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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6152280" data-attributes="member: 48965">I would say in a broad sense I agree with this assertion. I think in a well run (and played) game all participants contribute to the narrative and it's direction, but the dice in and of themselves keep any one person (including the DM unless he is disregarding the results) from having narrative control. Now I do believe, like [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] commented, that the DM has a greater control over the narrative then any one player concerning everything but the PC's characters, but I think that this is how the majority of traditional rpg's are set up and played. I also think (and yes, this is just my oppinion) that the majority of players and DM's are comfortable with this clean and unambiguous division of responsibilities. Personally I enjoy games which give narrative control over to players... but, you have to have players that want to experience the game in such a way for it to work well... and D&D being the gateway game, I'm not sure if including such mechnics (unless presented as an optional add-on) is worthwhile or even a disereable thing for the majority of D&D's fanbase. For me this whole argument gets a little fuzzy, as spells are presented as "narrative control" abilities... yet (IMO) they don't give any more potential control over the narrative than attacks, feats, skills or ability checks have the potential to. Yeah, I wasn't to fond of this suggestion either...Another area that blurs the discussion... are we discussing power and versatility of spellcasters or narrative control? I think they are seperate issues.I agree with a caveat... I deifinitely think the fighter could do with more out-of-combat resources in those versions of D&D that have codified them.</blockquote>

Verification