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: 7726787" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is a psychological conjecture which is certainly not universally true, and I think probably not even generally true.For instance, in many D&D campaigns the PCs are of special importance to the fate of [the village, the kingdom, the world]. There may be some ingame rationale (they're the chosen ones; they're the only competent people around; they're braver than everyone else) but these are post hoc rationalisations in recognition of the fact that a RPG where the PCs are ordinary people is boring.If the GM frames me into a scene where my PC meets his/her long lost brother/lover/nemesis/whatever, that is a contrivance but it doesn't lessen my sense of accomplishment. Nor increase that sense. It simply gives me something interesting to engage with in the game.This is no different from a GM choosing to start the 1st level PCs in Keep on the Borderlands rather than Castle Amber. Yet plenty of players of KotB have felt a sense of accomplishment (for one example, see <a href="https://plus.google.com/111266966448135449970/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5" target="_blank">this actual play report</a> from Luke Crane).And if everyone at the table wants to play (say) a Heroic Tier 4e game, and so the GM sets up some appropriately-levelled encounters, then this is everyone playing the game they want to play, in the world that follows from the relevant choices.This makes no sense. If the PCs turn up at place X, and something interesting is happening at X right about now, that's no more improbable than the general fact that the PCs in adventure RPGs have an inordinate number of exciting things happen to them.Having exciting things happen around the PCs more often than they happen around me in real life isn't denying the players any agency.Establishing an initial level of challenge - whether via choosing KotB rather than Castle Amber, or framing the PCs into 2nd level encounters rather than 20th level ones - dosen't determine any particular success rate. That depends on the choices the players make in actual play.I also don't understand the difference between "clever tricks" and "tactical decisions". Is using a teleportation spell to teleport one (large) enemy into the air so that it lands on other enemies (something which happened in my 4e game) a "clever trick" or a "tactical decision"? What about pushing someone over the edge of a cliff (which has also happened)? Or using terrain (pre-existing and magically conjured) to achieve defeat in detail?This seems to be a description of a very specific sort of approach to D&D play: the PCs as wanderers in a world full of encounters waiting to be encountered. It sounds like Gygaxian D&D circa 1977. I don't think I've ever played an RPG of this sort. Traveller was published in 1977, and while it has rules for random encounters, some of those encounters are with patrons, ie NPCs whom the GM is expected to use to put events into motion.This is like saying that when I invite a friend to play backgammon, I am disregarding his/her agency to play chess.A non-trivial number of RPGers don't want to play D&D c Gygax-77. They want to play a game which is interesting in different ways. A GM who offers such a game is not disregarding anyone's agency.I don't know what you're talking about here.</blockquote>

Verification