Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Krensky]

You're also welcome to your view, but maybe could dial back a bit on calling others' approaches "mad" and "wank-ish".

Which is shocking to hear considering all the comments about abusive GMs always tormenting their players and such, that the only course for a good GM would be to let the players in no matter what once they rolled a success. Etc.

The madness comment was a intended as a rather mild joke, but I'm sorry I offended you.

The criticism of Edwards and his theories. Sorry, but no. If you don't like to see his pseudo-intellectual crap called pseudo-intellectual crap, don't try and use it in a discussion. If you are Mr. Edwards, well then, still no.

Interesting that you didn't actually reply to the actual content of my response though.

 

[Hussar]

I agree, but I do understand his frustration when Hussar has gone on and on about our playing style (I don't trust my players; I always rule against them; I run my game arbitrarily; I twist player success into failure; I'm not playing by his objective "better game"; I railroad; I run my game based on GM fiat; I don't listen to my players when they give me input on what's plausible; I always make things as disadvantageous as possible for the PCs; my players cannot succeed unless they satisfy my whims; I submit PCs to a chain of skill checks that only ends when they finally fail; I make my players "pixel bitch"; etc.).

I'd prefer both sides keep it civil (as I've asked for a few times). The discussion is much more interesting than any argument is.

Well, you've pretty much hit the list of complaints I've had. So, let's go through them shall we?

• I don't trust my players - That one's actually a bit on you. I never said you didn't trust your players. I asked how over ruling your players show that you trust them. In other words, other than you simply saying that you trust your players, what do you do that actually shows trust in them?
• I always rule against them - Well, every example you and everyone else here as given has always been agains the players. Even when counter examples were brought up that weren't against the players that were equally plausible, the counter examples were brushed off as not being "by the RAW". As if there actually was a RAW to be by when there isn't actually a mechanic in place to determine the reaction of the NPC. If allowing the PC's through isn't by the RAW, how is preventing them by the RAW either?
• I run my game arbitrarily - Well, you decided that the diplomat conveniently arrives 20 minutes before the PC's show up. How is that not arbitrary? Your interpretation of the results is based solely on your own feelings of what is "plausible". How is that not arbitrary?
• I twist player success into failure - Now this one I truly do stand behind. The players succeeded, but that success doesn't actually mean anything. They don't get passed into the castle, the superiors get called. Heck the superiors could just as easily get called on a failure as well. The players discover a phylactery, use the most appropriate skill available on it, but because they didn't say the magic words, they don't get to learn that it's a fake. How would they even think to ask? Kn Arcana should have told them that or at least told them there was a chance that it was a fake. But, no. They didn't say the magic words, so tough.
• I'm not playing by his objective "better game" - I'm sorry this one offends you so much. If I didn't honestly think there was a better way of doing things, I would have dropped out of this long ago. I think that the advice that you are giving to other DM's leads to very poor games where player's simply stop trying to engage in the setting because every time they try, they get screwed over. And then other DM's come to En World and tell all and sundry how their players suck because they won't engage in the game world and send them angry emails.
• I run my game based on GM fiat - Since you've already stated that the skills won't allow them to succeed (there being no "open the gate skill" after all), any success or failure must therefore be entirely up to DM fiat.
• I don't listen to my players when they give me input on what's plausible - That's not quite what I meant. What I asked, as I mentioned earlier, is how does over ruling their input show trust in their input?
• I always make things as disadvantageous as possible for the PCs - Well, so far, every example you've given shows that you have taken the most disadvantageous interpretation you could. I'm just calling it like I see it. Perhaps you could give a few examples where the players succeed at skills and actually end up ahead of where they started.
• my players cannot succeed unless they satisfy my whims - You stated that unless the players actually ASK if the phylactery could be a fake, you would never tell them of the possibility. The skills of the characters apparently don't come into things at all. If the player doesn't say the magic words, he doesn't get the chance to win the cookie.
• I submit PCs to a chain of skill checks that only ends when they finally fail - The players defeat the lich and take the phylactery. Kn Arcana, despite being the skill that determines information about magical stuff, isn't good enough. No, they have to specifically engage the Forgery skill. Because, apparently, knowing all about magical writing and stuff from Kn Arcana isn't good enough to be able to tell the real from the fake, nor is it good enough to be even told of the chance of the fake. Never mind that Forgery is Language Dependent and the odds that the PC could read the language that a LICH would write its phylactery in are pretty slim.
• I make my players "pixel bitch" - How is the Lich example not textbook pixel bitching? That, right there, forcing the players to say the magic words before they can discover the failure, is about as definitive of pixel bitching as you could possibly get. Glossing over other, quite easily as applicable skills, in favour of your one solitary interpretation of success is exactly what pixel-bitching is.

So, honestly JC, no, I don't think "play what you like" is all that helpful. Play what you like leads to stagnant games and disaffected players and frustrated DM's.

 

[Hussar]

Which is shocking to hear considering all the comments about abusive GMs always tormenting their players and such, that the only course for a good GM would be to let the players in no matter what once they rolled a success. Etc./snip

With all the complaints about people not reading Krensky, I'm a little surprised to see you do the same thing. No one is saying that the players should have unqualified successes. What we're saying is that when the players do succeed, they should be in a better position than when they started.

And, no, being led straight to the king plus his umpteen guards and whatnot, is not in a better position than when I started.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, you've pretty much hit the list of complaints I've had. So, let's go through them shall we?

Alright, then. Get ready for the longest post on EN World (kidding)

• I don't trust my players - That one's actually a bit on you. I never said you didn't trust your players. I asked how over ruling your players show that you trust them. In other words, other than you simply saying that you trust your players, what do you do that actually shows trust in them?

You said (and definitely implied) a little more than that. Here we go:

I think this approach of the DM determining plausiblity makes for bad games for two reasons: (and mind you, these are just my beliefs)

2. It shows too much distrust for the players. ... I believe that if you trust that your players will bring a good game to the table, then they will. I do not believe that the DM has to be Nanny and make sure that the players are "playing the game right".

How is ruling by fiat, simply because you're the DM, what is plausible, showing trust in their judgement of what is plausible?

If you actually trusted their judgement, wouldn't you rule X? If you always rule Y, then how does that show any trust in their judgement?

If I say something is X, and you say it's Y and I refuse to be swayed by your views, aren't I, in effect, showing that I do not trust your judgement?

To me, if the DM has decided that X will not work, regardless of the views of the players, that shows a lack of trust in the players.

To me, that shows a lack of trust in the judgement of your players.

If both sides trusted each other, shouldn't the results fall to either side, at least some of the time?

• I always rule against them - Well, every example you and everyone else here as given has always been agains the players. Even when counter examples were brought up that weren't against the players that were equally plausible, the counter examples were brushed off as not being "by the RAW". As if there actually was a RAW to be by when there isn't actually a mechanic in place to determine the reaction of the NPC. If allowing the PC's through isn't by the RAW, how is preventing them by the RAW either?

No, that is also untrue, not every ruling has been against the players in the examples. I'll kick off with some examples where you say I always rule against the players, fill in the middle with quotes saying where they succeed, and end with a quote where I go in-depth on how sometimes things work out to their favor. Here:

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, based solely on your views of what is plausible, how does that show trust in your player's judgement.

And, if the DM is the "neutral" arbiter, how come every single "plausible" result goes against the PC's?

Again, if every single ruling goes against the PC's, how is that being neutral or fair?

Thinking about this a bit more, isn't it interesting that DM after DM here has stepped up and told how they would take the PC's success and block it. Oh, sure, it's dressed up in all sorts of in-game reasons, but, again, if the DM truly was neutral, how come those reasons only ever flow in one direction?

Having every plan frustrated, every attempt fail, just so the DM can make me "earn" my successes is something I've long grown out of.

You can still succeed in your social checks.

You could have succeeded in your investigation checks better than you did.

Circumstances can favor you, rather than be against you.

Well, now that they've succeeded on the Knowledge (arcana) check

They've succeeded in exactly what they've rolled on.

If the players succeed at what the rules dictate (ie, a Bluff), then I let it succeed.

Secondly, if you did read my post on the last page where I pointed out that they can succeed, I indicated that a successful Disguise can fool the king as well.

Even in the example I gave, I said that successful Bluff checks and Disguise checks might get them in.

If the party had beaten the diplomat, as I said, the king would have greeted them, and his Sense Motive is much lower than the chancellor's Sense Motive skill (who wasn't at the gate to meet them). On top of that, they'd have to roll a successful Disguise check, but if that passes, the king will let them in.

I've directly said that a successful Disguise check could save their botched plan. Other plans may have worked, such as claiming to be a runner with an urgent message (rather than being the diplomat). There are so many different ways that this could be salvaged or succeed with better conditions.

If they succeed in some Bluff checks with quick thinking, then the NPCs will believe their bluffs. If their bluffs are reasonable enough that they can complete their goal, then I have no problem with that being the case.

Well, they can succeed at getting past the gate guard, as I've pointed out over and over and over.

This entire topic has stemmed from an example of how someone might fail. If you want examples of how things might benefit the players in the game, we can go into that.

Just yesterday, we had another session (with me running the game). The players faced off against a dozen bandits, and though it was difficult, they killed 8, captured 1, and three got away. One of the bandits (Lini) who got away had stolen 100 silver from the players (the equivalent of 100 gold in my game), as well as his primary weapon (a rapier).

After turning in the bandit's equipment and collecting a bounty, they started looking for more work. They decided to look into a slave ring in a neighboring nation. Along the way, they stopped through the players' hometown, and the player who lost the rapier stopped by a moneylender to pay off his debt (which he had taken as a flaw at character creation).

After paying off his debt, the player who had the 100 silver stolen from him asked if the moneylender knew anything about the slave ring, as the player was pretty sure that the NPC was involved in illegal activity. It took 7 gold (70 silver), but he mentioned the name of a human that was hiding underground in the neighboring nation: a man named Lini. He gave his location, and also the location of the slave ring (same city).

So, the players headed to the location, tricked Lini into meeting them (paid a child to bring him a note saying to meet them, signed as "Telet" [another bandit they had encountered from the same group]), and effectively captured him. He gave up the 100 silver, told them where the rapier was (the slavers had taken it from him), and is now basically being strong-armed into working with the party, or they'll turn him over to the government.

Did I need to give his name with the moneylender? Nope, not at all. Why did I? Because the neighboring nation is made up of troglodytes and another lizard race, and the moneylender assumed they wanted a human contact (and Lini had stopped by the town on his way to the neighboring nation). And because the moneylender knew that Lini had ties to the slave ring (as the players also knew).

Did the players question the plausibility of this at all? This was extremely convenient for them, as he was someone they wanted to bring to justice, and a bandit that had stolen from two of them personally. The answer is no, of course the players did not question the plausibility of the situation. It all makes sense to them.

But, they didn't know that asking the moneylender would provide this result to them. They didn't say, "you know, it'd make sense that all of this would work together, maybe he knows where Lini is."

This is basically the complete inverse of "the diplomat arrived 20 minutes ago" that you seem so against. The thing is, the players might be upset about that example (well, my group wouldn't be), because they don't know what's going on, and it's negative.

The players don't know the reason why the moneylender thought to offer Lini (because they're all human, and Lini is a human in troglodyte lands), or how he knew him (criminal background, and have worked together to shake down some people that owe the moneylender payments). Yet my players don't go "wow, this is way too convenient to be plausible." Just like they don't say "this is way too inconvenient to be plausible" with the diplomat arriving early.

They know it goes both ways. Why you specifically think it doesn't -and insist that we're saying that even after we've claimed that's not how it is- is still somewhat baffling to me.

• I run my game arbitrarily - Well, you decided that the diplomat conveniently arrives 20 minutes before the PC's show up. How is that not arbitrary? Your interpretation of the results is based solely on your own feelings of what is "plausible". How is that not arbitrary?

I didn't "conveniently" decide that. I said when he would show up, based on a timeline. The PCs arrived the same evening. If that's "arbitrary" than so is all of GMing, and I don't understand the complaint. I'm GMing, and that's bad? I don't get it. Additionally, my own sense of plausibility is not the only factor, as I'll point out, again, below.

If they had done things quicker, they could have beaten him there. When I decide that the diplomat leaves on the morning of the 4th, and he'll arrive on the evening of the 12th, that means they'll have to arrive before the evening of the 12th. Arriving in the evening of the 12th means there's a chance they'll beat him by a small margin, or fall behind by a small margin. The specifics of when the diplomat arrives exactly on the evening of the 12th don't come into play what until it needs to (such as when the party cuts it close). Then, I go with the time I envisioned in the evening (or perhaps consult the map again).

• I twist player success into failure - Now this one I truly do stand behind. The players succeeded, but that success doesn't actually mean anything. They don't get passed into the castle, the superiors get called. Heck the superiors could just as easily get called on a failure as well. The players discover a phylactery, use the most appropriate skill available on it, but because they didn't say the magic words, they don't get to learn that it's a fake. How would they even think to ask? Kn Arcana should have told them that or at least told them there was a chance that it was a fake. But, no. They didn't say the magic words, so tough.

If you want, I can once again go into what a "success" is. You can run it your way, and there's nothing wrong with that. But, according to the rules, this is not how it works. From the very beginning of the SRD:

The Core Mechanic
Whenever you attempt an action that has some chance of failure, you roll a twenty-sided die (d20). To determine if your character succeeds at a task you do this:

Roll a d20.
Add any relevant modifiers.
Compare the result to a target number.
If the result equals or exceeds the target number, your character succeeds. If the result is lower than the target number, you fail.

It is specifically that action, and that action alone, that is decided upon by the roll. That's all. That I am somehow twisting PC success into failure means I'm breaking with The Core Mechanic, and that simply isn't true, as I'm demonstrated, and you've agreed with. How you still come to the conclusion that I twist success into failure is, as far as I can tell, based solely on your house rules, which are fine to play by. But judging others by them and saying that they're screwing over their friends because of it is just, well, wrong.

• I'm not playing by his objective "better game" - I'm sorry this one offends you so much. If I didn't honestly think there was a better way of doing things, I would have dropped out of this long ago. I think that the advice that you are giving to other DM's leads to very poor games where player's simply stop trying to engage in the setting because every time they try, they get screwed over. And then other DM's come to En World and tell all and sundry how their players suck because they won't engage in the game world and send them angry emails.

How do you get that every time they try something, they're screwed over? Go up and read my responses to you saying that I always rule against my players. Go up and read the last response, where I go in-depth on how something social directly benefited the players and PCs. Then, explain to me how my play style "leads to very poor games where player's simply stop trying to engage in the setting because every time they try, they get screwed over." I'm really curious how you'll back that statement up, now.

• I run my game based on GM fiat - Since you've already stated that the skills won't allow them to succeed (there being no "open the gate skill" after all), any success or failure must therefore be entirely up to DM fiat.

I can grab a ton of quotes where you say I run my game based on GM fiat if you want. Additionally, I've stated many, many times that players can succeed at what they attempt. Go up, again, and read my quotes when you said I always rule against my players. If you're saying that my saying "the guard believes you and reacts this way" is running a game by GM fiat, then so is "you guys want to head to the next town? Alright, after five days of travel, you arrive." It's just as much GM fiat. As far as I can tell, you're telling me that by having a guard even do so much as greet them when they walk up without rolling for it, I'm using GM fiat, and that's something I can't really find offensive. I find it kind of baffling and amusing. If you're accusing me of running my game, then I'm guilty.


You also skipped me railroading, for some reason. Here:

So, basically, any other choice, except for the one single one you've chosen beforehand will fail, regardless of any rolls to the contrary. How exactly is that not a railroad?

That's slightly amusing, Hussar. Their plan was to impersonate the diplomat in the example we've been using. I say that if they succeed on their Bluff and Disguise checks, they can pull it off. Yes, this reeks of railroading

That one amuses me.

• I don't listen to my players when they give me input on what's plausible - That's not quite what I meant. What I asked, as I mentioned earlier, is how does over ruling their input show trust in their input?

You seemed to imply quite a bit more. Again:

Basically my point is the players are trying something that is plausible in their view (since they probably wouldn't try otherwise) and he DM is ruling that no, it isn't plausible based solely on the DM's judgement.

If I say something is X, and you say it's Y and I refuse to be swayed by your views, aren't I, in effect, showing that I do not trust your judgement?

To me, if the DM has decided that X will not work, regardless of the views of the players, that shows a lack of trust in the players.

But, your arguments here have stated that you will not allow the player's views to change your ruling. If you find X implausible, the player's views on the matter will not change your position.

I do change my position based on player input. I can bring one or more players into this conversation if you'd like, and you can ask them directly.

• I always make things as disadvantageous as possible for the PCs - Well, so far, every example you've given shows that you have taken the most disadvantageous interpretation you could. I'm just calling it like I see it. Perhaps you could give a few examples where the players succeed at skills and actually end up ahead of where they started.

Again, go up and read where you said I always rule against my players. Read the last example. This is demonstrably not the case. I've also pointed out that if they succeed on their Bluff and Disguise skill checks, even in a situation that is disadvantageous to them, like being confronted by the king, chancellor, and diplomat, they can still pull it off. So, again, not sure where you're getting this from.

• my players cannot succeed unless they satisfy my whims - You stated that unless the players actually ASK if the phylactery could be a fake, you would never tell them of the possibility. The skills of the characters apparently don't come into things at all. If the player doesn't say the magic words, he doesn't get the chance to win the cookie.

No, untrue:

Well, in my (unstated) example, the players wanted to know "could this be the phylactery?" The Knowledge (arcana) check would indicate that "yes, this could be the phylactery."

Separately, they could see if it's fake. And yes, I have no problem giving clues to players, if it's reasonable. And on top of that, I'll give them information, if it's something their character would know. And if it's iffy, I'll allow an appropriate roll.

If their character might or would know something, they don't have to ask. If that isn't the case, and they ask if it's fake, then I'll give them every reasonable and appropriate check to determine if that's the case.

If the players say, "I guess we'll head south to Woltok, then," I'll remind them that Woltok is actually north, because their characters know that. If they say "I put the scroll case into my backpack" then I won't mention what's inside of it until they give me some indication that they want to know.

• I submit PCs to a chain of skill checks that only ends when they finally fail - The players defeat the lich and take the phylactery. Kn Arcana, despite being the skill that determines information about magical stuff, isn't good enough. No, they have to specifically engage the Forgery skill. Because, apparently, knowing all about magical writing and stuff from Kn Arcana isn't good enough to be able to tell the real from the fake, nor is it good enough to be even told of the chance of the fake. Never mind that Forgery is Language Dependent and the odds that the PC could read the language that a LICH would write its phylactery in are pretty slim.

Yes, that's how skills work. You must engage with the appropriate skill in order to achieve success. This is outlined in The Core Mechanic, above. Knowing all about magical writing doesn't let you know if it's fake magical writing, just like knowing all about a language doesn't let you know about fake writing. That's the point of the Forgery skill. Just like with any papers the PCs look at, they can assume it's real or fake, and I'm not going to tell them which unless they inquire about it, or their characters might know / do know.

Additionally, I find it amusing that you think the "LICH" would write in a language that a simple low level spell wouldn't bypass. Honestly. They just took out a lich. The Comprehend Languages spell is a first level Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard spell. If they have a spellcaster (and they had two!), I think they can pretty easily look into it if they want to.

• I make my players "pixel bitch" - How is the Lich example not textbook pixel bitching? That, right there, forcing the players to say the magic words before they can discover the failure, is about as definitive of pixel bitching as you could possibly get. Glossing over other, quite easily as applicable skills, in favour of your one solitary interpretation of success is exactly what pixel-bitching is.

The entire lich scenario would have been bypassed even easier if they had just not engaged the lich. He still saw them as past comrades, and only sent the fake tip off to test their loyalty now that he was a lich. They don't start fight, then they don't fight him at all.

Or, they could have investigated the "LICH"'s belongings. They didn't. They didn't even say they wanted to. No looking for poisons, no looking for traps, no checking if anything is diseased, no checking if his stuff is cursed, just "push his stuff into a bag, shoulder it, and back to base camp." They did this to a guy who had mentally bested the party once before, albeit not on fatal terms.

