Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6069206" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Its a difficult corner case that you have outlined here.&nbsp; I, like Obryn, don't have these sorts of scenarios in my games.&nbsp; My table has a sense of what it wants from our collective gameplay and our creative agenda doesn't deviate from it (because it is informed by it).&nbsp; As such, it wouldn't come up in my game.&nbsp; However, if it was, this is how I would run it.&nbsp; And I'm certain that my players would be in agreement with it.&nbsp; I guess its because if we're playing the game whereby allegiances are malleable (either due to DM fiat, player fiat, or action resolution mechanics dictating such), then the realm of player agency takes on a new form.&nbsp; I mean, if in such a game, ally can truly become enemy and enemy can truly become ally (as in a dominate or charm person's mechanics...and the conditions that would break it)...and a player character has a shift in allegiance such that they are now an &quot;enemy&quot; rather than an &quot;ally&quot;...wouldn't that player's own agency would be infringed upon if their agenda is now one to kill their former allies (who are now enemies) but their suite of abilities (which works on enemies and not allies) would be rendered null because a PC (who has a mechanical interest in being unaffected) is granted authority to suspend the legitimacy of the action resolution rules and state &quot;he is an ally&quot; or is &quot;unaware he is an enemy.&quot;&nbsp; At my table, my players would firmly state that they are obliged to deal with the new metagame circumstances (ally &gt; enemy) and yield to the mechanical resolution of the situation (rather than suspend it or fudge it) and narrate it in a sensible manner.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6069206, member: 6696971"] Its a difficult corner case that you have outlined here. I, like Obryn, don't have these sorts of scenarios in my games. My table has a sense of what it wants from our collective gameplay and our creative agenda doesn't deviate from it (because it is informed by it). As such, it wouldn't come up in my game. However, if it was, this is how I would run it. And I'm certain that my players would be in agreement with it. I guess its because if we're playing the game whereby allegiances are malleable (either due to DM fiat, player fiat, or action resolution mechanics dictating such), then the realm of player agency takes on a new form. I mean, if in such a game, ally can truly become enemy and enemy can truly become ally (as in a dominate or charm person's mechanics...and the conditions that would break it)...and a player character has a shift in allegiance such that they are now an "enemy" rather than an "ally"...wouldn't that player's own agency would be infringed upon if their agenda is now one to kill their former allies (who are now enemies) but their suite of abilities (which works on enemies and not allies) would be rendered null because a PC (who has a mechanical interest in being unaffected) is granted authority to suspend the legitimacy of the action resolution rules and state "he is an ally" or is "unaware he is an enemy." At my table, my players would firmly state that they are obliged to deal with the new metagame circumstances (ally > enemy) and yield to the mechanical resolution of the situation (rather than suspend it or fudge it) and narrate it in a sensible manner. [/QUOTE]

Verification