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: 8601479" data-attributes="member: 42582">I take it that "PC" here means player.As I've already posted, my personal preference is for systems that resolve these sorts of action declarations by way of checks (eg Streetwise checks) or via player-side resource expenditure.For instance, in Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic, I know Tony Stark - he lends me some cool gear translates, mechanically, into spend a Plot Point to gain a bonus die in your pool. The Plot Point is a limited resource. The bonus die applies to rolls where - as per the details of the fiction - the cool gear would help. And as a general rule it lasts until the next transition scene.In my last Torchbearer session, the player whose PC has an Elven Ranger as a friend (as per the "do you have a friend?" component of the PC build process) made a Circles check to meet that friend, because the players knew that a ranger would help them with the journey from the town where they were back to the ruined tower that they wanted to loot and explore. The check failed, and so instead - as per my narration of that failure as a GM - instead the PC got news that her NPC friend had been captured.But in 5e D&D there are no mechanics to resolve these things, so it's up to free negotiation between player and GM. I think what [USER=6779717]@Eric V[/USER] has posted seems reasonable enough, but will add a few thoughts:***********************************(1) This is the example I've been working with. I still haven't had an answer to the question I've asked a couple of times now: if the quest for a Draconic-reader is really just a device for introducing the PCs to the sage, then why can the GM not just write an encounter with the sage into the ongoing play? I posited a possible reason - namely, that's it's too much work to depart from what the module says should happen - but no one has posted yet whether that's a relevant factor.(2) Why do the players want their PCs to travel to the Moonshaes? If the GM really thinks its crucial that the PCs not go there, then I can see some options: (i) your uncle's ships are all busy; (ii) on the way a storm comes up and sweeps you all to <some other place>; (iii) the swallowed-by-a-sea-serpent-like-Jonah variant of (ii). As far as (i) is concerned, I think it's would be obvious to most people that the degree of contrivance in the ships all being busy is not particularly high (compared to, say, the cousin/brother not having a spare hour or two to translate a fragment of parchment). And notice also that it doesn't negate the player's conception of the uncle: if the player says "My sister leaves the side gate open" then the GM can't negate that without having the sister decline a request for a favour; but the uncle can easily say "I'd love to help you, but all the ships are currently en route to <some other place>".I'll also add: when my Burning Wheel PC needed to travel down the Jewel river, I made a Circle check to have my PC meet an ex-member of his knightly order who might help. The check succeeded, and so the GM introduced Frederick, a retired knight of the Iron Tower, who was able to carry my PC down the river on his raft.In a BW game I was GMing, the PCs were on a ship which sank. So they were floating in the waters of the Woolly Bay. The player with the best Circles - the PC in question was an Elven princess - made a check to see if a helpful NPC might sail by and rescue them. The check succeeded, and so as GM I introduced an Elven captain, who had been dispatched to find the the missing princess. (He didn't literally sail by. One of the PCs was helping the Circles check by transforming into a falcon and looking out for any ships - and in falcon form was able to attract the attention of the Elven sea captain and guide his ship to where the rest of the PCs were.)(3) I don't actually see the big deal here. Is the player going to keep playing? In that case they need a PC to do so. And if it's AP-style play, that PC better be of about the right level. Assuming the players can provide the expensive component, then why not move right along? (I did a variant of that in my 4e D&D game - details <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/wizard-pc-dies-returns-as-invoker.324018/" target="_blank">here</a>.) If it's a NPC, and the GM would prefer them to stay dead, the GM can decree that their soul is not willing.(4) This is a variant of (2) with a dash of (3), and so the same considerations apply. It's also perhaps quite plausible that an Archmage is busy elsewhere. But if the GM wants the PCs to be in Neverwinter, then this is one way of getting them there!(5) This is an attempt to circumvent the rules for obtaining treasure, and so comes close to "cheating" or at least is a bit of a try-on. (In 4e it would be fine - just deduct the item from the next treasure parcel. If the item is bigger than what a treasure parcel permits, that tells us its too good for the PC to have, and the player is expected to conform to the same PC build rules as everyone else. Many of the magic items the PCs in my 4e game acquired were gifts of various sorts - there is no reason why treasure parcels need to be "loot drops" from dead NPCs or creatures.)(6) I gave the example already of the player in my Torchbearer trying to Circle up her ranger friend. This seems to belong in the same general category. On top of Eric V's point about when players typically do and don't want NPC assistance, I take it that what you're really pointing to is the level/power disparity between the PCs and Driz'zt, in which case we're back in the domain of rules, this time in relation to party composition rather than magic item acquisition.***********************************As well as thoughts, you'll see that I've done my best to give actual play examples from my FRPGing experience. 5e D&D is not 4e D&D or Burning Wheel or Torchbearer, but I doubt it's so delicate an instrument that it will break down over things they are able to handle so straightforwardly.</blockquote>

Verification