Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2575786" data-attributes="member: 22779">Ok, no, that's just wrong.&nbsp; If I've spent 10 or 12 ranks in a skill, that means I've probably got at least a little bit of experience doing it.&nbsp; A climb of +15 most certainly should tell the climber that a wall is more difficult to climb than would normally be the case.&nbsp; Simple experience should be able to tell him that.Player:&nbsp; &quot;Hrm, I've climbed walls exactly like this one a dozen times, but I can't climb this one.&nbsp; I guess I should ignore the crumbling masonry under my fingertips and oozy slimy stuff that my feet keep slipping on.&quot;&nbsp;<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> I'm sorry, but if you have that many ranks in a skill, you likely have a pretty good idea on what that skill is used for.&nbsp; In the same way an experienced rock climber can judge a rockface from the bottom, a character with a very high climb score should be able to tell right off that something isn't right.Again I strongly disagree with this.&nbsp; I don't want the rules to be the final arbiter since that's just silly.&nbsp; Rules can't arbitrate.&nbsp; The adversarial role between players and DM's is cause more by ad hoc rulings than by following the rules.&nbsp; If a rule exists that works, the player has every right to expect that rule to be followed.&nbsp; If no rule exists, then, fine, the DM steps in.&nbsp; To say this has become more of a problem is just silly.&nbsp; I think the numerous stories in this thread alone, never mind the massive number of &quot;My DM is a poopy head&quot; threads out there shows that there are a shockingly large number of piss poor DM's.On a side note, there is no problem with a DM being final ARBITER.&nbsp; Remember, an arbiter only steps in when there are conflicts.&nbsp; If no conflict exists, then there is no need for an arbiter at all.&nbsp; Changing rules simply because the DM thinks that something is &quot;stupid&quot; is not a conflict.&nbsp; It's a powertripping DM who cannot be bothered to figure out how the rules work in the first place.It's very interesting to me.&nbsp; I got called a meta-gamer in this thread recently for advocating using a skill precisely as written, without any monkey business, to make a wad of cash for the players or for NPC's because of the house rules of a DM.&nbsp; Yet, we have a DM dropping easter eggs for his PC's, despite the fact that that's blatant meta-gaming, and he's being applauded.&nbsp; I'm sorry, but if you are dropping tailor made magic items in your adventures for your PC's, that's about as meta-gaming as you can get.&nbsp; The entire reason for the existence of the item is to provide for the PC's.&nbsp; Why is meta-gaming for a player a bad thing but perfectly acceptable in a DM?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 2575786, member: 22779"] Ok, no, that's just wrong. If I've spent 10 or 12 ranks in a skill, that means I've probably got at least a little bit of experience doing it. A climb of +15 most certainly should tell the climber that a wall is more difficult to climb than would normally be the case. Simple experience should be able to tell him that. Player: "Hrm, I've climbed walls exactly like this one a dozen times, but I can't climb this one. I guess I should ignore the crumbling masonry under my fingertips and oozy slimy stuff that my feet keep slipping on." :confused: I'm sorry, but if you have that many ranks in a skill, you likely have a pretty good idea on what that skill is used for. In the same way an experienced rock climber can judge a rockface from the bottom, a character with a very high climb score should be able to tell right off that something isn't right. Again I strongly disagree with this. I don't want the rules to be the final arbiter since that's just silly. Rules can't arbitrate. The adversarial role between players and DM's is cause more by ad hoc rulings than by following the rules. If a rule exists that works, the player has every right to expect that rule to be followed. If no rule exists, then, fine, the DM steps in. To say this has become more of a problem is just silly. I think the numerous stories in this thread alone, never mind the massive number of "My DM is a poopy head" threads out there shows that there are a shockingly large number of piss poor DM's. On a side note, there is no problem with a DM being final ARBITER. Remember, an arbiter only steps in when there are conflicts. If no conflict exists, then there is no need for an arbiter at all. Changing rules simply because the DM thinks that something is "stupid" is not a conflict. It's a powertripping DM who cannot be bothered to figure out how the rules work in the first place. It's very interesting to me. I got called a meta-gamer in this thread recently for advocating using a skill precisely as written, without any monkey business, to make a wad of cash for the players or for NPC's because of the house rules of a DM. Yet, we have a DM dropping easter eggs for his PC's, despite the fact that that's blatant meta-gaming, and he's being applauded. I'm sorry, but if you are dropping tailor made magic items in your adventures for your PC's, that's about as meta-gaming as you can get. The entire reason for the existence of the item is to provide for the PC's. Why is meta-gaming for a player a bad thing but perfectly acceptable in a DM? [/QUOTE]

Verification