![]() ![]() Should the players choose to attempt that, the only possible outcomes are narratively deeply unsatisfying. What's to stop now the players from simply wishing Strahd out of existence? It would be very difficult for the DM to argue the impossibility of this action without contradicting their own previous interpretation of it. The problem for me is that the DM has set a bad precedent of what a Wish spell can do AND gave the players an opportunity to cast one themselves. The main problem I see here is not necessarily one of denying player agency (that depends on other details, unspecified and in all honesty unspecifiable in the question). As long as the DM is fair, and allows your fellow player's wish to undo Strahd's, I think this is acceptable. That indeed tastes a bit of railroading, but it still is a lot different from just raising these brides again with no good explanation and no cost to Strahd. Your fellow player may feel what the DM did is unfair, because it resets most their direct achievement, and that wish also did a lot more than what you normally can expect to ask of even an off-label wish: undoing multiple deaths, acting a longer time backwards etc, all to allow the narrative of the evil ritual happening to proceed. Not every action can be an unmitigated success in the face of active opposition. The goblin is just using its resources to counter what the player characters do. If a goblin shaman uses cure wounds to undo the fighter's sword damage, is it stripping the fighter of agency? Of course not. (And, they need to have some kind of information to make those decisions more meaningful than random guesses).īoth is the case here: the player could freely decide, and the result - stripping Strahd of the ability to ever use wish again - has a big, meaningful impact on the game world. Player agency means that the character had control over their decisions, and these decisions affect the game world. It's not denying agency if opponents use their resources to counter character actions I've only been playing D&D for a short time (a few months), so maybe I just don't get it. Is this the DM unfairly removing player agency, or a reasonable counter a BBEG like Strahd could do? The player who did this also has a wish scroll themselves that they could use to try and counter what Strahd did if they really wanted to. I can see how this might be a little frustrating, but to me, making him waste his wish spell doing this is a success in and of itself. The player who managed to steal the eye is very upset with this and feels like their character's actions were overwritten unfairly. Strahd succeeded but can never use wish again, along with being weakened from its use. We made it out safely (barely) and the session ended.ĭuring the next session Strahd used a wish spell to revive the brides that were killed because he needed them for some ritual and rolled to also banish the beholders so they were never within Barovia in the first place using the wish. This allowed the beholders, who we previously communicated with, to attack and kill several of his brides and assist us in destroying Strahd's heart. One of the party managed to steal a beholder eye from Strahd that he was using to control a group of beholders and use them as his minions. ![]() Our party infiltrated Ravenloft in a Curse of Strahd campaign. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |