JamesonCourage
Adventurer
It might be that the word narrative doesnt' mean the same thing to us. Half of what JC says he does sou ds narrative to me, rather than gamist.
Disagreements are so often built on a difference in definition, in my experience.
I also think different implementation of the social skills causes some of this disagreement.
I think JC's bluff is watered down. Not his fault. But because of it, how it gets used affects his view point.
That's probably true. My Bluff skill is probably watered down compared to how you (and many, many others) probably implement it. But, I've tried to use it this way based on my interpretation of the rules.
I think the OR in the bluff rule is the player's choice. And that success forces the DM to allow them in, and failure means i explain what caused it to fail. I suspect hussar is in this camp.
Well, even if the OR part is the player's choice, it wouldn't work that way, as written, as far as I can tell. I won't rehash it again unless you want to talk about that, though, as your game at your table is the right way for you to play, if that's what you and your group likes. It kind of makes RAW (and RAI) moot.
If i wanted a more dedicated guard, he'd have some sort of bonus to his sense motive. Thus a really skilled PC could get the effect.
What complicates the matter further, is in practical terms, good guards call their supervisor. So success or not, there's a logical complication to the request that might not have been obvious to player or dm.
I agree.
What counters that, is since the dm controls the nature and severity of all reactions,the dm does have influence on plausibility in ways that avariety of responses are viable. Just like inreal life, some people get away with murder. The dm does NOT have to throw the book at the PC.
And that's when I say that the style is too narrative for me, personally. But, it's not the wrong way to play, by any means.
I really like this post, though. Thanks for contributing to the conversation, Janx. As always, play what you like
