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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 5581123" data-attributes="member: 23935">I've seen them, but they aren't necessary most of the time.  Although the result is defined by DM fiat, there is only so far the DM can walk before damaging suspension of disbelief, establishing precedent for PC immunity, and/or extending the punishment of justice to the innocent players. All of which negatively affect the campaign and play group.  After all, long-term incarceration is often more damaging to the PC than death in D&D.  So if the DM is trying to keep the PC in play despite the social consequence of a capital crime, he is limited to consistently less likely legal results of not guity verdicts, wereguild, exile, or suicide missions.  Not guilty verdicts and wereguild generate a feeling of immunity as the PCs expect consistency of ruling and tend to fall into riches during play.  Exile and suicide missions force the other players in the position of accepting the same punishment or condemn the rogue player themselves.  This can poison camraderie more than the DM providing a response since the DM is already an outsider to that team spirit.I'm unsure that narrativist are more innocent of disruption.  I have two players at my table that try to explore narrative themes.  One pursues it without group agreement and derails sessions, group goals, and generates a fair amount of conflict within the group.  It's at least as disruptive to the group as a the fiction-light camp -- the group has less internal strife with them even though the consequences of their actions are at least as damaging to the group efforts because it isn't pursued as a solitary choice.Simulationism isn't a safe harbour, but it can provide the framework of shared expectation that allows the players to continue to engage in the campaign in a personally meaningful way.  More important is consistency of application and response from the DM.  It isn't simulationism to say "Your character is accused by his compatriots of killing the respected necromancer X.  As he is considered both extremely dangerous and a flight risk, he's being held without bail for the investigation to complete.  Based upon your character's statements and witness statements, a guilty verdict is likely.  Would you like to roll a replacement character or wait for the trial?"  It is an application of narrative power that helps maintain the imaginary society at a predictable and understandable level for the group and provides understandable and predictable consequence to meaningful player choice.Exploration-heavy gaming is by no means the default for RPGing -- take for example most superhero games where the characters are a reactive and defensive force.  It was the stated default for D&D though that became the unstated default and then supplanted by the unstated default of heroic action in a developed plot.</blockquote>

Verification