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

[Nifft]

"Tokyo's Monsters Are Falling Behind Here", In Your Knight's Worst Idle Moments (And I Take Your Dollars).

Thank You Very Much - Numion.

The bold part is right.

"Throw me a frikkin' bone here". The rest belongs to hong.

[/threadcrap], -- N

 

[LostSoul]

- player runs a character follower of Shar (FR evil major deity)
- character wants to find a temple of Shar, to get help and equipment

Let's see...

1 Ob base. Occupation common to his circles. Same station/rank. Somewhere local, +1 Ob. He wants to find them this session, +1 Ob. So an Ob 3 Circles roll.

On failure I'd evoke the emnity clause and say that the guys in this temple know the PC from way back and don't like him. They had a falling out over doctrine, and are not willing to supply him with any equipment or anything. Hell, they'd like to get rid of him so that he doesn't blow their cover!

Or maybe an Ob 4 Cult-wise roll.

...

Sorry, I just like the way Burning Wheel handles this sort of thing.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*


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

I would see the analogy more along the line of Ex: "A dragonslayer PC shouldn't have to jump through hoops in order to FIND a dragon. Now killing it howevers..."

If you allow a PC to belong to a secret order, it's not really a stretch to think that the player might assume that he could, y'know, contact that order.

As far as making PC's jump through hoops goes, well, to me it looks a lot more like bait and switch, depending on how far you take it. Sure, fine, make the PC do a bit of hunting around to make contact - that's fine. But, OTOH, if you allow the PC then never allow him to make contact with his cult, that's basically just a "neener neener" by the DM. "Look at me! I'm making my players feel like stupid peons because they chose classes/concepts that I don't like!"

((Note, this in no way actually relates to Li Shenron's original point, since that's been clarified and the situation is actually quite different. I'm continuing from the viewpoint that was established later in the thread.))

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you allow a PC to belong to a secret order, it's not really a stretch to think that the player might assume that he could, y'know, contact that order.

There ya go!

It's important, in my mind, that the DM makes the player's choices fun. Once you've said "okay!" to a dark cleric of secrets and evil, it's your job, as a DM, to present them with challenges and give them appropriate rewards. You should give them secrets to keep, dark rites to participate in, good-guys they can kill, shadows they find security in, etc., etc., etc. There should be challenges that reflect his nature: he SHOULD have to risk a town finding out about him, a wanna-be hero chasing him down, rival cultists wanting to reveal his secrets, etc. And he SHOULD have to face these down.

If you're throwing a roadblock at a character whenever he just wants to chat with some of his peers, though, you've kind of boned the character for his character choice. You've made it "not fun" to play the character, because that character experiences some special disadvantage that is in no way compensated for.

It would be similar to saying "Yes, you can be an elven sorcerer! But magic is rare and secretive!" and then making the character deal with not having a spellbook, familiar, or component pouch because "there's no way he could have attained these when magic is rare and secretive!"

Or allowing a thieving rogue who then is automatically hunted and who has wanted posters on every inn and who can't go into any town for fear of being apprehended.

You've effectively made it more difficult to play that kind of character in your setting. You've unbalanced things, as surely as if you let a level 3 commoner adventure with level 15 paladins. While many players might not mind playing in an unbalanced party, it should hardly be expected to be the *norm.*

This assumes, reasonably, that the equipment and aid were more along the lines of "visiting town to rest and resupply" than something special and significant. Equipment and aid generally are relatively minor, assured things for a character to have, but if the setting is especially tough or gritty, I suppose they might not be, and asking for such things would be a great reward.

Basically, you shouldn't put roadblocks to any character you've accepted for their basic operation and requirements unless doing so is part of a grander scheme that the player can then thwart. Like taking away a Wizard's component pouch, it's a harsh tactic for a DM to take, one that, for many players, really hurts their ability to enjoy the character.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would see the analogy more along the line of Ex: "A dragonslayer PC shouldn't have to jump through hoops in order to FIND a dragon. Now killing it howevers..."

Sure, if the dragonslayer is looking for a dragon who will help provide equipment and advice on slaying dragons, this is absolutely a good analogy.

If you allow a PC to belong to a secret order, it's not really a stretch to think that the player might assume that he could, y'know, contact that order.

But, as you pointed out, that isn't the case here.

(IMC, I have a feat that automatically allows you an "In" in a secret cult. Indeed, you get to build the cult out of whole cloth if you like.)


RC