Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5181196" data-attributes="member: 4937">Most players are happy with, "Alright! The DM gave me the sword I always wanted."However, some players will focus on, "Alright. The DM gave me the sword I always wanted."Having what you want just drop into your lap because you wanted it blows suspension of disbelief for some players.  It also in the opinion of some deprotagonizes them.  I don't know if choice is the right word, but they see it as denying them the right to go and win the sword and earn it.  Consider three different responses to the player wanting a particular magic item:a) Roll randomly for treasure according to some table which is supposed to represent the distribution of treasure in the world.  Place the sword only if the impartial mechanics of world building say that the sword is there.b) Allow the player to actively seek out such a weapon.  Examine the setting and determine from myth, legend, and history where such a weapon is most likely to be found - even if the location ends up being quite remote from the current setting of the campaign.  Allow the player to seek out the item using his character's resources to research and explore the setting.  Perhaps ultimately even say, "No.", such an item doesn't exist.  You will have to find resources to make it yourself.c) Place the weapon somewhere in the adventure path that you've planned so that the player can find it and make use of it with minimal disruption to your planned campaign.Now, I don't want to get into judging the various merits of these plans, nor do I want to suggest that they are completely incompatible.  However, they do produce different results.Hense my attempt to distinguish between 'hard' and 'soft' illusionism.  I agree.  However, the fact remains that you did force the tavern on the players.  They couldn't avoid it.  Where ever went, there was this tavern lurking, waiting for them.   The illusionism is that the players themselves don't see that.  The tavern exists where they first find it, and they never knew about all the close brushes that they had when the tavern nearly jumped out and got them in some other town. And, both as a player and a DM, I'm fine with that - though the thought of the Tavern racing to head the players off at the pass makes me smile.However, whether or not that is bad isn't really what I want to talk about.  I just want to point it out as a technique and label it so that we can talk about it either to condemn or praise it as a technique or whatever.  I'm just trying to define the term, and a tavern which doesn't exist anywhere because it exists potentially everywhere until its observed is a sort of illusionism.  In the particular case you describe, it doesnt' really deny the players a meaningful choice IMO - in fact, IMO it actually creates choice - but you can through overuse of this technique deny players meaningful choice.  And what you have to understand is that players who have had this technique used against them to deny them meaningful choices, or who are otherwise particularly opposed to illusionism - might not agree with your and my assessment of whether this denies them meaningful choice.  In point of fact, you did put them on a railroad in the most literal sense of the term.  There was nowhere they could go but the Phony Inn.I should also note that I've already said that planned illusionism like this doesn't bother me.  It's only the improvised illusionism that I object to, precisely because I've been burned by it so many times.Really?  I don't think you actually mean that.   I think you mean that he'll catch up to the players whenever it doesn't break suspension of disbelief.   If the players are really trying to hide, escape, evade, or are at the moment in a trap filled tomb in a sea cave the Cursed Lost Skerry of Dread, or if the PC's are currently visiting the locked extradiminsional demiplane of Otto the Mad, then Patron X probably won't be catching up to them in the immediate future.I think there is a limit to that.  I agree that he can be anywhere you need him, but I think there also ought to be some consideration of whether Patron X has the resources to be there.  If Patron X catches up to the PC's while they are in the Fabled City of Brass, it implies certain things about the capabilities of Patron X that ought to be suitable to the character.  If you create Patron X, and then the PC's unexpectedly slip off somewhere Patron X as you created him shouldn't be able to go or if PC's 'get lost' and Patron X is less than omniscient, I'm hesistant to thrust Patron X in the players face or rework him so that he's capable of doing what I need him to do.  Because at that point, IMO, I'm really not letting the PC's do anything meaningful.  All roads led only where I want them to go, I'm just changing the curtains.One problem with this is that if you aren't careful, the only interesting and meaningful choice will be to work for Patron X.</blockquote>

Verification