Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4713279" data-attributes="member: 48965">And you can be neutral in relation to the PC's state, and base your decisions on the consistency and logic of your setting... This isn't really relative to the overall point.  Ok, granted this was a purposefully limited example, because I am not and cannot detail an entire campaign setting here. If I placed the orcs there because orcs and ogres have alliances and work together then the decision is based upon the internal logic and consistency of my setting. Now there may be orcs and ogres who work independently but my decision is still based in the assumptions of my setting and not on the state of my PC's.   First impartial =/= "not my decision" (that's why we have referees in sports). If I am creating the situation independent of the state of the PC's it is an impartial situation... if I change the situation based on the state (not actions of the PC's) then it is not impartial (though I can make it look so with illusionism). Second, in a sandbox campaign, how do I " known the in-game effects that were likely when you decided.". you see in a sandbox campaign my PC's could run into this situation anywhere from level 1 up to level 20 and with the variables of feats, class abilities, spells, magic items, etc. thrown in, exactly how do Iknow what thein game effect will be once my PC's interact with it? So their is no objective stat block for an Orc, I got one in my C&C book and one in my 3.5 MM. Isn't this an objective representation of what an Orc is? If I put it in a situation with no consideration of the state of my PC's then isn't that situation objectively impartial as it pertains to my players?  Now if I change the above or make decisions bsed on the state as opposed to the actions of my PC's... that is wherw impartiallity and illusionism enter the equation.    I don't think anyone's arguing a DM can't change things... What is being argued is that there are some who enjoy playstyles that do not involve the DM changing things as you describe above (one reasonis that it assumes the DM will always know what route produces more "fun!" and he's not infallible), and it is not badwrongfun or impossible to play in such a style and still have fun.  No, sometimes it is changing the gameworld, just like fudging rolls is changing the gameworld and it's assumptions... but that's ok if you enjoy playing like that. However you have no right to tellothers their style isn't fun for them or isn't possible because you don't enjoy it.  The only one I'm going to comment on is 4... How, unless your DM is psychic, can one person decide what's fun and what isn't. I say let your players decide through their actions. It's like riding a bike, they'll fall and they'll hurt themselves but eventually they will be shapping their own fun through their actions without me having to run interference.</blockquote>

Verification