Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7603502" data-attributes="member: 6919838">&quot;But in any event, what is the advantage in having the guard by my old friend Frances? Does the GM have no challeng to put before the players (and their characters) except that of getting past the gate?&quot;To me the last sentence there is not relevant. It's too broad to have meaning. Doesnt the GM have a challenge other than that dragon? Than that raidingnparty of orcs? Thsn that...etc etc etcBut Then I tend to find the first sentence more interesting. Part of my perspective about this is that if I say &quot;yes, and..,&quot; having the guard indeed be an old war buddy or some other call back to a character trait seems reasonable. In fact, it's not at all uncommon for me to draw in these as the narrative for a good check result or circumstance. I keep backgrounds as front as possible.But if we had this put ahead, &quot;what is the advantage&quot; is defined in the rules by using the friendly-indifferent-hostile charts in the dmg. Most likely, it means we use the friendly not the indifferent. So, the edge gained depends on the risk involved. Most likely that means a success to get the guard to take a minor risk is DC 10 vs DC 20. If it's a higher risk - major security post under high alert - even worse.In my games, this would more frequently play out not as a meta-player declaration but in character with &quot;Hey, are any of these guards former soldiers I have served with?&quot; followed by some degree of investigation and socializing. To us, that plays better and invokes those character features in ways we find more satisfying than just meta-declares by players. Unless circumstances are extremely agsinst it, its all but certain to result in a yes but in a more covert way.In Mage the Ascension, your character with the right features could castpt z fireball, typical DnD style into a crowd. Or one could have a car explode as if a car bomb went off or a gas line rupture. The former was considered &quot;vulgar&quot; magic - not as an insult but as a measure of how &quot; in the face&quot; the magic was to the observers. The more the fact that it was magic vs mundane the more &quot;vulgar&quot;. The more obvious it was a break in the internal reality.So, for us, the in-character question and investigate etc to find a guard who us a former soldier is less &quot;vulgar&quot; than it is to just have a player meta-declare the guard *is* and old buddy. But having played both in various systems and flavors, that's just a preference of ours.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7603502, member: 6919838"] "But in any event, what is the advantage in having the guard by my old friend Frances? Does the GM have no challeng to put before the players (and their characters) except that of getting past the gate?" To me the last sentence there is not relevant. It's too broad to have meaning. Doesnt the GM have a challenge other than that dragon? Than that raidingnparty of orcs? Thsn that...etc etc etc But Then I tend to find the first sentence more interesting. Part of my perspective about this is that if I say "yes, and..," having the guard indeed be an old war buddy or some other call back to a character trait seems reasonable. In fact, it's not at all uncommon for me to draw in these as the narrative for a good check result or circumstance. I keep backgrounds as front as possible. But if we had this put ahead, "what is the advantage" is defined in the rules by using the friendly-indifferent-hostile charts in the dmg. Most likely, it means we use the friendly not the indifferent. So, the edge gained depends on the risk involved. Most likely that means a success to get the guard to take a minor risk is DC 10 vs DC 20. If it's a higher risk - major security post under high alert - even worse. In my games, this would more frequently play out not as a meta-player declaration but in character with "Hey, are any of these guards former soldiers I have served with?" followed by some degree of investigation and socializing. To us, that plays better and invokes those character features in ways we find more satisfying than just meta-declares by players. Unless circumstances are extremely agsinst it, its all but certain to result in a yes but in a more covert way. In Mage the Ascension, your character with the right features could castpt z fireball, typical DnD style into a crowd. Or one could have a car explode as if a car bomb went off or a gas line rupture. The former was considered "vulgar" magic - not as an insult but as a measure of how " in the face" the magic was to the observers. The more the fact that it was magic vs mundane the more "vulgar". The more obvious it was a break in the internal reality. So, for us, the in-character question and investigate etc to find a guard who us a former soldier is less "vulgar" than it is to just have a player meta-declare the guard *is* and old buddy. But having played both in various systems and flavors, that's just a preference of ours. [/QUOTE]

Verification