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="S'mon" data-source="post: 5608507" data-attributes="member: 463">Eh?  Of course a good DM does rule in favour of the PCs some of the time.  Most of the time, if the players are any good - most of the time the good players & good DM will agree on what is plausible.  If I'm DMing, and the players try to Bluff their way into the castle, and they have a good spiel, reasonable Bluff skill, and reasonable luck, or good luck, reasonable spiel & reasonable Bluff skill, or good Bluff skill, reasonable spiel and reasonable luck, they'll normally succeed.  (They probably won't be left unattended in the king's personal chambers, though).I can't recall a situation where players ever objected to my DMing adjudication on social interaction skills; as a player I can't recall ever objecting to a DM's adjudication either.  In all cases decision-making authority remained vested in the DM, and everyone was happy.  As a player, I want the DM to be making the decision on what is plausible.  I don't want the DM vesting decision-making authority in me.  That would be abnegating his responsibility to run the world and provide a challenging game.  If I don't trust the DM I would drop the game and look for a different DM, rather than taking over the decision-making authority from the DM - because the latter would destroy the game-as-game.Edit: The one time I can recall a plausibility conflict, it was the exact opposite of your assumption.  I had a paranoid player who assumed nothing was possible, that the NPCs were all super-competent and personally out to get him.  He tended to lock down the game and prevent player action. Often his approach resulted in failure when bold action would likely have succeeded.</blockquote>

Verification