This is still not making sense to me.
I'm not sure why, but I'll assume my communications have been unclear.
As GM, I say - "OK, you want to play a dragon quest, that's fine, let's roll up some 11th level PCs." You are positing that the players reply "No, we want to be 1st level dragon hunters". Even though everyone knows that D&D just doesn't work like that.
The Chamberlain discussion has basically posited that the players must be able to succeed in their objective, to persuade the Chamberlain to let them in to see the King. The possibility that the Chamberlain will not hear them out (ie will not permit them sufficient time to get that unpenalized diplomacy skill) or will simply be stubborn enough that the DC to persuade him is outside the PC group's capability, or that the Chamberlain will not do so, regardless of the level of success, or because allowing them in would cause his harm - all elements possible under the rules - are all dismissed as inappropriate. The scene cannot reasonably be set in such a manner, we are told. The PC's must have the possibility of immediate success, transitioning the scene with the Chamberlain to a meeting with the King. We cannot pre-set the Chamberlain's abilities such that success is not possible - this would be having a preconception of how the scene will play out.
But the outcome of a Dragon encounter can be pre-defined, for some reason. It is OK to flat out state that defeating the Dragon
is positing that the players be able to take on a challenge much above their weight class
but it is not OK for the persuasion of the Chamberlain is also out of their weight class. Why is diplomacy with the Chamberlain so different from battling the Dragon? Framing the PC's into a non-dragon battle scene seems little different from framing a non-Chamberlain scene such as the Courtesan that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] raised earlier. It's STORY NOW! with the Chamberlain, but "above your weight class" with the Dragon. The two seem contradictory from where I sit.
In D&D that potential is called "being 11th level". But for some reason you are supposing that the players don't want that. This is part of why I don't really understand the example,
So why is it impossible for the potential to persuade the Chamberlain to be at a higher level than the PC's have currently achieved? The difficulty to persuade the Chamberlain is somehow inextricably linked to the abilities of the characters, and will vary with "The Chart" to always be so, but the difficulty in combating a Red Wyrm is fixed and absolute.
Your imagined scenarios in which the group can't agree on what level of PCs they should be playing to play a dragon hunting game, or in which the players and GM can't agree on what sort of Chamberlain situation is interesting to engage with (the players want their PCs to be able to persuade the Chamberlain, but the GM will not frame such a scene), seem to me to exhibit similar dysfunction.
All the players agree that their characters, as is, should be able to persuade the Chamberlain to let them see the King, so the scene must be set, and they must be able to persuade the Chamberlain to let them see the King. All the players agree that their characters, as is, should be able to hunt down and slay a Dragon, but it is clearly obvious that their expectations are ridiculous - their characters simply do not have the ability to succeed. One must be framed to afford them the opportunity to succeed, but the other clearly cannot. Yes, I find this inconsistent and confusing.
Saying yes is not deciding the outcome - it is agreeing with the player's choice of outcome.
It defines the outcome, without invoking the action resolution mechanics, to be the exact outcome the player described. The outcome has been decided. The GM also had the choice not to agree, so the GM has decided not to invoke the resolution mechanics.
Deciding that a credibiity requirement for framing action resolution has been met is not deciding the outcome. It is opening the door to the participants collectively deciding the outcome via the mechanics.
I thought that, had you determined the credibility requirement was not met, that would mean there was no second roll. That is, the mechanics would not be engaged, the previous result would stand and the outcome would therefore be determined. You made the decision whether the requirement was met, that decision determined whether the mechanics would be invoked, and failure to invoke them would set the outcome. In this instance, you exercised your discretion to permit the mechanics to be used - but this was based entirely on your arbitration of whether the credibility requirement had been met.
I'd also point out N'raac, that your characterization that "Players must always have a chance to succeed" is completely your own fabrication. No one is saying that just because the player tries something he has to succeed.
Heck, with the chamberlain example, if I use diplomacy and roll very low, then I, as the player, have absolutely no reason to complain. I know what the mechanics say and I have no room to complain here.
If you fail only due to a low roll, then you had a chance to succeed. If you fail, even rolling a 20, you had no chance to succeed. If you will fail, even if you roll a 20, I see no difference between letting you roll, then telling you that your attempt failed, and telling you that your attempt failed from the outset.
. The Chamberlain sticks his fingers in his ears (completely immersion breaking since such an action would be very much out of character for the Chamberlain), runs away from the PC's, so they cannot use their skills (again, completely out of character and only chosen to artificially inflate the DC of the check) and so on.
First off, thank you for the compliment that I have so compellingly brought the Chamberlain to life that you now completely grasp his character. Second, "fingers in the ears" was a definite over the top response to what I consider the equally over the top claim that the Diplomacy requirement that it takes at least a minute, possibly much longer depending on the situation, is not a real rule, and the players will, of course, always be able to obtain as much time as they need. A Chamberlain deciding he will not hear the arguments of the PC's is not, however, unreasonable to my mind. He said "No, the King is not receiving you" and that is the end of the matter, as he sees it. "Begone, before I have you removed by force."
There are a bajillion games out there that allow the DM to do this. Most rules light games allow this explicitly. But, if I'm playing a rules heavy game, why am I now a bad player for insisting that we actually use the rules in the book?
Why am I a bad GM for reading ALL the words in those rules? You need time, and there is no guarantee you will receive it. Even a helpful person will not take actions that cause him harm. These are also part of the rules in the book which you have suggested we use.
Again, we're not talking about strawmen examples of convincing the Pope that he's an athiest. We're talking about bog standard examples that are actually illustrated in the Player's Handbook. I mean, if I cannot reasonably expect to be able to do the specific things elucidated in the rules, what can I reasonably expect at any time?
Neither you nor I created the "convert the Pope" example, so I don't consider it hugely relevant. I'm not sure where you are pulling your "bog standard examples" from, but I don't have the book in front of me. The book is, however, clear that different circumstances impose different modifiers, so I don't see it as a failing of any GM that he does not design his scenario to reflect examples from the PHB, with no variation in situation. Neither do I perceive any reason PC's (or through them their players) would possess omniscience to intuit any and all such circumstances without engaging in the actual game to learn them.
