Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ilgatto" data-source="post: 8979916" data-attributes="member: 86051">If I understand all of the above correctly, the Snarfster is <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/manual-of-the-planes-the-switch-to-a-standard-multiverse-and-why-it-matters-part-2.672530/" target="_blank">suggesting</a> that MotP has actually limited what one can do in the Prime Material Plane and that it led to post-MotP publications being “forced” to put weird things in other planes than the PMP, thus de facto depriving folks who wanna stick to “canon” and do “weird” things with their post-MotP Prime Material Plane at the same time of the possibility to do so.Wanna have Ravenloft in 2E? It’s off the Demi-Plane of Dread with you. [rant]Ye Gods! I hate the concept of a “Demi-Plane of Dread” and especially when it has to be in the Ethereal Plane.[/rant]Wanna have Alice in Wonderland? No more just open a dungeon door and BOOM! – h-e-e-e-e-e-re’s… Alice! for you. Nope, the post-MotP mechanics have forced you to cross planar boundaries.Wanna have some six-shooters in your game? Impossible unless some gunslinger has found a portal to the Prime Material Plane… which he cannot for everybody knows there’s no such things as portals to fantasy worlds in Westerns.Wanna find Amun-Re’s tomb in the Desert of Desolation? Sorry, pal, you’ll have to find yer ways to the Forgotten Realms first. Um…, wait…, um…, okay, forget I said that.And that (apart from such notions as that there’s many ways around that and that messrs EGG and EG and everybody else of some name who ever did anything for D&D have always hammered on the fact that everybody is free to do whatever they like in their own games) the fact that MotP “canonizes” the concept of the PMP and other planes, and the fact that D&D/TSR publications typically “have to” stick to the canon, has therefore more or less prevented folks who wanted to publish something that does weird things in the PMP.And these, I think, are valid points.In my main (2E) world, “reality” is created by the human perception of it, limited only by their – and therefore the players’ – preconceptions of it. Yup, that’s a circle, which makes it all the more interesting. IMHO and all that.To put it very simply, this allows me, as the DM, to confront my PCs/players with phenomena and propositions as strange as they are subtle, with notions and ideas that seem quite logical and “real” when put forth, which then makes them decide things and go places, which become part of their thinking process, their view of how things seem to be (and therefore “reality”) until someone eventually goes: “Er… hold on…, that’s not really possible/the case/what he said/what actually happened/(and so on, and so on), is it?”There are many ways in which one can do this, as long as they don’t take away player agency, for that would defeat the purpose. So there’s playing on feelings of suspense; following up and/or seemingly lending credence to a player’s misunderstanding of the plot of an adventure (of which there’s a lot as any DM will know); using paramours and other loved ones; the odd joke; emphasizing aspects of scenes and sites; simultaneous effects; playing out conversations with NPCs in real time (I’m lucky in that, for most of my players are actors, role-players, or a combination of both); knowing what makes your players tick and designing adventures around themes that will interest them; suggesting that the gods and their servants play an active part in the fortunes and woes of the heroes and heroines of the word, which the PCs obviously are.All of this means that I de facto give events and people aspects and qualities that would not fit with what I suppose would be considered acceptable in the PMP as it is described in MotP. For how can I explain that lightning struck at the exact same time a dour innkeeper with the stats of a commoner spake the final worlds of his horror story close to the roaring fire in his lonely inn on the moors? How can I explain that a paramour gave a ‛dream-like’ quality to a romantic encounter when he/she cannot cast spells or use psionics? How can I explain that the princeling the evil PC just murdered in cold blood is seen alive and well behind that first-floor window when the party leave the mansion? How can I explain that you thought that the robed man standing behind the patrol sergeant was reading your mind? How can I explain that Issym of the Lake suffused the room with a tangible aura, a miasma, when my own concept of her beauty got the better of me because I and everybody else at the table had had a couple of Gueuzes?Well, I suppose MotP sort of says I can’t really do so in the PMP, while the Gygaxian PMP would say…, well, nothing really. Except, perhaps, if pressed: “Um… good work?”Now, can I publish this world post MotP? Apart from the fact that I really couldn’t because the above is obviously the result of ad lib player-DM interaction in specific situations, I probably can. Would this world be in line with the post-MotP “canon” for 2E? Perhaps not so much.Would I want to do so post MotP? Without hesitation, no.For, despite what their authors may say, rule books do have the unfortunate habit of determining what DMs of the game think they can do and what they cannot, what players will accept and what they won’t.I suppose it could be argued that MotP was a logical consequence of what was happening with the game at the time, a necessity even. It explained things, established “much needed” rules, brought things “back to earth”, “grounded” them, and it allowed creative folks to publish “weird” things within a comprehensive TSR frame.In that, it provided DMs, designers, and players with many, many, possibilities of adventure – while limiting things at the same time.EDIT: point>points</blockquote>

Verification