NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8625447" data-attributes="member: 22779">Which goes back go my earlier answer to [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER].  By externalizing that relationship and giving 100% of the power of that relationship to the DM (who is controlling the deity and is not obligated in any way to portraying that deity in any way other than what the DM wants) the player can only react to what the DM does.  Which certainly can work.  There's no denying that.But, it's not the only way of doing it.  Spreading the authority a bit wider can also work.  It works differently, and it's certainly different to what D&D does, but, that doesn't make it better or worse.  Just different.  And, IME, because of the fact that the player is 100% beholden to the DM for this experience, something like a "crisis of faith" rarely comes up.  What more often happens is that the player turtles up, never introduces anything like a crisis of faith and this sort of story just doesn't happen (or happens extremely rarely, and even more rarely does it happen satisfactorily)  in D&D.  And, yes, now I know that lots of you are furiously typing to tell me how that one time in your game it happened.  But, that's my point.  It happened that one time.  It's like saying The Simpson's Did It.  Simpson's has been on forever.  Of course it did it.  There's not much it hasn't done.  Given the huge number of groups and the time frame's we're talking about, it probably has happened in your group at some point.  But, what generally doesn't get mentioned is the ten thousand times it didn't happen because the player or the DM just didn't even consider it a viable option to try because the game of D&D certainly offers zero incentive or advice on how to resolve a "crisis of faith" event.</blockquote>

Verification