Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8007673" data-attributes="member: 42582">Why not?Every orc is killable. (By application of the combat rules.)Every forest is passable. (By application of the exploration and movement rules.)Why is every NPC not influlencable?Of course some orcs won't be killed - they have too many hp, or the players just roll very poorly.And some forest won't be passed - the players fail their CON/exhaustion-type checks, fail their WIS/Survivial or whatever checks, or whatever is appropriate.But those are outcomes of the action resolution procedures. Why shoul NPCs be different?What does desirable mean here?What is undesirable about the players declaring actions for their PCs to try and change the fiction?Whether the fiction permits what you describe is a further question. Eg if the PCs and relevant NPCs aren't in the same room then they will need telepathy or the post if they are going to communicate. But that's about fictional positioning, not about desirability.Depending on the system, and hence how situations are framed and how the lesser NPCs figure as part of the situation, there may also be finality rules that apply. But D&D isn't a system that uses very form framing of situations, and nor does it have terribly strict rules about finality. So if the PCs can contrive to talk to the servants ,and instigate their revolt, I don't see what the problem is.(The closest thing I can think of in my recent play was when the PCs in my Prince Valiant game conquered a castle in Burgundy leading their small warband at the head of a spontaneous peasant uprising. It was quite exciting.)</blockquote>

Verification