Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6209053" data-attributes="member: 6681948">This is the crux of my issue – we have no basis on which to think anything about the kingdom.  It’s an absolute blank slate.  No one knows much of anything about the kingdom.  We’ve embarked on a Holy Quest to save this Kingdom, but all we actually know is:  So, for all we know, we are fighting to defend a Kingdom of Open Devil Worshippers from a Great Gold Wyrm seeking to remove this devil worshipping stain from the face of the earth.  Since everything develops in play, what prevents this result arising in play?  My character has no clue whatsoever about what he is stepping into.  For some characters, that’s appropriate.  For others, it most definitely is not.  I am forced to play a character who never does the slightest bit of intel gathering before stepping into the fray. So the player does not know things that would cause the PC to take different actions.  Would that Paladin of Bahamut fight fiercely to defend the Devil Worshippers from a Gold Dragon? I am responding to YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he has written, and I am judging solely from the words which were written.  Those words tell me that there was a roll to Bluff the drake to take no retributive action, which arose during the efforts to persuade the Chamberlain of something.  Or, actually, to “convince the king to act or sponsor/deputize them, or grant them resources/assets/hirelings in their effort to hunt and defeat the dragon that is either threatening to usurp his kingdom or already has it hostage”, as manbearcat has been quite clear the Chamberlain is “merely a complication”, and not the goal. If they both use the sword, are they no longer mechanically identical when one rolls a 3 and the other a 17? It seems like you are indicating that there should never be a situation where a character might have to choose between the most expedient and effective course of action and remaining true to his principals.  That is not a presumption I would ever want in a game.  That means that there could very well be scenes where your Paladin may have to choose between saving innocents and stopping the Dragon.  That seems far more meaningful as to matters of theme and value than always structuring situations so that the Paladin never finds sticking to his principals remotely difficult. So, again, you should never, ever be framed into a scene where your character’s style might be sub-optimal for success.  If I build a melee monster – nothing but brute HTH strength, with every other ability sacrificed to enhance that melee might – then I should never, ever be framed into a scene I cannot readily resolve by slashing someone to ribbons. If you find them coherent and satisfying, more power to you.  I am not seeing any indication that the results are coherent or satisfying.  I see some potential, but I see a lot of issues in getting there.  And asking a question results in me being requested to read an extensive text.  I am still waiting for you to say either: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">“Yes, a success is a success – full stop – is a tenet of all indie play – the PC/player intent is achieve and this achievement is advantageous if they are successful”, or</li> </ul><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">“No, a success is a success – full stop – is not a tenet of all indie play – a successful roll can still result in complications later”</li> </ul> So how does that align with “But before we went to visit the King, I would have taken a measure of the King’s reputation among his people, looked at which way the palace faces and listened enough to know if Dragons routinely fly in and out of the King’s palace.”</blockquote>

Verification