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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7086177" data-attributes="member: 48965">Well I think anytime someone mis-characterizes something it should be pointed out.  The SC is only one of 4e's resolution systems (this can't possibly be in dispute) and thus when you infer or outright state SC's are 4e's resolution system I feel that should be corrected.  But fair enough let's move on...Again you seem to be missing a subtle difference which I (as well as others) keep bringing up in my posts and you keep summarily ignoring.  None of us is talking about a blatant and total reversal of what was established... we are talking actions which could mitigate or change that result.  So using the above example... I'm not asking if they could in the very next scene decide to eat the PC's... but could the giant chieftain (if his independent motivations and goals coincide) choose to sell the PC's out to one of their enemies for profit once they are on their journey?  If they return through the giant chieftain's land could he decide then to eat them or take whatever it is they have quested for, again if his motivations and goals (as well as the general nature of giants) makes this feasible or does this one SC in effect make the giant chieftain their ally into perpetuity?Also... how does one of the players have a giant shaman as a PC resource??  I feel you are being pedantic here but ok... I am referencing the following definition of protagonist when using this word in reference to NPC's, monsters, etc.Protagonist:an advocate or champion of a particular cause or idea...In other words can you as the DM use the advisor to advocate or champion for a particular cause that is independent of reacting to what the PC's do... or are they simply antagonists... their only purpose, as others have stated, being to align with or oppose what the PC's do?EDIT: To further clarify let's take 4e as a system... I feel it really doesn't work well for the type of play where the NPC's express protagonism, Why?  Because as you commented on before the DM is not given the latitude to use the same tools as the players are.  NPC's never use SC's and don't even get to leverage their own queslities when opposing the PC's in a SC.  They instead are reduced to level appropriate DC's which must be overcome by the PC's.  In contrast a game like 5e allows one to leverage the same tools and mechanics for NPC's as are used for PC's and thus, IMO, works much better for this type of thing.I've clarified above what I meant by using the terms... can the advisor exhibit protagonism as defined above or is he just an antagonist?And I think you're contrast is too simplistic to make a meaningful distinction.  In a GM-driven game the players can determine the content of the fiction through the actions of their PC's and the leveraging of the agreed upon mechanics of the game... and in a player driven game the GM can determine content of fiction by narration of consequences.  the only time I feel your overly broad distinction applies is at the extreme edges of the two playstyles which is kind of pointless for real discussion.You've typed alot but still not come out and actually answered the main questrion I asked.  So I'll ask it again... is it only the players and their characters that can cause a mitigation or reversal of a resolution that has been decided?  If not under what circumstances (since in-game rationale's are not acceptable) can NPC's do such?I disagree... When you state... "unless something happens at the table, in the game, to reopen the matter"... actually isn't all that simple and the parameters of it (even though I've asked in multiple replies) around mitigation vs. reversal and who can institute said "something" have remained murky and nebulous...</blockquote>

Verification