Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6238611" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Thinking on my "in a perfect world", it would have been reasonable role playing for the Wizard to dig in his heels and state that he categorically will not participate in these "tests" demanded of him, so either get on with the matter at hand or seek assistance from someone more willing to jump through your hoops - a trained dog, perhaps.If the other players want to persuade him to go along with the requests, then let them do so in character.  One group of powerful people with, I assume, considerable political influence seems to be standing beside the Wizard - what will his fellow PC's offer for his assistance?  Is the Wizard going to walk away from that power base, or will he go along with party consensus to retain his alliance with this powerful group, and their political connections? Similar for the GM - will (can) this fellow offer a different reward, forego these tests, arrange a meeting with the higher ups, etc., in order to secure the desired assistance, or is he willing (or forced) to let them walk away, secure in his belief he can obtain assistance from some alternative source?  He seems to be played as secure in the belief the PC's will provide their assistance for what he offers, but what happens when that belief is shaken, especially given the urgency that seems to be attached to getting that assistance in place for the coming evening?Turning this from an in-game issue to an out of game issue is where the real fault, on both player and GM, lies.  I've looked across the table at a GM in the past and stated that the premise set by the scenario is, in my view, perfectly reasonable, but my character's personality dictates that he would not participate given that premise.  So if he (and I) have to sit this one out, so be it.  The GM's solution was a pretty minor addendum to the premise which accommodated my character's morals and beliefs so that he would participate, which was role played in game.  But we were both able to take the issue as an in game concern - perhaps if the GM does not understand my character's morals and ethics, the blame for that rests with me, the player, and I should explain to him out of game and out of character so he can take this into account as he sees fit.  If the premise had not changed an my character did not participate, so be it - I had enough faith in the GM to expect I'd have something to do as a player, even if my character was cooling his heels.  But he would also work to persuade other characters of his viewpoint, so there could possibly have been a larger group unwilling to participate (probably mandating bring in some outside forces), or we could have walked away as a group.  While it might be possible to persuade the Wizard to go along because his friends do, it is also possible his friends would be persuaded by his viewpoint.  I'm a big fan of the character being played in character, so I'm probably more militant than some in this regard, but I can envision a player not enjoying the game if the only way he can participate is to significantly compromise his vision of his character.Like some others, I don't care what "the module says".  Sometimes, what modules say is unmitigated crap, and it is the GM's job to modify the module accordingly, or select a module which is better written and/or a better fit.There's a broader issue here, to me.  I've seen a lot of games where the GM decides to change the basic world assumptions (in this case, a decimated population with the PC's at or near the top, and familiar with the other powerful players), but then writes or uses adventures written under the base assumptions of a typical milieu in that game.  Departing from the typical world assumptions requires a lot more customization of modules and similar items so they fit with the revised in-game realities.  No such modification was done here, so the adventure doesn't mesh well with the world.</blockquote>

Verification