|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 24, 2021 13:13:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Sept 24, 2021 13:47:32 GMT -5
Very interesting post.
First I'll say that I might not be so interested in what sounds like a kind of railroady play style. I say that because it will come up later in my comments, not to bash anyone.
I am inclined to come down in favor of the paladin player. Taking his story at face value, he played his paladin as a team player with "paladin features" that didn't control everyone or wreck the game. Cool. Now, I have not read anything about the kender and maybe they can be great, but this does not sound great to me. Pursuing your own goals, fine, secretly wrecking the party's plans (I guess privately with the ref) when it doesn't sound like that's the understood play style at all is not okay. At least, I don't care to play in a game with a player who behaves this way at the table.
The paladin player played his character "in character" and in accordance with the stimulus offered by the game world (here, the other PC's actions). He killed the kender, okay. Now after that is where it gets interesting, the "revolution." It sounds to me like the players did what PCs are expected to do in-world, respond to an emergent situation in an unexpected way. That is, it sounds like the PCs abandoned the railroad plot and the players also abandoned what they were expected to do (play along with the DM whatever happens). And that's pretty cool.
In other words I take this as a railroad being derailed, which is good, an ego-boost (at others' expense) player not getting what he wanted, and a DM learning something.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 24, 2021 14:40:46 GMT -5
Very interesting post. First I'll say that I might not be so interested in what sounds like a kind of railroady play style. I say that because it will come up later in my comments, not to bash anyone. I am inclined to come down in favor of the paladin player. Taking his story at face value, he played his paladin as a team player with "paladin features" that didn't control everyone or wreck the game. Cool. Now, I have not read anything about the kender and maybe they can be great, but this does not sound great to me. Pursuing your own goals, fine, secretly wrecking the party's plans (I guess privately with the ref) when it doesn't sound like that's the understood play style at all is not okay. At least, I don't care to play in a game with a player who behaves this way at the table. The paladin player played his character "in character" and in accordance with the stimulus offered by the game world (here, the other PC's actions). He killed the kender, okay. Now after that is where it gets interesting, the "revolution." It sounds to me like the players did what PCs are expected to do in-world, respond to an emergent situation in an unexpected way. That is, it sounds like the PCs abandoned the railroad plot and the players also abandoned what they were expected to do (play along with the DM whatever happens). And that's pretty cool. In other words I take this as a railroad being derailed, which is good, an ego-boost (at others' expense) player not getting what he wanted, and a DM learning something. I have never played in a game with kender, but from what I have read online this is the standard way they are played - maximum jerk. This kender style of play is why I don't have thieves in my game. |
|
|
|
Post by restless on Sept 24, 2021 15:16:42 GMT -5
I, for one, fully support the genocide of Kender.
|
|
