Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6877801">Wasn't it extrapolating other people's statements and putting words in their mouths that got your panties in a knot a few pages ago?But, no, that's not even remotely what I'm claiming.&nbsp; Literally anybody could have narrative access to the patron, including other players.&nbsp; The DM can even have mechanical access to the patron. However I would expect each of them not try to undermine the warlock, just like I would expect the warlock to not try to alter mechanics.&nbsp; That's just social contract.&nbsp; Players of course can't use narration to change the game state for other players, which would include communication between the warlock and the player.&nbsp; You can have Eloelle's Patron whisper to you all you want; just don't try telling Eloelle what he whispers to her.The DM, of course, has more leeway.&nbsp; But let's say he decides, out of the blue without any mechanical justification, to announce that Eloelle's Patron is no longer whispering to her.&nbsp; WTF?&nbsp; I think that's a case of the social contract being completely violated.&nbsp; There are ways to salvage the narrative, but really I'd have to ask myself why I was playing at that table.If for some reason I wanted to stay in that game, maybe I'd respond, &quot;Huh.&nbsp; Well somebody is whispering to me; I could have sworn it's my Patron.&nbsp; The mystery deepens!&nbsp; In the meantime Eloelle is convinced it's her Patron.&quot;Does that answer your rhetorical question?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 6877801"] Wasn't it extrapolating other people's statements and putting words in their mouths that got your panties in a knot a few pages ago? But, no, that's not even remotely what I'm claiming. Literally anybody could have narrative access to the patron, including other players. The DM can even have mechanical access to the patron. However I would expect each of them not try to undermine the warlock, just like I would expect the warlock to not try to alter mechanics. That's just social contract. Players of course can't use narration to change the game state for other players, which would include communication between the warlock and the player. You can have Eloelle's Patron whisper to [I]you[/I] all you want; just don't try telling Eloelle what he whispers to her. The DM, of course, has more leeway. But let's say he decides, out of the blue without any mechanical justification, to announce that Eloelle's Patron is no longer whispering to her. WTF? I think that's a case of the social contract being completely violated. There are ways to salvage the narrative, but really I'd have to ask myself why I was playing at that table. If for some reason I wanted to stay in that game, maybe I'd respond, "Huh. Well [I]somebody[/I] is whispering to me; I could have sworn it's my Patron. The mystery deepens! In the meantime Eloelle is convinced it's her Patron." Does that answer your rhetorical question? [/QUOTE]

Verification