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="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5605434" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I'm glad that it's not personal, then. That's certainly not my intention, and I won't take your text that way.Bottom line for me? Having fun. It's not worth it if you're not having fun. If that means trying new things, then try new things. If that means trying new systems, try new systems. If that means playing the same character personality over and over even if the class changes, then by all means do that.I really don't mind the RPG industry stagnating for any particular person or group. Not if they're having fun. If they're trying to progress, and not having fun, then I'd suggest they start playing what they like.That's cool, and I'm glad it works for your group. I do think that making a statement, however, that indicates that everyone would be playing better if they played your way is both unnecessary and incorrect.Our mileage has differed. How so? My players might (and often don't) question me, pointing out rule X just in case I forgot. If I indicate that I'm aware of that, they'll explore it in game. It builds immersion.It may not ever work for any group you've ever seen or will ever see. It works for my group, and I assume other groups. Your style would not let us have more fun, because we'd have to withdraw from our characters to wrap our heads around how such a lie worked.Telling someone "you can't think" and having them believe it may be possible by D&D RAW, but it's so incredibly absurd that it will not work with my group, no matter who is GMing. To have that statement work would be so preposterous that it would likely stop game while we figured out how someone could believe that. This would greatly detract from our immersion.How you can say that your method is universally better for a game for all groups when I've indicated that it wouldn't be for mine is a little baffling to me.That's how my group would likely handle things, yes.That's where investigation comes in. Is there a town nearby? Can you get the guard to talk, or spill some information? Can you talk to his superior? Do any of the players know anything with any appropriate skills, like Knowledge?The investigation portion involves actively looking into things. If he says "no" and you don't know why he would, our group would assume there's a reason for it. If it's revealed why at some point in-game (through active investigation or not), the players (not PCs) will usually let out a collective nod, as something was just clarified. This adds to our game, not detracts from it.My players would ask for knowledge about the situation before trying to get through the door. They'd effectively do their homework. They'd ask if they know of any good way to get in. That might be automatic from experience (if you've been living in the castle for years, you might know of a secret door), or might be from a skill (like Knowledge). Then, they'd start throwing out ideas, and form a plan. They expect me to punch holes in their plan based on in-game information that their characters would know that they don't (which, again, can be in the form of automatic information from experience, or from a skill check). Once the plan was hammered out, then they'd attempt the bluff.So, not so much a problem for us. If they're trying to do it on the fly, and they say a specific lie (no chance for preparation), and their character might / would know something that would make them not say that lie, I'll either have them roll the appropriate skill check (or maybe Wis check), or I'll just tell them (if their character would know already from experience).It's straightforward enough for us. Your method would strain our believability and break immersion. Our groups our different. But that's okay, because, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />You don't even know my rules. There's a specific "+∞" to Sense Motive when the target will never believe the lie. By RAW, the guard can just say "no" and it's completely within the rules.Even when I was playing 3.X, my players knew that some lies will never, ever work. "You can't think" is not a lie that will ever work on a human with an average Intelligence. They'd object if it did work.You, again, seem to be trying to paint my method in a negative light with the "Rules Immune" statement that you keep using. It's misleading and incorrect. I'd appreciate it if you used something more appropriate in its place.Because the players may not know why something happens. This is a very basic type of play style that many, many people embrace. We can fork a new thread if you want to talk about this game theory.Some guards will say this, in an attempt to get pity (since they believe you). Others won't, as they're too afraid to voice it (for fear of looking incompetent, and having their family punished). It really depends on the NPC. The players get no special plot treatment in my game, so you can see why I wouldn't use this exclusively.Again, this is a very basic play style that is commonly used.It's not pixel bitching. Investigative actions have long been supported in D&D (which I'm not playing, either). Investigation is, again, a commonly supported play style. If you don't prefer it, fine, but others are correct to use it if that's fun for them.I'm really not sure why you seem so opposed to a different type of play than your own, especially when it's not being pushed on you, personally. I mean, I can understand wanting to voice your own preference when people say "I'd advise this" and you disagree, but to make a statement that your method is universally superior to common play style is just incorrect. There's just no way around that in my mind when the measuring stick used to determine which style is better is Fun and that Fun is incredibly subjective.Never understood, or never agreed with? I have a good friend (fellow gamer and roommate) who says "never understood" or "don't understand" when he means "don't agree" on occasion, and it has lead to some basic misunderstandings in our discussions.If you don't understand, I can explain further why I prefer it (and my group does). If you don't agree, I accept that, but I have no urge to argue over it.As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification