Re: #10: ... Giving the Finger to God and His Infernal Machine
I know you make some references to this, but I feel a need to emphasize that even among people who dislike DEXM, there are sometimes other social contract issues that mandate it on occasion. You have a preference for dramatic tragedy, for example, but there are some people who just flat out don't want to deal with it, and where the game has some degree of script immunity written into it. Ideally, that can be implimented in other ways, but sometimes the road gets slick as we say. In those circumstances, the GM in practice has few alternatives, and the DEXM is often the _best_ of them.
(No, I don't like them either, but then, I'm not real fond of script immunity either; but I'm not everyone playing.)
__________________
Afraid to fly, don't know why.
From mUrielw:
"Of course, if one had played more RPGs, one would have realized that shacking up with people whose goal is "fulfill the ancient prophecies so that my dead god might rule once more over the earth, and cull those not among our cult" is rarely a good idea."
Re: #10: ... Giving the Finger to God and His Infernal Machine
Sometimes I think that the scripted battle of two forces witnessed by the PCs is a great plot device.
If you're creating a world that is intended to feel 'real', the idea that the PCs are front and center at all times shatters suspension of disbelief for me. Sometimes I want players to feel like little fish in a big pond, and I feel the same way as a player myself.
The key is balance and taste. Making characters feel completely impotent is bad, but clever use of external powers is straight up realism and is good for a sense of scale and immersion.
Re: #10: ... Giving the Finger to God and His Infernal Machine
Agreed, big obvious DEXM's are annoying as a player - particularly the situation when the PCs are powerless spectators between two godlike powers. But with care, they can be used without interfering too much with the enjoyment of the game. Take the other example used - the cavalry riding in to rescue the PCs if they get into trouble. If the cavalry are able to just ride in and save the day without real effort, that's bad.
On the other hand, what if the escape is offered, but still requiring the PCs to work for it. For example, the cavalry ride to the rescue, but can't make it through to the PCs - they don't have to go quite so far to reach safety, but they're still going to have to get back through enemy lines to reach their allies.
That, to me, is a good out-clause. Don't solve all the PCs problems for them, but introduce new elements to make things a little easier. Might even make for a new plot hook - e.g if the cavalry have lost their leaders in the fray, and the PCs have to take command to get everyone home. A fallible Deus Ex is a lot more believable than the normal kind...
__________________
And through the window in the wall
come streaming in on sunlight wings
a million bright ambassadors of morning.
Re: #10: ... Giving the Finger to God and His Infernal Machine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furcifer
The key is balance and taste. Making characters feel completely impotent is bad, but clever use of external powers is straight up realism and is good for a sense of scale and immersion.
Yes, good point. Sometimes, the PCs will be subordinate to greater powers - in most games, that's unavoidable. The key is that no matter how powerful the NPCs, the PCs should at least have control over the outcome. In the great battle of Law and Chaos, perhaps the PCs actions were enough to tip the balance, something like that.
__________________
And through the window in the wall
come streaming in on sunlight wings
a million bright ambassadors of morning.
Re: #10: ... Giving the Finger to God and His Infernal Machine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furcifer
If you're creating a world that is intended to feel 'real', the idea that the PCs are front and center at all times shatters suspension of disbelief for me. Sometimes I want players to feel like little fish in a big pond, and I feel the same way as a player myself.
Ah, you see I find exactly the opposite to be true. I feel that it feels a lot *less* real to have all the "big fish" inexplicably having their major battles in front of the PCs.
This is one of those "almost but not quite identical logic" situations: You say "the PCs shouldn't be front and center all the time, there should be things going on in the world which they can't influence." I say "the PCs shouldn't be front and center all the time: there should be things going on in the world which don't happen in front of the PCs."
Linear Mode
