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: 5605353" data-attributes="member: 22779">JamesonCourage - my skin is considerably thicker than that, so, don't worry overmuch about being less than civil.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  I'm stating MY preferences.  I'm stating what I think makes a better game.I would hope that the multiple times that I repeated IME and whatnot would have made that clear.The danger in "play what you like" as a mantra is that it invites stagnation.  "So long as you guys enjoy what you're doing, keep doing it" is not a means of improving a game.  Trying new things, even though some of those things won't work, is the means of improving a game.I've played the way you are talking about.  I've done that on both sides of the screen.  I stopped doing it and found that it improved my game.  It made things run smoother, it was FAR less headache at the table and it meant that my players get to surprise me constantly because the events of the game will proceed where they direct them, not where I do.Sure, what breaks immersion varies from group to group.  I can buy that.  But, I've never seen a group ever who wouldn't have their immersion broken by the DM negating a PC success by fiat.  Any time I've done it as a DM, I immediately had an argument on my hands from the players and every time I've seen a DM do it, it caused problems at the table.True, I'm generalizing from my own experience, but, I'm really not sure how it wouldn't break immersion.  The player has a reasonable expectation - he obviously succeeded at an action and the DM denies that success and refuses to explain why, instead expecting the PC to shrug and then start trying to figure out why.Now, ok, let's run with that for a second.  You try to bluff the guard, your roll obviously succeed, and the DM denies the success.  Now, how do you figure out that the guard won't let you in because of threats to his family.  It's pretty unlikely the guard is going to tell you.  Who do you ask?  Who can tell you these things?If it's down to a Local Knowledge roll (or something that the PC's have in their possession), then why wasn't this done before they met the guard?  After all, the players have absolutely no context with which to ask the question, so, it's not like they're going to ask the DM "Hey, does the Baron keep the guard's families hostage?"And, I really, really doubt that "Hey, is there anything special we should know about the gate guards?" would elicit a response from the DM that would tell the PC's that the guards are Rules Immune before they've met the guard.So, why withhold information from the players?  What is gained by not actually being forthcoming?  Even if it's simply adjusting the success with something like this:DM:  Your story is very good, but the guard, sweating and looking around guiltily says, "I'm sorry, but, the Baron was very specific.  It's me family on the chopping block if I lets you pass sir.  I can't."See, for me, there's two problems.  One, the DM is being very intrusive into the game, but, that's a personal preference thing and the second is that the DM is negating the success and then letting the PC's flail around, pixel bitching until they can find out why their attempt failed.I've never understood the reason for withholding information from the players.</blockquote>

Verification