Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6654738" data-attributes="member: 5834">In D&D imagination and rules debates are often one and the same. Explain to me how you can simply imagine that you kill some creature? Does the player explain some strategy and then say at the end, "I killed it." What do you mean by this? Give me an example of what you're talking about.I do this all the time while writing fiction. I guess we differ on that. I often let my character do what he wants, stuff I didn't even think of at the time. Of course, writers are crazy, right? We have characters wandering in our heads and we're wondering what they want to do. If it's not interesting enough, we'll say, "No. Try something else." You don't really control your characters in fiction. I mean you can, but that's not very fun. It's more fun to let the character talk to you.I require all my players to write up backgrounds even prior to 5E. I encourage them to include things I can use in their story. I design their story using the background as my guide. I do this in nearly every campaign. I'm doing it between posts right now. I created an elite militia unit of scouts they are a part of. I'm modifying the module I'm using to fit in with their backgrounds. I'll modify as they make decisions that require it.I consider TTRPGs cooperative fiction. I believe my players expect me to construct an interesting story for them to play through. They want to believe they are the characters. I do my best to make that happen. As a writer of fiction, what is the difference between the character in your mind telling you what he's doing and another person's character telling you what he's doing? You're still creating for characters that often aren't you, but someone else. The additive effect of their imagination is fun for me. Lessens my workload when creating the fiction. Unlike you I do not consider railroading a pejorative. I call it plotting. I make the plot so compelling the player has no reason to choose a different path. I make it seem as though the choice of paths is attractive and a natural choice. I'm not into this sandbox thing others claim they love. I want to take my players on an adventure. Not let them wander about some world killing a few orcs here, a few kobolds there, stopping a robbery over here. I want them to have a direction, an adventure, a quest, some great deeds to do. I'm not creating a fantasy version of the The Sims. I'm taking my players on a ride like their favorite movies or books. If it's a train, it's the Crazy Train. "All aboard. Hahaha." I'm creating villains that they'll remember. I'm creating a Dark Lord-type of figure or an evil organization that only they can rise to stop.If you write, you should know every little detail is rarely as a writer likes it. Fiction starts off incomplete even when you have control. Tolkien took decades to write Lord of the Rings. He didn't always know what the characters were going to do. He let the story keep talking to him until he figured out what they were going to do. Fiction writing is controlled delusion and illusion. You wander into the recesses of your mind listening for voices that compel you to take them in a particular direction. You don't control them. They control you. You just use language to tell yourself and hopefully an audience that finds them interesting what they're doing.How does that differ from some other person directing the actions of a character? They tell you what the character is doing, you decide how that works in the game world. You work cooperatively to create an interesting bit of fiction for all the parties involved. Once again, I don't get what you're saying. What does final say as far as the imagination goes mean? Give me an example of how this would work.Do you mean something like a player deciding to use a portable hole to breach an unbreakable door and the DM simply saying, "That doesn't work?" If that is the case, then we are in agreement. I don't think a DM should get final say on such a matter. If hasn't accounted for this tactic prior to the player using it and it seems like a very cool and reasonable tactic, the DM should let it go.Do you mean more like, "I summon a ton of creatures with polymorph, have them cast it on the dragon knowing by percentages he will fail and burn down his Legendary Resistance, so we can take him out easier. Cool exploit, Mr. DM. Too bad the game designers didn't see that one coming, eh. Surprise. Your encounter destroyed." Well that part I'm not cool with. I shouldn't as  a DM be expected to allow stupid crap like that to trivialize encounters because the game designers allowed a ridiculous, repeatable exploit by allowing a player to summon a bunch of creatures with a ridiculously low CR and a bunch of powerful abilities. Imaginative exploits I don't expect a DM should have to deal with. As a player you should be bringing these strange little exploits to the DM's attention prior to their use to determine if the DM wants to deal with them in the world.Which DM trumping the imagination situation are you talking about? Rules exploits or some imaginary use of the game world outside the standard scope of the rules? The former I am against, the latter I enjoy and support.</blockquote>

Verification