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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5502863" data-attributes="member: 42582">The answer is "sort of, but it depends".Certainly, in any given encounter, it is possible for a player playing a PC of role X to decide that, givem the circumstances, they will do Y instead. A few sessions ago, for example, the sorcerer in my game (who is a multi-target striker) took the front line to protect the fighter and paladin, who (for various reasons related both to resource depletion and current adverse effects) were in need of protection. And the sorcerer in question has enough close range and defensive tricks - like bursting into fire and frying anyone who tries to hit him - that this was viable even if not fully optimal from the striking point of view.But if a player tried to make this sort of behaviour the norm, it would have an effect on the sort of contribution that his/her PC makes to combat. In this respect, character build choices are an important aspect of 4e. But it is certainly possible to build a PC who comes close to straddling roles - the fighter in my game is not just a self-sacrificing defender, for example, but also a close range controller (he uses a polearm and has lots of forced movement and knock prone capabilities, in addition to basic fighter control). And the paladin is also a healer (the only leader in the party is a hybrid cleric-archer ranger, so the paladin's contribution to overall healing is non-neglible). And the wizard, while a controller, is not combat optimised at all, but built primarily as a scholar and ritualist. Bottom line: departing from the orientation of your build is definitely sub-optimal, but the range of viable builds is very extensive. And the retraining rules make changes in build over time feasible, although obviously easier at lower than higher levels (because at lower levels what is being retrained at any given level will be a greater proportion of the whole PC).This means that in choosing a build, you are already choosing to engage with the story in a certain way - not to the extent of prescripting, but making a non-trivial contribution to it.That's why I regard the issue of GM control over/veto of build as a fairly important one - the more control of this sort that the GM exercises, the more the GM rather than the player is shaping the player's contribution to the story. OK, that wasn't clear to me in your earlier post. I know that in some play groups what you describe here is not the case (eg many modules or adventure paths predefine who the "bad guy" is).I would want to add to this: the scene limits aren't just established by the GM but will unfold via the action resolution mechanics; but the absence of "scene breaking" spells means that the players can't test, expand or transcend those limits without having to engage the scene in some sort of meaningful way (for these purposes, I'm not counting "OK, we all teleport away" as meaningful).The parts of the rules that, to me, tell against what you say here are:PHB page 259 A skill challenge occurs when exploration … or social interaction becomes an encounter, with serious consequences for success or failure… Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail… DMG pages 72 - 75 More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure… Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results... When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it… In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role… However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing … Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge… What happens if the characters successfully complete the challenge? What happens if they fail? When the skill challenge ends, reward the characters for their success (with challenge-specific rewards, as well as experience points) or assess penalties for their failure… the characters’ success should have a significant impact on the story of the adventure… If the characters fail the challenge, the story still has to move forward, but in a different direction and possibly by a longer, more dangerous route.Also, there is this, under the heading "Player Designed Quests":DMG page 103 You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure.Like all reasonably complex text, this is open to interpretation. But I don't think it's naturally read as meaning "players have no input into my scenarios" and "players have no say over plot goals".I don't know any new GMs who have started GMing using the advice in 4e. Do we have any evidence that they are more inclined to run railroads than they are to run scenarios into which their players have a high degree of input? My least experienced player has now been playing RPGs for over 10 years. But from the very start he took it for granted that, as a player, part of his job was to input material into scenarios and to help frame goals - both as part of building the backstory of his PC, and as part of actually playing his PC and engaging with situations in the course of the game. Is there any evidence that my experience with this player was atypical? This is true. I think the advice on scenario design in the 4e DMG is not all that good. I think the best D&D advice on scenario design I'm familiar with is actually Moldvay's in the Basic rulebook.</blockquote>

Verification