Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8652091" data-attributes="member: 29398">Given what you've said earlier around how you manipulate treasure placement to disfavour characters you don't like, these statements seem very much at odds.So if I'm playing character E and my character is lucky enough to be the sole survivor*, I don't get to go back to town and recruit a new party?&nbsp; That seems very - non-continuous, for lack of a better term.* - note: it's not a TPK as there was one survivor; and that there was a survivor means the party's story can continue, even if it takes a new direction from here.We all do.&nbsp; Fact of life, I think. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yet from the descriptions you give of how your table operates (and thanks for those, by the way!), disruptive might be in the eye of the beholder.&nbsp; If, say, I'm a player and someone else doing something rash gets my character killed, it seems I'm able to stop the game and put the rash character's (and maybe its player's) further participation to a debate (i.e. argument!) and vote.&nbsp; This doesn't seem right somehow, and also serves as a great big deterrent to playing rash characters, which comes back to being told how to play. (and as rash characters are always the most fun, it seems counterproductive to discourage them)Never mind that if I put that character's continuance to a vote and lose, I've just caused hard feelings with its player.Or - and I've seen this happen myself - there's a strong underlying peer pressure to conform, strong enough that nobody dares move outside the boundaries.&nbsp; As something of a non-conformist when it comes to D&amp;D, this is the sort of thing I tend to push back against when I meet it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8652091, member: 29398"] Given what you've said earlier around how you manipulate treasure placement to disfavour characters you don't like, these statements seem very much at odds. So if I'm playing character E and my character is lucky enough to be the sole survivor*, I don't get to go back to town and recruit a new party? That seems very - non-continuous, for lack of a better term. * - note: it's not a TPK as there was one survivor; and that there was a survivor means the party's story can continue, even if it takes a new direction from here. We all do. Fact of life, I think. :) Yet from the descriptions you give of how your table operates (and thanks for those, by the way!), disruptive might be in the eye of the beholder. If, say, I'm a player and someone else doing something rash gets my character killed, it seems I'm able to stop the game and put the rash character's (and maybe its player's) further participation to a debate (i.e. argument!) and vote. This doesn't seem right somehow, and also serves as a great big deterrent to playing rash characters, which comes back to being told how to play. (and as rash characters are always the most fun, it seems counterproductive to discourage them) Never mind that if I put that character's continuance to a vote and lose, I've just caused hard feelings with its player. Or - and I've seen this happen myself - there's a strong underlying peer pressure to conform, strong enough that nobody dares move outside the boundaries. As something of a non-conformist when it comes to D&D, this is the sort of thing I tend to push back against when I meet it. [/QUOTE]

Verification