NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7631687">Wow...too much to fully catch up on this thread after a weekend away.  But I'll start with this one.While in general I agree that Trust is central to the question of how you resolve things outside the rules...that is, if you trust your GM (or players) then you don't need a specific mechanic behind every declaration.But that said, dictation of character thoughts/actions/reactions/feelings is, for me, still sacred territory.  Even with GM's I totally trust, and to whom I will happily give a pass for almost any sort of rules transgression because I know it's all in the service of a better story, I still don't want them deciding for my how my character reacts to a maiden winking.  That's my turf, and I'll jealously guard it.That doesn't mean I don't think the GM should ever cross the line: it just needs to be specified in the rules and mechanics.  That might range from D&D 5e (where "magic" is required) to The One Ring (where "bouts of Shadow madness" give the GM control of your character) to maybe some RPG out there which just says, "The GM can at any time dictate how your character reacts to something."  As long as I know how the mechanics work, and know the GM is working within those boundaries, I'm ok with it.  (Partly because I can then decide which games I do and do not want to play.)I'm not going to try to claim this as the "right" way to play RPGs.  I won't claim it's "not roleplaying" if the GM takes over your character ever other minute.  It's just not the sort of roleplaying I like.</blockquote>

Verification