Let's try this one last time.
I'm willing to discuss this at length, if you'd like. I just don't want to argue.
In the Diplomat Impersonation example, why did the PC's fail?
Let's take a look at it.
Did they fail because they rolled poorly? - no.
Well, they did make skill checks:
JamesonCourage said:
They do some homework, make some discreet Gather Information checks, roll some Knowledge rolls, consult some sages, etc. They find out that a diplomat is on his way to see the king at the moment. They do not know that the king knows the diplomat personally. With this information, they make their way to the gate, with the Party Face disguised as the diplomat, and the other party members disguised as an escort from the appropriate nation. They forge papers showing they are indeed who they claim to be.
They rolled high enough on their Gather Information to know that a diplomat is coming, and who he is. They didn't roll high enough to know about the personal tie to the king. They are disguised as the diplomat, though, so it's possible that the disguise will hold up on a successful check (though the king get's a bonus to see through it, as usual).
If they rolled higher, then they'd know about the personal connection. As we can see, they rolled high on the Bluff, but not high enough on their investigation checks (Gather Information, Knowledges, talking to sages, etc.).
So, no, they didn't roll high enough here.
Did they fail because their idea was completely implausible? - no.
From their perspective, no. Completely implausible from my perspective? No, but hard to pull off. If they had rolled better on the investigation checks, they would agree, and change their initial plans accordingly.
I know game knowledge that they don't, and I implement that knowledge into how plausible something is, which is why I'm a proponent of the GM being the final arbiter for my group. I'm not telling you which way is better, and especially not which way makes for an objectively "better game".
Did they fail because they role played poorly? - no.
I agree.
They failed because the DM predefined the scenario to the point where they had zero chance of success.
Unfortunately, that's false, as I've indicated throughout the thread, and thoroughly above.
If they arrived early, the king would be called and they would be caught.
Had their Disguise check failed, yes (which it likely would have when the chancellor saw them, but he wasn't at the gates, as I mentioned earlier). But it's possible for them to play it off with a good roll, and a bad roll from the king.
Additionally, had they known of the connection, they would have changed their plans. Just because they are acting on partial information doesn't mean that an action just as plausible as an action with complete information. Gather Information, by description, gives better information based on a scaling DC, much like Knowledge checks.
SRD said:
Check
An evening’s time, a few gold pieces for buying drinks and making friends, and a DC 10 Gather Information check get you a general idea of a city’s major news items, assuming there are no obvious reasons why the information would be withheld. The higher your check result, the better the information.
If you want to find out about a specific rumor, or a specific item, or obtain a map, or do something else along those lines, the DC for the check is 15 to 25, or even higher.
SRD said:
Check
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
These checks provided them with their information prior to making their plan. They knew the risk of trusting such information before rolling the check, as they know how the skills work.
If they arrived late, the guard would automatically recognize the deception and they would be caught.
No, as I've pointed out, they can convince the guard they are a diplomat:
JamesonCourage said:
If, however, the Party Face blows the Sense Motive check out of the water, then the guard will think the Party Face is telling the truth, as he knows it. He still won't let the diplomat in, but he might think there is some sort of mix up, and that the nation sent two diplomats instead of one.
The Bluff check is not a "get into the castle" check by the rules, as I've pointed out pages ago. It's simply a check to convince someone whether or not you're telling the truth. They can succeed at that, and convince the guard, but now that he's seen two diplomats, and has orders from the king already, he's going to pass the buck up.
In other words, the PC's failed because they had no chance of success
I hope I've made clear to you why this isn't the case. I'm really not being inconsistent on this, nor am I breaking the rules.
***Warning Warning Warning - Pure Opinion Ahead - Do Not Take As Anything Other Than One Person's Opinion***
Got it
In my mind, this becomes illusion of choice. No matter what the PC's do, the end result is the same.
I'm not telling you not to think that. I am trying to convince you not to, as I think you're misunderstanding the reality of the checks involved.
It's all very easy to airmchair quarterback and say, "well, you should have done this" but, in the middle of the game, ideas usually take on a life of their own. The players chose this line of approach because they believed it would work.
This part is usually true, in my mind.
But, they were wrong. Not because of anything they did, but because the DM had engineered the situation so that they could not succeed.
Again, I'll disagree, for the reasons outlined above.
I really dislike this approach to DMing.
That's why I don't use it
Obviously. I find it intrusive and very heavy handed.
Me too!
It limits the number of results that can come from the scenario. By making the situation impossible, there are any number of results that cannot occur - there is no chance of the "sneaking through the castle" scenario or "how long can we keep this bluff up" scenario. Both of which are exciting and interesting. No, the only result is "Well, our plan failed, let's react to whatever the DM throws at us next."
That is a bummer when someone GMs that way.
Again, IMO, the only truly neutral arbiter here is the dice. The dice said the PC's succeeded.
By the rules, he succeeded in the lie. The guard believes him. Not in any sort of narrative control, though. There is no "get into the castle" check in the rules.
Manipulating the results so that success actually means failure is very poor DMing.
Well, that's not really civil, so let's not go into that.
If they succeeded, LET THEM SUCCEED.
I described a situation in which they did succeed. The lie they told was believed by the guard. If they succeed on the Disguise check, the king will believe them, too. If they had succeeded on the investigation checks, they would know about the personal connection between the diplomat and the king, too. And when the diplomat had arrived. The dice determine the degree of success, and I use that by the rules of the game.
Don't
Monkey's Paw their successes. It leads to frustration at the table, loss of immersion and frequently railroading or, at the very least, something that's a very close cousin of railroading - illusion of choice.
If that's your reaction, and your players' reactions, then by all means, run things how you like. That's what I've been advocating all along. I've just been saying that your method is by no means objectively better.
I hope that makes my position clear.
***End Opinion - Actual facts may be forthcoming later

***
It does. And I'm really, really cool with it. I just don't like that there seems to be such misinterpretation of people who play with my method, and that people in this thread have characterized myself or others as railroading, or attributed actions to us that we have never stated we use:
Hussar said:
If both sides trusted each other, shouldn't the results fall to either side, at least some of the time?... If you rule against the players every single time... how come every single "plausible" result goes against the PC's?... if every single ruling goes against the PC's...
... or that there's a better way for me to play:
Hussar said:
I'd argue that if you have good players and a good DM, allowing the players to take actions and then letting the dice determine success or failure, rather than the DM, makes for a better game.
Honestly JamesonCourage, on this point I do think it makes for a better game, period. Just because I think X is better doesn't mean that I think Y is bad. Y could be good, but, X is still better.
These are things I dislike seeing in the thread, for the reasons I've gone into at length. I hope I've made my position clearer, as well.
As always, though, play what you like
