Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9227818" data-attributes="member: 23751">So...Does not come remotely close to equating to altering game reality on a whim.&nbsp; And it's the expected course for the DM to take.&nbsp; If the DM inappropriately shuts down something that should work, that's not a DM worth playing with.&nbsp; It's okay for something to work better than the DM expected and should be embraced by the DM, not shut down.Well, duh.&nbsp; Of course it should have the impact that it should.&nbsp; Again, a DM who is negating the impact of something inappropriately isn't worth playing with.&nbsp; And this is also not even close to equating to the player altering game reality on a whim.This should be allowed unless the players agreed prior to the first session not to walk away from hooks.&nbsp; The DM should throw out plot hooks and if the players bite, they bite.&nbsp; If not, not.&nbsp; Also, players who come up with their own hooks should be embraced as well.&nbsp; If I don't want to chase down your murder clown and instead want to go north to become chief of the Icepoohbear Barbarians, that's still a hook you can run with.They want you to not shut it down or reduce the impact, which is by default, reasonable and NOT altering game reality in their favor on a whim.This is just flat out wrong.&nbsp; I'm pretty sure that just about every player would expect the vault to be locked.&nbsp; Not only locked, but have other defenses as well. If you don't have pre-set defenses(and that means you don't get to just invent counters to what they do as they do it) that can stop them, they should succeed and it's your fault if you put in a billion coins that are that easily obtainable.&nbsp; This is actually the same as your first example.&nbsp; Oh, and story is fine.&nbsp; Just not force fed story. Same with linear.&nbsp; A dungeon is linear. You go in and wander around a bit, then you walk out. Linear is fine.&nbsp; Railroading, including illusionism, is wrong unless the players have given you express permission in advance to do it.It can, yes.&nbsp; You keep using &quot;whim&quot; and &quot;altering game reality&quot; which none of the things you mention actually do.&nbsp; The Wish spell alters the game reality.&nbsp; My rogue climbing into the lord's house and stealing his wife's jeweled oil lamp to sell when you didn't expect it, isn't altering the game reality.&nbsp; It's engaging the game reality as it was set up.&nbsp; Even if you didn't expect that sort of engagement.Also, something you don't seem to be understanding with your post.&nbsp; Mattering does not equate to succeeding.&nbsp; The player can fail, and if he fails fairly and not because the DM is arbitrarily shutting the player down and/or inappropriately rendering the actions less effective, then that's fine.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 9227818, member: 23751"] So... Does not come remotely close to equating to altering game reality on a whim. And it's the expected course for the DM to take. If the DM inappropriately shuts down something that should work, that's not a DM worth playing with. It's okay for something to work better than the DM expected and should be embraced by the DM, not shut down. Well, duh. Of course it should have the impact that it should. Again, a DM who is negating the impact of something inappropriately isn't worth playing with. And this is also not even close to equating to the player altering game reality on a whim. This should be allowed unless the players agreed prior to the first session not to walk away from hooks. The DM should throw out plot hooks and if the players bite, they bite. If not, not. Also, players who come up with their own hooks should be embraced as well. If I don't want to chase down your murder clown and instead want to go north to become chief of the Icepoohbear Barbarians, that's still a hook you can run with. They want you to not shut it down or reduce the impact, which is by default, reasonable and NOT altering game reality in their favor on a whim. This is just flat out wrong. I'm pretty sure that just about every player would expect the vault to be locked. Not only locked, but have other defenses as well. If you don't have pre-set defenses(and that means you don't get to just invent counters to what they do as they do it) that can stop them, they should succeed and it's your fault if you put in a billion coins that are that easily obtainable. This is actually the same as your first example. Oh, and story is fine. Just not force fed story. Same with linear. A dungeon is linear. You go in and wander around a bit, then you walk out. Linear is fine. Railroading, including illusionism, is wrong unless the players have given you express permission in advance to do it. It can, yes. You keep using "whim" and "altering game reality" which none of the things you mention actually do. The Wish spell alters the game reality. My rogue climbing into the lord's house and stealing his wife's jeweled oil lamp to sell when you didn't expect it, isn't altering the game reality. It's engaging the game reality as it was set up. Even if you didn't expect that sort of engagement. Also, something you don't seem to be understanding with your post. Mattering does not equate to succeeding. The player can fail, and if he fails fairly and not because the DM is arbitrarily shutting the player down and/or inappropriately rendering the actions less effective, then that's fine. [/QUOTE]

Verification