Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Apok" data-source="post: 365064" data-attributes="member: 1969">Regarding the male dwarves only; oops.&nbsp; Must not have seen that part, but does it really matter?&nbsp; If you want female dwarves in the game, just allow them.&nbsp;&nbsp; As far as corruption checks go, I agree that forcing a character like that is rather bad form but the nice thing is you don't have to DM (or Narrate, to use LotR's terminology) that way.&nbsp; If a player gets offered something he really really wants that might call for a corruption check, let him decide for himself.&nbsp; That's one of the wonderful things about the game is that you, as El Supremo, get to decide which rules stay and which ones go.&nbsp; This isn't World of Synnibar and the player's can't overrule you if you don't follow the book 100%.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I think the reason they put that in there to enforce the concept of &quot;Character based&quot; v &quot;Metagame&quot; thinking.&nbsp; As a DM, I assume that no player wil ever make an in-game decision that will be bad for his character if he knows what the outcome is likely to be.&nbsp; The character's personality, goals and desires rarely enter into the decision making it a Metagame based decision.&nbsp; Those rules are put in place to curttail this kind of behavior.&nbsp; Is it the best way to deal with it?&nbsp; I don't think so, but it's an easy rule to remove, which is good.&nbsp; I reserve Corruption Checks for when the player willingly does something stupid.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Apok, post: 365064, member: 1969"] Regarding the male dwarves only; oops. Must not have seen that part, but does it really matter? If you want female dwarves in the game, just allow them. As far as corruption checks go, I agree that forcing a character like that is rather bad form but the nice thing is you don't have to DM (or Narrate, to use LotR's terminology) that way. If a player gets offered something he really really wants that might call for a corruption check, let him decide for himself. That's one of the wonderful things about the game is that you, as El Supremo, get to decide which rules stay and which ones go. This isn't World of Synnibar and the player's can't overrule you if you don't follow the book 100%. ;) I think the reason they put that in there to enforce the concept of "Character based" v "Metagame" thinking. As a DM, I assume that no player wil ever make an in-game decision that will be bad for his character if he knows what the outcome is likely to be. The character's personality, goals and desires rarely enter into the decision making it a Metagame based decision. Those rules are put in place to curttail this kind of behavior. Is it the best way to deal with it? I don't think so, but it's an easy rule to remove, which is good. I reserve Corruption Checks for when the player willingly does something stupid. [/QUOTE]

Verification