Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The_Warlock" data-source="post: 2754956" data-attributes="member: 21215">And I disagree, if the PCs come up with a novel approach to a situation which should have no chance by the RULES as written, I'm going to change those rules to give them a chance. If a villain has actually stirred the player's into playing the emotions of their characters, building up a great well of vengeance, justice, or pity bringing all to a climactic battle/confrontation, I'm going to make him live through 5 rounds to build the tension even if the saving through said he would die in round 1 in a spectacular anti-climax. If as a DM, I cheat, it's not to take away the victory or the defeat of the PCs, but make them stand in the spotlight. To make the players, and their characters, choices real and effective, no matter what a book of rules may say.Now, that's not what Mr. Burlew is doing, since really, we are talking about OotS. He's showing a railroad plot. The character dialogue confirms it. He's showing the inconsistency of a ramshackle campaign. One where the universe is populated as much by rules-lawyers as keystone cops. The universe cheated not to put the PCs in the spotlight but because it couldn't find a new plot. I've seen those DMs, great storytellers, but can't finish an adventure, much less a campaign&nbsp; if the PCs make a decision other than the one the DM wanted. I'm enjoying the strip because I am looking at the fiasco that becomes from the outside, and waiting to see what wackiness is used to break free of it, or at least deter it. Which is a hell of a lot better than the runs I've really been in with DMs who couldn't RESPOND to character choices. But that's me... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="The_Warlock, post: 2754956, member: 21215"] And I disagree, if the PCs come up with a novel approach to a situation which should have no chance by the RULES as written, I'm going to change those rules to give them a chance. If a villain has actually stirred the player's into playing the emotions of their characters, building up a great well of vengeance, justice, or pity bringing all to a climactic battle/confrontation, I'm going to make him live through 5 rounds to build the tension even if the saving through said he would die in round 1 in a spectacular anti-climax. If as a DM, I cheat, it's not to take away the victory or the defeat of the PCs, but make them stand in the spotlight. To make the players, and their characters, choices real and effective, no matter what a book of rules may say. Now, that's not what Mr. Burlew is doing, since really, we are talking about OotS. He's showing a railroad plot. The character dialogue confirms it. He's showing the inconsistency of a ramshackle campaign. One where the universe is populated as much by rules-lawyers as keystone cops. The universe cheated not to put the PCs in the spotlight but because it couldn't find a new plot. I've seen those DMs, great storytellers, but can't finish an adventure, much less a campaign if the PCs make a decision other than the one the DM wanted. I'm enjoying the strip because I am looking at the fiasco that becomes from the outside, and waiting to see what wackiness is used to break free of it, or at least deter it. Which is a hell of a lot better than the runs I've really been in with DMs who couldn't RESPOND to character choices. But that's me... :) [/QUOTE]

Verification