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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6237849" data-attributes="member: 17106">D&D could be played in any number of ways. However, those kinds of tangents aren't really relevant. What happens when you grant the players the power to dictate tone or expand their responsibilities beyond their characters is irrelevant to the balance of particular character classes within the game as written, which does not give the player of any of those characters that level of authority.Yes. And again, the RAW grant a DM in the D&D game under discussion (not a GM in some indie game) blanket authority over offscreen events.Of course not. It's badwrongfun and you don't like it. You probably wouldn't get along in my campaigns (or anyone who plays with a different mentality than yours for that matter), and since you aren't in them, that's fine.But what the red herring notion is, in this context, is a rationale. The rules don't require that all game play is productive towards reaching any particular goal. The notion of any game play that doesn't as a waste of time is certainly your opinion to have. However, the game does not forbid a DM from introducing game elements that the players can interact with, but which lead nowhere useful. With regards to social skills or spells, there is nothing in the text that prevents the DM from establishing NPCs that are unable, unwilling, or simply not interested in doing what the players would like, and their is no "fiat" in any of the Charm/Diplomacy abilities that would override that.Personally, I find that it is essential that a significant portion of gameplay is not goal-directed or player-centric, in order to convey to the players the sense that there is a living world that their characters can participate in. The equivalent of establishing shots in cinema, or those background characters in D&D video games that make pithy comments but can't be interacted with.You don't have to. But nothing in the rules requires or even strongly suggests that the players need to be involved in every aspect of the game. Nor is it something that I find most players want. If anything, a DM that doesn't have a clear vision of what his game is about sends a message that he isn't very invested in his game and probably won't be much of a DM when the dice start flying.I think  [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] addressed this pretty well. However, the example you've given was a Jedi, someone better than the average human, which is not the case in D&D. A D&D character is not "special" in the way that Luke is (unless the DM has decided this is the case). It also occurs in a lawless area, which is not implicit in the scenario I described, though if he had been caught he probably would have been executed (and indeed, almost was anyway). It is also, even though used against evil and for good, nonetheless an evil act. Is it impossible for an analogous scenario to play out in D&D? No. Is it a pretty radical action? Yes.Maybe. Maybe not. As I noted earlier, it's entirely possible that the PCs may attempt disruptive actions out of ignorance. Or, perhaps, out of sheer curiosity.It's often nice when the players and DM are on the same page, but a clash of expectations can be interesting and dynamic. Which, of course, is why it needs to be (and is) textually clear whose vision wins when the DM and players clash.So what if the 1st level players do try to rob a local magic shop? It could get them thrown unceremoniously out on the street, or it could start a new adventure in prison, or it could result in an unscrupulous mage demanding that the party steal something for him as a quest to prevent him from simply executing them after they've been caught.Conversely, what if the NPC shop owner has made some mistake, or if some higher power is watching over the PCs, and their (ostensibly foolish) plan actually does work, and they walk out with riches? What then? Is there a whole new line of events devoted to what they do with their stuff? Are they on the run, fugitives? Are they recruited by some local criminal syndicate?Or maybe some magical entity divines their intent and stops them before they even get started on their plan. Maybe the DM has a bigger plot to get to, or expectations of moral conduct that the players are violating, and he conveys to them quickly and clearly that this kind of behavior is not within the bounds of his campaign. The possibilities are endless. And, of course, almost completely under the purview of the DM. The thing the players provide here is a statement of intent, which it's then up to the DM to work with.</blockquote>

Verification