Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6306091" data-attributes="member: 87792">Players can't railroad the DM.&nbsp; It's oxymoronic.&nbsp; What they can do is things that the DM didn't think of.&nbsp; And frankly if my PCs aren't doing things I didn't think of I'm going to be very bored.&nbsp; Part of the reason I play is for this shared input.And even Gandalf wasn't high level by D&amp;D standards.&nbsp; Look how little spellcasting he did.&nbsp; It took the entire Fellowship to bring down a single Troll - and trolls aren't that high level.&nbsp; So no, I don't accept that Aragorn or even Gandalf is actually a high level type.Or just a good judge of character.&nbsp; And someone who doesn't play with players trying to undermine the game and the world.&nbsp; I've been in the sort of group [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] hasn't - and have left for that reason.If the PCs try that I just raise one eyebrow.&nbsp; They are clearly trying it on.&nbsp; In fact I've never seen PCs try anything on like that unless on their last legs.I couldn't agree more.&nbsp; Which is why I absolutely and utterly disagree with your methods.&nbsp; I personally like to make the setting and story feel immersive by having it make sense with our normal everyday assumptions.&nbsp; That's &quot;our&quot; as in &quot;the group's&quot; rather than &quot;our&quot; as in a euphemism for &quot;my&quot;.&nbsp; And what I find is that my players do not try things when they do not make sense with their assumptions.&nbsp; Which means that by not giving something the players think is plausible a chance to work (barring massive secrets they are blundering across) I am making the story feel less immersive by ensuring that it does not make sense with the normal everyday assumptions my players have of the world around them even where such conflict with mine.In short you want a different rulesset? Indeed.&nbsp; But this is irrelevant.&nbsp; No one is saying that it shouldn't be much easier for Gandalf to get in to see the king (or Steward) via the Chamberlain than it would be for Pippin or Sam. But a series of fetch-quests and bureaucratic hoop jumping should not be the only way.&nbsp; Any king worth having will take audiences.&nbsp; If the Chamberlain has no discression they should not be in that role.&nbsp; It is going to be hard for Pippin to convince the hobbits to let him see the King.&nbsp; But not impossible.&nbsp; (Natural 20, possibly).&nbsp; To do otherwise is to make the game less immersive, the Chamberlain less competent, the King less effective, and the players less empowered.&nbsp; All for the sake of a vision that doesn't allow the Chamberlain to be able to do his in character job.Of course Gandalf should have a much easier time of things than the hobbits.Seconded.&nbsp; Because it damages both immersion and engagement, and harms the setting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6306091, member: 87792"] Players can't railroad the DM. It's oxymoronic. What they can do is things that the DM didn't think of. And frankly if my PCs aren't doing things I didn't think of [I]I'm going to be very bored.[/I] Part of the reason I play is for this shared input. And even Gandalf wasn't high level by D&D standards. Look how little spellcasting he did. It took the entire Fellowship to bring down a single Troll - and trolls aren't that high level. So no, I don't accept that Aragorn or even Gandalf is actually a high level type. Or just a good judge of character. And someone who doesn't play with players trying to undermine the game and the world. I've been in the sort of group [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] hasn't - and have left for that reason. If the PCs try that I just raise one eyebrow. They are clearly trying it on. In fact I've never seen PCs try anything on like that unless on their last legs. I couldn't agree more. Which is why I absolutely and utterly disagree with your methods. I personally like to make the setting and story feel immersive by having it make sense with [I]our[/I] normal everyday assumptions. That's "our" as in "the group's" rather than "our" as in a euphemism for "my". And what I find is that [I]my players do not try things when they do not make sense with their assumptions.[/I] Which means that by not giving something the players think is [I]plausible[/I] a chance to work (barring massive secrets they are blundering across) I am making the story feel less immersive by ensuring that it does not make sense with the normal everyday assumptions my players have of the world around them even where such conflict with mine. In short you want a different rulesset? Indeed. But this is [I]irrelevant[/I]. No one is saying that it shouldn't be much easier for Gandalf to get in to see the king (or Steward) via the Chamberlain than it would be for Pippin or Sam. But a series of fetch-quests and bureaucratic hoop jumping should not be the only way. Any king worth having will take audiences. If the Chamberlain has no discression they should not be in that role. It is going to be hard for Pippin to convince the hobbits to let him see the King. But not impossible. (Natural 20, possibly). To do otherwise is to make the game less immersive, the Chamberlain less competent, the King less effective, and the players less empowered. All for the sake of a vision that doesn't allow the Chamberlain to be able to do his in character job. Of course Gandalf should have a much easier time of things than the hobbits. Seconded. Because it damages both immersion and engagement, and harms the setting. [/QUOTE]

Verification