Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9330572" data-attributes="member: 7025508">It sure helps that Gandalf is one of the most powerful and respected people in the setting, which the characters in the example probably weren't. Also, whilst he challenged Theoden's judgement, he didn't challenge his position. There also were other obvious things in the fictional positioning that helped these things go the way they did. (Though the scene in the movie version where Gandalf literally assaults Denethor and everyone is fine with it is still ludicrous to me.)I am very willing to let my players to try crazy stuff, doesn't mean they will always succeed. And yeah, obviously this is something that could happen in a game given the right circumstance, but some (which I assume to be) low to medium ranking unknown just shouting at the king's face that he is bad and should get lost probably is not gonna be it. But it it was not my example and there certainly were things that read as red flags to me in the GMs attitude, even though I don't think the course of the fictional events in itself is unreasonable. It bothered me like this was treated as some sort of distraction or "derailment." I think the course of the events was pretty cool and poignant, even if it would end with the character being executed like Ned Stark. That probably would still have some weight later. The GM determines what exists in the world, the player determines the actions of their characters. These together create the fictional positioning that helps us determine what happens. Also, why are those actions GM centred if it is the players who initiate them? What would not be GM centred? The player directly dictating the external reality of the setting? That's not their job.Right. Because in D&D the players cannot use mechanics to acausally summon sympathisers or towers. I get why being able to do that would give the player more control, but it also is something a lot of people don't want to have.I have a vague recollection that there was some rule for extended checks, which would help wit this, though at quick glance I didn't find it. Maybe I invented it or ported it from another game, or then it is just in typical fashion buried in DMG somewhere and I just can't find it...Well, most people don't care whether their D&D is narrativist or not, and having participated in many of these discussions, I still do not know what it actually takes to qualify. It seems that every time it is pointed out how other games have the listed qualities goalpost shifting to show how it doesn't really count commences... <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937.png" title="Person shrugging    :person_shrugging:" data-shortname=":person_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />How couldn't you do this in D&D? The meaningful difference I see is that it seems this game the player can decide whether the character can die in combat, but as this is not something the character could actually decide, puts us more into collaborative storytelling style rather than immersing to the viewpoint of the character style. Which BTW is my issue with a lot of the narrativist mechanics. I can play that way, but I don't prefer it.But I don't think the impact of Golin challenging Megloss relies on that. In D&D he would risk death by default by initiating combat, the pathos is in why the player chooses to do it, rather the exact mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification