NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5604738" data-attributes="member: 22779">See, this is what gets me.  The player attempting an action that he believes is plausible is somehow "seizing the reins" and stealing the DM's power.What call is the player making for the DM here?  The PC approaches the guard and attempts to bluff.  Makes an honest attempt at it - puts in the proper touches, creates a plausible lie, and the rolls his check and gets an obvious success.The DM then rules that the PC fails because the DM has decided that his NPC is immune to the rules.  See, S'mon, it's not a case of the inevitability of the DM making crappy calls, it's the example that's on the table.  The player attempts to do something in good faith and has his attempt shut down, not because he's being a jerk, not because the idea is so far fetched that everyone else at the table is pelting the player with dice, no.  The player is attempting something that is well within the realm of possibility, but, the DM has decreed that it Shalt Not Be DoneAnd somehow, that's a crappy player?  A crappy player who's trying to steal the power from the DM?And you wonder why I advocate so strongly in favour of trusting that the players actually might know what they're doing and can move the game along quite interestingly all without having the Nanny DM standing over their shoulder tsk tsking whenever they want to do something the DM doesn't approve of.Again, it all rolls back to the basic question - why is the DM the only one who gets to determine what is realistic in the game?</blockquote>

Verification