Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tuft" data-source="post: 6153245" data-attributes="member: 60045">From previous examples, I gathered that *asking* the DM for "what small hard object is there lying around that I can drop on an opponents head?" is *not* narrative control, while positing that specifically a flowerpot is there *is* narrative control.The flowerpot may have been a trivial example, but its the principle I am asking for here. The cauldron of oil and the SMG were more drastic, especially the latter in a fantasy campaign... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />The three questions you ask: fallible, vetoable, and extent are basically what I also want to know about.Yes, to me changing that the orcs never were automata would gel with what I've previously been told about Narrative control. This to me sounds like an extremely sandboxed game. I do like myself a good improvisational game as a GM, but I'd have a hard time if one of the pillars of the background story got torn out under me (and I know one of my players who'd have *serious* trouble with things being redefined on the fly!). It would be hard to introduce a story of automata infiltrating the world if the fighters taunt would make them *not-automata* in every combat encounter... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification