Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5608413" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, isn't it funny how "plausible" only resides in the hands of the DM?  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?  Shouldn't a "neutral" arbiter rule for and against the PC's?No, this is how guards in your view act when presented with weird stuff.  Again, if every single ruling goes against the PC's, how is that being neutral or fair?----- added edit-----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?Here's a question for you then Krensky.  If you do adapt that Conflict and use it, will the PC's be able to enter the castle if they succeed?Because that, for me, has always been the issue here.  The PC's succeeded.  They made their rolls and they won.  The DM is then manipulating the situation so that even if they do succeed, they still fail - either the diplomat has arrived early and they have no chance of success or they arrive early, in which case the King comes to meet them and they fail.  Either way, they fail.So, Krensky, which is it?  If you engage the mechanics and the PC's succeed, do they get to enter the castle?</blockquote>

Verification