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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5643878" data-attributes="member: 6679551">I don't infer anything offenive in your post. It's the nature of posting that sometimes one adopts a tone that seems more pointed than one would be in a normal conversation.   Whether we have different views or not, you're inferring something that I never implied nor stated. You're also misconstruing my point. I said, or I meant to say the DM guides the player through "a" story. The characters embark on a journey and the DM is their conduit to the world. Regardless of what course the characters choose, they are still limited by the DM's decisions on how the world works. The DM is still making aribitrary decisions about which NPC's exist in the world and what those NPC's are are there for. What you describe in your campaign has occured in mine as well. The party killed some key figure and I had intended to escape and I had to change several story arcs as a result.  But Modules do have a path to complete a goal. The module puts obstacles along that path. Those obstacles are dependent upon the party being able to provide certain functional roles. In early 1e, modules expected you to be able to kill things and heal. If you couldn't do that...the module ended in failure. With the advent of the Skills system, I think many modules try to provide multiple methods for overcoming obstacles, but they still expect people to fulfill traditional roles.  If your party is well balanced and there is no overlap, you can often play the module straight up.  If you're running a pack of Fighters, you're going to have to work a bit harder to make the module doable by the party. Not sure I understand where this is going?  I'm not entirely sure how we got to this question, but as I stated pretty early on, the specific mix of classes was always something that a DM was encouraged to work around. If you party doesn't have a single character with a Strength higher than 6, then it's a good bet the DM won't require the party kill things to advance the story. My point is that in early D&D, character have to be able to do something along the lines of fighting or roguing to make their way through a dungeon so that there could even be a story. But as I said in previous, I no longer think it's called roleplaying solely because of the roles you play...but certainly in part because the game is presented as a game where you play a "character" in an adventure story...an ongoing Fellowship of the Rings, if you will. One pont of clarification, I'm talking about how 1e AD&D operated. The Skills and Feats and Multiclassing has opened up the game to a much wider range of ways for characters to advance. 1e, you basically had to kill things and take their loot. How you did it just determined how long it took you to level up when you trained. Again, I feel like we are off on some tangent...but whatever.</blockquote>

Verification