Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7351700" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Well I would hope you might see how frustrating it is considering you removed the larger context. I did say that I would not allow a player to introduce the solution to a major goal in such a mundane way. Would you allow that in your game? If the characters are looking for the pieces of the Rod if Seven Parts, would you allow the player to place it in some random kitchen through a Perception check?If so, it doesn’t sound like a compelling story that’s being crafted. If not, then how do you handle it? Sure, this happens all the time. Everyone can fail to contribute meaningfully. It’s especially tough for the GM in many cases. But let’s say a game is very GM driven and it’s failing to engage the players all that much...isn’t this a problem that will likely be addressed? Won’t the GM realize they’re not that engaged? Or if not, won’t they simply tell him?I think collaboration is the best way to avoid this, and in that I expect we likely agree. Lean on the other participants more. Well I suggested the veto power only in reference to a ludicrous example of Boromir and Sauron at Rivendell. I generally don’t think it’s wise for a GM to veto player ideas, but I do actually think that it is something within the GM’s ability. Of everyone involved, his role is unique.To go back to the map...if the very idea of the map was introduced by a player in hopes of aiding the PCs in some way, I think that’s something else, and I explained that in my previous post. In such a case, I would not sinply dismiss this idea because the room description did not mention a map. But hey, I think we’re going in c ircles and you’re obviously not interested, so I’ll leave it at that.</blockquote>

Verification