Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6246223" data-attributes="member: 17106">Yes. I as a DM might give a player a castle or make him a deity, but that doesn't mean he was entitled to it. Yes. Wealth charts are an entitlement. Even balanced encounters are an entitlement.You may be right about that, though I hate to think it.I think it increases player capacity to shape the campaign, because entitlements reduce the range of possible outcomes.For example, if the players are deciding whether to attack a monster, but can reasonably expect that it is within the level of difficulty that game considers an appropriate challenge, it isn't much of a decision. They either fight the monster and are essentially assumed to win (that's what &quot;challenging&quot; means) or they don't. But if they have no idea of how tough it is, then their appraisal of it becomes meaningful, and the decision of whether or not to engage it in some way is much less likely to produce differential outcomes, including their potential death if it happens to be too powerful.Or, if there is no pretense of balance between character types and one player chooses to play a traveling minstrel with no combat aptitude, instead of a world-shaping transmuter or a fearsome barbarian warlord. That either changes what challenges the group faces, or how they can and will react to said challenges. The more different the available options are, the more the player's choices from among them matter.No, I'm not. If anything, I think &quot;player entitlement&quot; is about railroading the game into a standard &quot;zero to hero&quot; narrative and fulfilling other classic D&amp;D-isms (the progressions of challenges faced and rewards earned).&nbsp;True. As with many things, the assumed Christmas tree could definitely be characterized as a problem, but creating a metagame halo of bonuses to replace it is not necessarily a solution.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6246223, member: 17106"] Yes. I as a DM might give a player a castle or make him a deity, but that doesn't mean he was entitled to it. Yes. Wealth charts are an entitlement. Even balanced encounters are an entitlement. You may be right about that, though I hate to think it. I think it increases player capacity to shape the campaign, because entitlements reduce the range of possible outcomes. For example, if the players are deciding whether to attack a monster, but can reasonably expect that it is within the level of difficulty that game considers an appropriate challenge, it isn't much of a decision. They either fight the monster and are essentially assumed to win (that's what "challenging" means) or they don't. But if they have no idea of how tough it is, then their appraisal of it becomes meaningful, and the decision of whether or not to engage it in some way is much less likely to produce differential outcomes, including their potential death if it happens to be too powerful. Or, if there is no pretense of balance between character types and one player chooses to play a traveling minstrel with no combat aptitude, instead of a world-shaping transmuter or a fearsome barbarian warlord. That either changes what challenges the group faces, or how they can and will react to said challenges. The more different the available options are, the more the player's choices from among them matter. No, I'm not. If anything, I think "player entitlement" is about railroading the game into a standard "zero to hero" narrative and fulfilling other classic D&D-isms (the progressions of challenges faced and rewards earned). True. As with many things, the assumed Christmas tree could definitely be characterized as a problem, but creating a metagame halo of bonuses to replace it is not necessarily a solution. [/QUOTE]

Verification