Rant: Why must thing always be obvious in D&D?

[Raven Crowking]

For that last time... what benefits?!

In this case, shopping there, or getting aid (presumably free aid).

Note that in this case, there is nothing preventing you from going to the Good Corner Temple to pick up potions, so there has to be something that makes the player want to go to Evil Secret Temple. Clearly, the player sees a benefit, even if it is not clear on the basis of the OP what that benefit is.

("My character is Uber Cool; he gets to X the Y" is, IMHO, a benefit. The player seeks to do something that the other PCs cannot do. Just as "special time while the NPCs react because my character is so weird" is a benefit.)

A firefighter PC shouldn't have to jump through hoops in order to find a fire.

Can you use an analogy that is more directly appropriate? Such as something secret or otherwise unknown, or that normally entails difficulty? Ex: "A dragonslayer PC shouldn't have to jump through hoops in order to slay a dragon. Now, disposing of its treasure, however....."

RC

 

[Nifft]

If I accept Aragorn Link, Ranger Chimp as the DM, then I've entered into an agreement that implicitly states that character can operate in the game environment without having to fear being stuck in a zoo everywhere they go.

There are miles of difference between:

- "Holy cow, it's a talking chimp! Hey, come look at the talking chimp!"

... vs:

- "Sorry, friend, this is a humanoid establishment. We don't serve awakened animals here. You should try down the street, place called Menagerie."

Both cases are "treated like a chimp", but one is in a campaign which assumes chimps are viable (if not necessarily equal).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Glyfair]

- The setting is not Forgotten Realms. I just use the pantheon because it's my favourite.

This is one of my pet peeves, so excuse me if I seem like I'm ranting. I don't really mean it that way

Part of the reason to use shortcuts, like pantheons from another world (Earth being common), is so that players have an idea of what's going on quickly. If you name a god "Thor" they know he has a hammer, magic goats, and hangs around with Iron Man (OK, maybe not so much the last). When you deviate from that norm you break that advantage.

For example, say a player is trying to impress some worshipers of Thor. When the village is attacked by hobgoblins he tries to defeat them with a hammer (not the weapon he spent feats on) in order to gain some brownie points. After the battle you point out that in your world "Thor" is known for his magic axe and hates hammers. Why use Thor then?

In a campaign I played in for a long time the DM decided to mess with the players by playing with expectations. We found out that something we needed was in the forest of the elves and that we'd have to deal with the elves. When we got there we found out that our stereotyped ideas of elves were completely incorrect, elves were actually Kzinti.

Was that fair and reasonable? No. The only reason apply a name used commonly is to engender an identification with the common traits.* If a DM says that we have to talk to the elves I shouldn't expect that in his world elves are really a race of fiendish Storm Giants. Call them Glug Glugs or something.

Now, I don't know much about Shar. Still, if you are going to use her in the world, keep things pretty much the same and let anyone know the changes when they should know it. IF a player finds out the commonly worshiped goddess has temples that he won't be able to fine is something he should know when he chooses the deity.

* Note that it would be different if the Kzinti's were specifically trying to spread the word that they were the traditional elves hiding in the forest. He wasn't though. He was specifically teasing the player's expectations.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now, I don't know much about Shar. Still, if you are going to use her in the world, keep things pretty much the same and let anyone know the changes when they should know it. IF a player finds out the commonly worshiped goddess has temples that he won't be able to fine is something he should know when he chooses the deity.

This isn't a change AFAIK.

RC

 

[Glyfair]

This isn't a change AFAIK.

I've said earlier in this thread that my FR knowledge isn't deep. I don't believe I've ever played in the setting.

That being said, I would have a problem if Shar was a commonly worshiped goddess and temples (shrines, worship sites) were so secretive that the worshipers can't find them when traveling.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Holy cow, it's a talking chimp! Hey, come look at the talking chimp!"

He couldn't speak human languages.

I made some racial options open that were otherwise not open. One was a "natural" awakened animal raised to sentience by the Beast Lords (animal gods representing perfection of animal types). Once chosen, the racial type allows a lot of options as to how to develop the animal. More feral, more human-like, etc. One chimp eventually learned to talk. They could also speak the "Chimapanzee Tongue" and communicate by gestures.

Actually, quite fun.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

That being said, I would have a problem if Shar was a commonly worshiped goddess and temples (shrines, worship sites) were so secretive that the worshipers can't find them when traveling.

If she was commonly worshiped by humans and surface races, I would agree with you. However, there is nothing in the material to indicate that, and everything in the material indicates that Li made the right call.

At least, as I read it.

YMMV. YDMB.


RC

 

[Kahuna Burger]

In a campaign I played in for a long time the DM decided to mess with the players by playing with expectations. We found out that something we needed was in the forest of the elves and that we'd have to deal with the elves. When we got there we found out that our stereotyped ideas of elves were completely incorrect, elves were actually Kzinti.

* Note that it would be different if the Kzinti's were specifically trying to spread the word that they were the traditional elves hiding in the forest. He wasn't though. He was specifically teasing the player's expectations.

I hate those DMs... there was someone here a while back started a thread looking for suggestion on exactly those sort of "switches" to pull on his players with his new campaign for no purpose whatsoever except to "shake things up" and "surprise them". When I suggested some problems with this strategy, I was insulted for being "unable to handle his blah BLAH pretentious blah...."

 

[Nifft]

YMMV. YDMB.

Okay, seriously. YDMB? "Your DM Blows"? "Your dragon may breathe"? "Your dwarf must bathe"? "Yeast develops my bread"? "Youths dance macarena badly"?

TMAFBH, please.

-- N

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There's a wee bit of hostility and condescension in that sentence.

Pot, kettle.

I, too, will give up on discussing this with you.