't do something for nothing, just as PCs typically don't. Now you seem to be asserting simply that both Glabrezus and PCs act for reasons. The first point is wrong in my experience. The second point is banal.From my point of view, here is the bottom line: I have linked to several actual play accounts upthread. If you are reading them, and then asserting that there is no roleplaying in my games, I'm stunned. And am awaiting your critique.</blockquote>

Verification