They could have used Detect Magic or Detect Evil to look into things. They could have Identified his belongings. They could have used divination magic, like Commune, to ask questions. They could have thrown his stuff into a lake, dropped it into a volcano, sold it, or destroyed it. There are so many different ways things could have gone down, but they didn't. The players were reckless, and it cost them. That isn't pixel bitching.

If they wanted to know whether or not it was fake, they did have to indicate that they were investigating it to some degree, yep. That's true. I don't consider that any more pixel bitching than me waiting for them to tell me where they're going. If where they're going is off, I'll give them information they know, or allow checks for stuff they might know. I would have done the same in this case, if they indicated they were suspicious of his belongings.

I don't play their characters. I don't want to tell them "you do this" without them indicating that they want that action done.

So, honestly JC, no, I don't think "play what you like" is all that helpful. Play what you like leads to stagnant games and disaffected players and frustrated DM's.

I find this exceptionally amusing. It almost made me laugh. Oh man. Playing a style of game you enjoy "leads to stagnant games and disaffected players and frustrated DM's." I'll have to remember that the next time I'm having fun

As always, play what you like

 

[Krensky]

No one is saying that the players should have unqualified successes.

But anything other the that is derided by you as an abusive arbitrary railroad pixelbitch. Unless the PCs are allowed imediatwe and unfettered access, the GM's jerking them around is what I get from your arguments. Why? Because you've rejected any other outcome as badwrongevil GMing.

What we're saying is that when the players do succeed, they should be in a better position than when they started.

They are. The guard believes their line of bull. What happens then is a separate concern. You may houserule skill to work anyway you like, but playing by the rules is not evilbandwrong.

And, no, being led straight to the king plus his umpteen guards and whatnot, is not in a better position than when I started.

Yes it is. You're inside the castle, aren't you?


Hussar, to be brutally honest, I don't care what sort of game you play. I care less about your opinion of me or my game. I do care about the people who sit on the other side of the screen's opinion. Considering that I have six players in one game (with more waiting to come in once the current arc ends and they can be worked in) and five in my other game and they're not complaining or leaving, I feel I'm doing pretty good.

Consider this:

I've been GMing for the better part of, oh, twenty... twenty-five years. In that time you are the only person to call me an abusive, evil jerk of a GM. I've been called a bastard at times, but never in anger. I've had people not enjoy games and leave them, but that's always been a matter of them not liking the focus or system or wanting to play in some other game they enjoy more. How do I know? I've asked them. So obviously I look at your insistence that I'm doing it wrong and that I'm encouraging others to do it wrong and indirectly destroying the hobby in the process... well... somewhat askance.

Doubly so because, as far as I know, you've never sat at my table let alone played in my games.

If my principles of: "The Bluff skill lets you lie and you need to use Intimidate or Impress to directly influence peoples actions." and "I don't dictate the PC's actions, they don't dictate the NPC's actions." offend you, then I'm sorry. You don't have to play at my table.

If you want to continue the discussion, respond to my comments about control of PCs/NPCs, that the rules saying Bluff only covers lies and other skills cover influencing the guard to do X, or some other meaning ful point of discussion, rather then insulting me.

 

[pemerton]

Which is shocking to hear considering all the comments about abusive GMs always tormenting their players and such, that the only course for a good GM would be to let the players in no matter what once they rolled a success. Etc.

I agree, but I do understand his frustration when Hussar has gone on and on about our playing style

<snip>

I'd prefer both sides keep it civil (as I've asked for a few times). The discussion is much more interesting than any argument is.

I agree that civility is preferable.

The criticism of Edwards and his theories. Sorry, but no. If you don't like to see his pseudo-intellectual crap called pseudo-intellectual crap, don't try and use it in a discussion. If you are Mr. Edwards, well then, still no.

I'm not Ron Edwards. I do find the GMing advice that comes out of The Forge and some of the games it has influenced, or that are influential there (eg The Burning Wheel, HeroQuest) to be the best GMing advice I've read.

Interesting that you didn't actually reply to the actual content of my response though.

The content of your post appeared to be a reiteration of earlier comments you've made - that your game is low magic even at high levels, that Bluff is not an influence skill, and that allowing Bluff to be used as an influence skill will overpower the skill.

