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: 5609130" data-attributes="member: 6668292">That's basically the point. Nobody in this thread (I think) is a proponent of "there's ONLY one way in, and I as a GM will stop it by fiat if I want to."That's basically my point of view, I think.Well, not to me at all. If you're deciding what past events happened based on a die roll in the present, it's too narrative for me in a fantasy game. Again, it's not wrong to play that way, but it's not something I enjoy doing. If any roll in the game session really dictates something like "well, it turns out that this guard was the perfect person to bluff, based on the roll!" then it's too narrative for me, personally.So, again, it comes down to having a die roll determine past events based on current future plans to succeed. If the players can roll at something, and have the dice determine that they were successful because of X retcon, then it bugs me when I know about it. The nice thing is, as a player, it'd be hard for me to spot. I just cannot GM that way and make an engaging game at the same time for my group, and I strongly dislike that style.How did you make the jump from these statements to the following statements: How did you get from "the GM has the final call on plausibility in our games" to "and he always rules against the players?" That leap is where I'm confused.Not the statements you've relayed, no. Then we're all good <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=":)" />People in this thread have actively stated that they don't always rule against the player.Well, I think we're going to disagree again, but let's find out.The GM and the players both have every right to determine what is plausible. I think we're okay so far.(In my group) The GM gets to say what's plausible in the case of a dispute. I doubt you're okay with that.However, it does not mean that the player's always lose. They can present their case, and the GM will make the judgment based on his views and theirs.It is give and take, to me. But it's just not as "Hussar's preferred method" as Hussar's table is.At any rate, 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=":)" />I already talked about all of this:All of this information is stuff that is set in the setting before the players interact with it.And, for the record, I've never, ever stated the guard is unbluffable. I've stated he is bluffable. I've just stated that bluffing him may not let you in.So, really, I've answered these before. I hope this clears it up for you.Looks like that's not the case <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />And it looks like it's not the case.If you're saying that me making the world is inherently narrative in style unless it fits nobody's tastes, then fine, I'm narrative in style.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