Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6148983" data-attributes="member: 17106">I don't know that that's &quot;traditional&quot;, but let's roll with it for a minute. If you have a situation where a player and his character's abilities are in conflict with the DM, I think the solution is to try and reduce the conflict, rather than bring everyone else equally into the fray.Take an example. The teleport spell is the benchmark for high-level magical transportation. If it's used to take the party to far-off places in search of adventure, then back home, there's probably no issue. If the player is trying to use tactically to surprise people in combat, or trying to teleport to secure or secret areas, it can conceivably become a problem. In that case, the solution is to change the teleport spell to prevent those actions, by making it harder to cast or more limited in effect. If this is a widespread enough issue, the rulebooks tackle it in their next iteration. If one DM has a problem, he fixes it and moves on. Trying to give nonmagical characters an equivalent ability doesn't solve the problem, besides the ridiculousness of them having that ability.I imagine so. Having those narrative tools is a lot of responsibility, and sharing them can cause chaos. D&amp;D is not a story game; it's about putting yourself in the shoes of one character and playing that role. Other games can share narrative control, but I don't think that D&amp;D needs to go strongly in that direction, and I don't think it's a forward or modern direction, simply a different type of game. It's not as if PCs are an oppressed race in need of emancipation.If the goal is to try and make the narrative control of different player characters more similar, I think the only appropriate solution for D&amp;D is to reduce those abilities overall, or else you run the risk of altering the player/DM relationship.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6148983, member: 17106"] I don't know that that's "traditional", but let's roll with it for a minute. If you have a situation where a player and his character's abilities are in conflict with the DM, I think the solution is to try and reduce the conflict, rather than bring everyone else equally into the fray. Take an example. The teleport spell is the benchmark for high-level magical transportation. If it's used to take the party to far-off places in search of adventure, then back home, there's probably no issue. If the player is trying to use tactically to surprise people in combat, or trying to teleport to secure or secret areas, it can conceivably become a problem. In that case, the solution is to change the teleport spell to prevent those actions, by making it harder to cast or more limited in effect. If this is a widespread enough issue, the rulebooks tackle it in their next iteration. If one DM has a problem, he fixes it and moves on. Trying to give nonmagical characters an equivalent ability doesn't solve the problem, besides the ridiculousness of them having that ability. I imagine so. Having those narrative tools is a lot of responsibility, and sharing them can cause chaos. D&D is not a story game; it's about putting yourself in the shoes of one character and playing that role. Other games can share narrative control, but I don't think that D&D needs to go strongly in that direction, and I don't think it's a forward or modern direction, simply a different type of game. It's not as if PCs are an oppressed race in need of emancipation. If the goal is to try and make the narrative control of different player characters more similar, I think the only appropriate solution for D&D is to [I]reduce[/I] those abilities overall, or else you run the risk of altering the player/DM relationship. [/QUOTE]

Verification