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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 5473387" data-attributes="member: 38357">There's some limit on what the PCs will / can do (or should be, I think?) in a given situation. From a strictly RP standpoint, "My Guy's A Righteous Paladin" shouldn't be punching random old ladies on the street. "My Guy's A Learned Wizard" is going to try to find ways to make use of the stuff he's read in all those weird old tomes. Ideally, IMO, "My Guy's Kind Of A Klutz" is going to try to find ways to make that relevant without annoying the rest of the group with it.We've got mechanics to try and encourage all but the last example, I just think that maybe they've gone a bit too far (especially given the absence of that last one being in there). When the players thing "What would My Guy do?" they look in part to their character sheets for guidance. When we get to the point that the players choose an action for their characters I'm not seeing tons of variety in the choices. And without visible mechanics I can't think of many good ways to encourage them to try something different. (I've come up with mechanics that did that, but they made it clear they just weren't interested.)I brought up the example of undead, elsewhere. The game I'm running is Dark Sun, and as a result none of the PCs have religion trained (kind of a reasonable assumption, but IMO flawed). Religion happens to be the skill you use for knowing stuff about undead in 4e. The players where a bit upset when I called for Religion checks, which I really didn't expect. I don't think it was a matter that they just didn't want to roll on a low skill, it was the whole basis of the decision no to train religion in the first place, which led them to believe that on Athas undead should be Arcana or something. I think in a way it broke the idea that their character-building decisions actually mattered.</blockquote>

Verification