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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ranes" data-source="post: 7656654" data-attributes="member: 4826">Sure. But grinding the game to a halt for a discussion, not just a query about the placement of a monster doesn't seem like an appropriate place to have that kind of in-depth communication, to some of us.That certainly speaks to the issue but that's kind of my point. The payers should be reacting - to such a thing as an arguably incongruous monster placement - through their characters and, by so doing, giving everyone at the table a chance to keep the game going. This isn't a suddenly egregious case of DM fiat, as was the case in the example you gave earlier in the thread, when your DM suddenly stripped away all your PC investment in your campaign's lore (I felt for you there; that was awful).Thank you for that. And yes, my questions were rhetorical. Just to interject here: had I framed my example campaign in this way, my re-worked gobbos would have been, if not unreasonable, then a little bit naughty, I think. My players would have had every right to expect by-the-book goblins (assuming they were familiar with the game). But if standard 4e said creature X usually appears here and I made such a beastie appear over there in one case, I would still be unhappy with a player wanting to engage in a discussion on that issue right in the middle of the game. I would refer the player to the word 'usually'. Similarly, I would still consider it within my purview to create 'deep goblins' or something similar, that the PCs may never have encountered or heard of before. This I understand, agree with and want to thank you for, because it's given me an idea for my game.</blockquote>

Verification