Originally Posted by Taril
Originally Posted by Trantion
I don't think you even need a detailed RAW explanation for why such-and-such a spell doesn't work (or why you should be able to break out of the main plot by level 3): it doesn't work because that's what the game says.

Yeah, but such things bring up how flimsy a plot element might be.

The driving force of BG3 is "Tadpole in brain. Tadpole bad." yet there are elements missing from why it can't be removed easily (It already has the "It can't be removed by normal or magical means, not without killing you" thing... It just doesn't resolve the part where killing you is an impassable hurdle... Not when Raise Dead scrolls are everywhere and Gale can access True Resurrection scrolls...)

It doesn't even need much to fix it. Just have some spiritual type NPC tell you that your soul is being altered by the magically enhanced Absolute tadpole. Voila, Reincarnate and True Resurrection are no longer viable options to bypass being infested by the tadpole.

When writing a story, it generally helps if you factor in such things into major plot elements. Even more so if there's an urge to make players find a solution to a problem - Thus encouraging people to find any loophole they can to bypass any restrictions you've imposed to make the story function.

You don't necessarily have to go into the details of WHY things don't work. Only that you make it clear that non-intended things don't work.

However, the more details you provide of WHY, the more interesting it can be for players. Especially if the revelations behind things not working help guide them towards the intended goal. (For example, in BG3, the Zaith'isk doesn't work because it's not designed to work. But it leads you to the creche and the revelations about the Astral Prism and thus directs you towards the Absolute)

Couldn't have said it better myself, and I'd also like to make another observation - the less experienced a DM is or the more casual a session is, the less expectations there are of them to 'cover all their bases' and be prepared for players capitalizing on some kind of design flaw or be able to quickly come up with alternative directions, and as long as it's acknowledged that the players aren't to blame for employing what to them just appears as the most efficient way of accomplishing the objective set before them, then you could just 'let it slide', pretend you never thought of it, and move on to avoid stumping the poor fellow and stall the campaign.

If you're pitching a 'pro' campaign for experienced players only, as with some online campaigns, then of course the bar is gonna be set much higher. If you're an Adventurer's League DM, if you're a celebrity DM making money from deep and engaging campaigns, the same applies. So it's important to note we're not talking about some dude at the kitchen table here, but a company staffed by hundreds of supposed DND nerds, working alongside Wizards of the Coast themselves, who said in interviews that they pretty much 'revere' the DND source material, want the choices and possibilities to be as realistic and believable as possible, and to make a worthy successor to the most famous DND series in existence.

So if they neglect something quite basic in DND lore which can invalidate the entire main plot itself, and there are effortless ways of mitigating that, then it could justifiably raise a few more eyebrows than your friend stammering over some lore aspect in his 7th session.

Last edited by Relogon; 02/08/24 11:04 PM.