Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 8388836" data-attributes="member: 2629">I'll strongly disagree right back.&nbsp; While there are clearly situations we need to deal with as players that are impacting the story, this is a situation where a solution should start in the game if at all possible - and it seems incredibly likely to me that it is as discussed below.D&amp;D is an RPG.&nbsp; A role playing game.&nbsp; Characters play a role in a story.&nbsp; Stories have ups and downs.&nbsp; As players, we get invested in the situation.&nbsp; That is a hallmark of a good game.&nbsp; We, as people, will be impacted by the game as our PCs face struggles - sometimes of their own making, sometimes from fellow PCs, often from NPCs or monsters.&nbsp; That does not mean that we should halt the story and revise the situation out of character every time the story impacts us as players in a negative way.&nbsp; The struggle to overcome negative situations is part of telling a good story.&nbsp; And it is desired.Go look on your character sheet.&nbsp; What do you see right beneath Bonds?&nbsp; Flaws.&nbsp; Characters are meant to have flaws.&nbsp; Flaws are things that make them problematic.&nbsp; Look at the sample flaws in the PHB.&nbsp; Read them.&nbsp; PCs are intended to have some of these types of behaviors - to start.&nbsp; They'll have a chance to grow and evolve over these flaws.This obviously has limits, and those limits are going to differ from table to table and situation to situation.&nbsp; So the DM and player need to make the call here if a player raises an issue.&nbsp; However, if you read the OP, the OP is talking about what the character should do - in game - to respond to the situation.&nbsp; The starting point for the player is in game, and I believe that if their first inclination is to address it in game, we are not over that threshold here.&nbsp; For a further example of what I am discussing: Go back and look at Critical Role campaign 2 as another example where something similar took place.&nbsp; While the Mighty Nein broke into a politician's home to frame them (ahhh ... heroes), Caleb found some scrolls.&nbsp; While the group knew it was important not to leave a trace (which they'd already messed up), Caleb wanted the scrolls.&nbsp; It was part of his PC's personality and backstory to be desperate for power (at that point in time, at least).&nbsp; He took the scrolls, and his loyal ally Nott (who also needed him to become more powerful for selfish reasons) had his back.&nbsp; The rest of the PCs present were insistent that he leave them behind.&nbsp; Despite argument, he took them.&nbsp; This situation was handled by the PCs in the moment, discussed by the PCs in character down the road, and resulted in conflict that played a role in the development of the PCs.&nbsp; It was a fairly significant story development that forced them to consider what being in a group meant and triggered character growth.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 8388836, member: 2629"] I'll strongly disagree right back. While there are clearly situations we need to deal with as players that are impacting the story, this is a situation where a solution should start in the game if at all possible - and it seems incredibly likely to me that it is as discussed below. D&D is an RPG. A role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. Stories have ups and downs. As players, we get invested in the situation. That is a hallmark of a good game. We, as people, will be impacted by the game as our PCs face struggles - sometimes of their own making, sometimes from fellow PCs, often from NPCs or monsters. That does not mean that we should halt the story and revise the situation out of character every time the story impacts us as players in a negative way. The struggle to overcome negative situations is part of telling a good story. And it is desired. Go look on your character sheet. What do you see right beneath Bonds? Flaws. Characters are meant to have flaws. Flaws are things that make them problematic. Look at the sample flaws in the PHB. Read them. PCs are intended to have some of these types of behaviors - to start. They'll have a chance to grow and evolve over these flaws. This obviously has limits, and those limits are going to differ from table to table and situation to situation. So the DM and player need to make the call here if a player raises an issue. However, if you read the OP, the OP is talking about what the character should do - in game - to respond to the situation. The starting point for the player is in game, and I believe that if their first inclination is to address it in game, we are not over that threshold here. For a further example of what I am discussing: Go back and look at Critical Role campaign 2 as another example where something similar took place. While the Mighty Nein broke into a politician's home to frame them (ahhh ... heroes), Caleb found some scrolls. While the group knew it was important [I]not to leave[/I] a trace (which they'd already messed up), Caleb wanted the scrolls. It was part of his PC's personality and backstory to be desperate for power (at that point in time, at least). He took the scrolls, and his loyal ally Nott (who also needed him to become more powerful for selfish reasons) had his back. The rest of the PCs present were insistent that he leave them behind. Despite argument, he took them. This situation was handled by the PCs in the moment, discussed by the PCs in character down the road, and resulted in conflict that played a role in the development of the PCs. It was a fairly significant story development that forced them to consider what being in a group meant and triggered character growth. [/QUOTE]

Verification