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: 5610113" data-attributes="member: 22779">Let's try this one last time.In the Diplomat Impersonation example, why did the PC's fail?Did they fail because they rolled poorly? - no.Did they fail because their idea was completely implausible? - no.Did they fail because they role played poorly?  - no.They failed because the DM predefined the scenario to the point where they had zero chance of success.  If they arrived early, the king would be called and they would be caught.  If they arrived late, the guard would automatically recognize the deception and they would be caught.In other words, the PC's failed because they had no chance of success***Warning Warning Warning - Pure Opinion Ahead - Do Not Take As Anything Other Than One Person's Opinion***In my mind, this becomes illusion of choice.  No matter what the PC's do, the end result is the same.  It's all very easy to airmchair quarterback and say, "well, you should have done this" but, in the middle of the game, ideas usually take on a life of their own.  The players chose this line of approach because they believed it would work.But, they were wrong.  Not because of anything they did, but because the DM had engineered the situation so that they could not succeed.I really dislike this approach to DMing.  Obviously.  I find it intrusive and very heavy handed.  It limits the number of results that can come from the scenario.  By making the situation impossible, there are any number of results that cannot occur - there is no chance of the "sneaking through the castle" scenario or "how long can we keep this bluff up" scenario.  Both of which are exciting  and interesting.  No, the only result is "Well, our plan failed, let's react to whatever the DM throws at us next."Again, IMO, the only truly neutral arbiter here is the dice.  The dice said the PC's succeeded.  Manipulating the results so that success actually means failure is very poor DMing.  If they succeeded, LET THEM SUCCEED.  Don't <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlerrke2dos" target="_blank">Monkey's Paw</a> their successes.  It leads to frustration at the table, loss of immersion and frequently railroading or, at the very least, something that's a very close cousin of railroading - illusion of choice.I hope that makes my position clear.***End Opinion - Actual facts may be forthcoming later <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" /> ***</blockquote>

Verification