Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7346453" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think your example of the player-driven dragon can be made consistent with what I said: as those more detailed action declarations are made, it will be the GM who oversees the framing and the introduction of consequences for failure.That said, I still think I'm more conservative than you - probably quite a bit! - in terms of where I tend to treat the transition from player to GM content-introduction.On the other hand, I can think of (perhaps fairly petty cases) where I probably contradict my own self-description. One is the Jabal of the Cabal episode already discussed upthread:Player: I need to make contact with the cabal, and Jabal is a leader of it, so I reach out to him.This fed straight into a Circles check, which failed - so no GM content introduction until consequences of failure were needed (namely, Jabal sends a thug to run the PCs out of town).A different sort of example, which I'm not quite sure how to classify: the invoker/wizard PC in my main 4e game has a feat that gives him a +2 bonus to skill checks made for rituals. I think that, as written, this is intended to affect only rituals in the literal mecahanical sense. But my player applies the bonus to other checks that he deems to be the performing of magical rituals (eg some, but not all, Arcana checks in a skill challenge). I let the player decide and police all that himself: he's the one playing the MU character, and so if he's got a view as to what is or isn't a ritual I'm not interested in second-guessing that.Also, re your D&D example: that's especially why I hate fetch quests, MacGuffin hunting, and the suggestion that it makes for good play to make the players hunt down the (GM-authored in nature, location etc) ingredients for making magic items, lifting curses, etc. And the whole notion of "side quests" I think is inimical to player-driven RPGing.</blockquote>

Verification