Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6113587" data-attributes="member: 7635">Not really what I meant. The ACTION follows the PCs, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world is motionless. If the PCs want to ignore Acerack to go focus on Lloth, that's fine. Both will remain a menace for other adventurers to handle and do dastardly things in their downtime off camera. Oh absolutely. My reason for using editions was that the expectation of the feel the rule-sets attempt to give in the game. 1e was based around a permissive DM, 2e emphasized the "yes, and..." notion (the example is right of the Complete Fighter's Handbook, btw), 3e gave solid and detailed rules for everything, and 4e demands plot cards to do cool things*. * Yeah, yeah, page 42. Page 42 is suggestions for DM fiat and really no different than our 2e DM pulling rules out of his backside, except the page has a chart to determine what a "fair" rule would be. Page 42 actually defeats attempts to define "player narrativism" since, by definition, its the rules for DM rules adjudication and essentially defines the "mother may I" play style that narrativists rail against. Wait, a gathering of adventurers is a metagame concept now? Um... No. Groups of people have worked together for a common goal since man discovered how to talk with one another. It might be a bit metagamey to get the party together (you are all in a bar and decide to work together) but after that, bonds of loyalty, friendship, shared goals, and common interests keep the party together. I'm seeing our problem. What you call "metagame" I call "role-playing." Think of it like this: There are two elements of the game: the action as the characters perceive it (the narrative, or game) and the action as the player's perceive it (the metagame or rules). When a character makes a decision, he be limited to (as much as possible) what the character can perceive. Thus, a fighter sees a troll, he knows he's outmatched because trolls rend flesh in seconds and recover grievous wounds, not because a troll is CR 7 and has regeneration 5. There is some metagame thinking that can't be avoided (I'm low on hp, I'm gonna retreat) but PCs should be able to justify (in character) what happens (I'm wounded badly). However, I tend to think actions in combat as something the PCs can control, and they must try to make their decisions based on what the character sees and create rational, in game, explanations. (I tripped the goblin and he fell. I'm going to try it again and see if he falls again. vs. I tripped the goblin, now I can't try it again until the next fight). And THERE'S the entitlement. Why? Are they afraid you'll say no? Are they afraid you'll set some difficult DC and won't succeed? Are they afraid a wasted attempt is as bad as doing nothing? Are they afraid their halfling fighter with a 16 strength can't push the ogre into the campfire because the rules are stacked against small creatures pushing large ogre's in fires? I don't think there's a DM in the world that wouldn't let you /try/ to push the giant around with your shield. I don't know a DM who wouldn't. They can try, and lucky dice rolls later might succeed. Or they might fail. And that's what the Tide of Iron power shields you from: failure. It just happens. It doesn't matter if its a pixie or the Tarrasque, it just happens. Oh please. A giant's AC is reflective on its level in 4e and you know it. Size and strength play nothing into a monster's AC. Two level 8 monsters have roughly the same AC (within a few points) and it doesn't matter if they're nymphs using magical power, drow in chain armor, or giants with clubs. Level alone determines the bulk of AC in 4e, justify to yourself how you like.Now, in 3e with its pain-in-the-butt-realism, bull rushin was hard. You made a touch AC roll, then an opposed strength check, which DID take into account that giant's 25 strength a +8 size mod. Tell me 4e's atk vs. AC is anywhere near as complicated, or as realistic, as that?In 3e, he moves his foe OR he deals damage. In 4e, player gets cake and eats it too.See, my players come to the game with the consent to be ruled. I, in turn, do not abuse their trust and give them a game they will enjoy. If I don't, they don't come and I am a DM of nothing. I use the rules since they are the agreed upon parameter's for the night. However, when the rules come between fun and not fun, I chuck the rules and opt for fun. However, the payoff is that this sometimes screws the players as often as it helps them. Sometimes the ogre has 15 extra hp because the critical hit would have felled it in the first attack and everyone else wanted a shot at it. Sometimes the ogre's critical hit against the wounded cleric comes up a natural 1. Player doesn't know, he just knows that the ogre battle was exciting. He's willing to trust I'll make just and fair calls in the best interest of all.However, what I am being told again and again (and this round did nothing to correct me) is that players feel the DM won't always make the "right" call when it comes to when to screw the rules (usually when it benefits them) and they want the ability to make those calls for him. I guess for conventions and RPGA games where you don't have camaraderie with your fellow players/DM that's fine. But in a home game it strikes me as players wanting DM privileges for themselves without the responsibilities of actually DMing (creating scenarios, game prep, etc). That is the entitlement I dislike and every time a decides that my fleeing monsters would turn around, run back, and receive their one good whacking (perhaps killing them in the process) I feel the trust is broken and antagonism, not cooperation, has sunk into the rules.</blockquote>

Verification