I'm not sure what game you're playing (if you mentioned it in this thread, I missed it, sorry). I think most high level D&D play does involve magic, which is the context in which I made my remarks about that.

And as I've already said, I don't see the risk of overpowering if Bluff is allowed to act as an influence skill. As the social skills are set up in 4e - Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate - there are three sort of PC possible: tricky/smooth, pleasant/earnest, and scary. This works for me.

 

[Hussar]

They are. The guard believes their line of bull. What happens then is a separate concern. You may houserule skill to work anyway you like, but playing by the rules is not evilbandwrong.

But, huh? We've already agreed that the players succeeded in improving the guard's reactions as well. It's not that they succeeded in this one check and get the pass, it's that they succeeded the challenge. However checks that might have required is not really relavent. The players bluffed. The players diplomatized. The player did dancing jigs....


Yeah, we're just talking past each other now. I'm missing points and you guys are missing points. This isn't going to go anywhere and I'm simply turning what is a rather good thread into a mess. I'll be stepping out now.

But, just because I can't resist, I'll leave with this thought.

In the original example that started all this, Elf Witch complained that her player didn't engage in the setting when she interpreted the results of a success in a manner which the player didn't agree with.

Lots of people then piped up to say what a jerk player this player was.

And, they might very well be right. The player might be wrong. However, I don't automatically assume that. If your playstyle results in players being so frustrated that they are sending you angry emails, it might not be the player. It very well might be. But, I'm certainly not going to assume that.

-------

Edit to add. Those interested in the style of game that I'm really criticising here should take a look at This thread about He's Beyond My Healing Ability for numerous examples of the DM chucking the rules out the window in order to produce a pre-scripted result.

 

[Elf Witch]

In the original example that started all this, Elf Witch complained that her player didn't engage in the setting when she interpreted the results of a success in a manner which the player didn't agree with.

Lots of people then piped up to say what a jerk player this player was.

And, they might very well be right. The player might be wrong. However, I don't automatically assume that. If your playstyle results in players being so frustrated that they are sending you angry emails, it might not be the player. It very well might be. But, I'm certainly not going to assume that.

-------

.

You are talking about DMs who turn a success into a failure. In my example that did not happen.

The temple of Pelor training ground got hit by a fireball killing several students. The clerics of St Cuthbert who handle all investigations they are the law in my land came to investigate.

Tempers flared and swords were drawn between several clerics of Pelor and St Cuthbert.

The player decided he would try and stop the blood shed using diplomacy. He gave a speech about how enough blood had been spilled today. He rolled a natural 20.

He succeed both sides laid down their weapons. The head cleric Pelor was very friendly towards him. The cleric of St Cuthbert was short and surly even though he did what the PC wanted. The PC succeeded on his roll which was to stop the blood shed from happening.

The player noting that the roll should have made the cleric of ST Cuthbert become friendly towards him. He didn't understand why the cleric was surly.

I knew that the clerics of St Cuthbert had discovered a massive plot of the spellscales which is the race the PC was to support Tiamat and kill the the good gods including St Cuthbert.

I tried to explain to the player that the reaction from the cleric didn't seem right to him. Instead of trying to find out why this was you know pick up on a damn plot hook. He choose to rant about the rules and how I made his roll a total failure.

The rest of the players at the table all told me that they thought he was overreacting and when I finally told the player the entire reason basically gave him plot information out of game he admitted that he had overreacted was being a jerk and thought my plot hook was awesome.

I have been reading this thread and I think the big disconnect here is that basically everyone is arguing about the results of a hypothetical encounter.

I think everyone is a little right and a little wrong.

I certainly don't think every encounter should be so tough that you can't bluff your way past the guard into the castle.

I also don't think that it is wrong to make it more of a challenge that requires not only bluff but maybe forgery, diplomacy, intimidate, gather info.

 

[LostSoul]

Could you elaborate on what you've got in mind with these questions?

The technique I had in mind was 4E's general "DC is set by party level". I think this means that the players overcome the challenge by building a party that has all the skills covered; when to expend resources in the form of Utility powers also plays a role.

It's a pretty big topic, though. There's a lot of design space there.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm enjoying the good discussion but lets tone down the personal attacks on playstyles.