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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8600581" data-attributes="member: 42582">To me, what you've written here seems confused.I am envisaging a situation in which the GM has decided that, for whatever reason, the PCs have to get to B ("all choices funnel to B"); and the players have declared an action ("talk to my cousin", or whatever it might be) which will mean that their PCs don't get to B.So the GM has two options: block the players declaration ("Sorry, your cousin doesn't speak Draconic"); or go along with it, and then find some other way to introduce B (my suggestion was to have B turn up in some fashion or other - given the amount of power this whole situation posits the GM to enjoy, that shouldn't be too hard).The only "problem" here is a problem for the GM - because the GM has pre-determined that certain things must happen, and the players are declaring an action that will break from that pre-determined series of events. And I am suggesting that the solution to this "problem", which is of the GM's own making, is in the GM's hands. I don't know how that is "anti-DM".As I said, the alternative is for the GM to block the players' action declaration and insist that they make one of the choices that will funnel to B. Perhaps it will be more fun for the players to do the GM's thing rather than the thing they thought of - but if we're talking about reasons why the players don't build or play their PCs as invested in the gameworld, I would think that this would be one reason for that. Why invest my PC in the gameworld, if when I try and do so the GM blocks my action declaration and makes me choose from their list of options?</blockquote>

Verification