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: 5610627" data-attributes="member: 22779">Wait a second though.  My only point was that they should get past the guard.  The rest of it would obviously require further checks.  In fact, if you swim upthread a ways, I talked exactly about this.  I'd deal with this whole thing by making it a skill challenge.  Failure with the gate guard still lets you enter the castle, but, subsequent checks would be more difficult.I think that in this case, the players really had no chance of success.  They want to get past the gate guard.  They come up with a plausible way to do that - bluff the gate guard that they are someone important.  It's not an unreasonable plan.  They actually SUCCEED at that plan - their checks were high enough.  You even admit that.  The guard believes them.But, then the DM twists the results so that instead of actually succeeding in their attempt, they fail.  Thus the Monkey's Paw comment.  It's like the old school way of dealing with the Wish spell - yeah, sure you can ask for whatever you want, but, regardless of the source of the wish, the DM is going to screw you over any way he can.Yes, you are right, your gate guard reaction is reasonable.  I totally get that.  But, so is letting the PC's past.  Both responses are believable.  So, why is the DM picking the result that screws the PC's?  The PC's succeeded.  If they had failed, then fair enough, that's no problem.  They tried, they didn't succeed, the gate guard calls the boss and hijinks ensue.But, and I cannot stress this enough, they didn't fail.  They succeeded.  IMO, you should never take away a success from the players.  If they succeeded, roll with it.  See where it takes you.  Don't take their success and then manipulate the results so that it's a failure.I read in a module once, and I cannot for the life of me remember which one, that had advice that has stuck with me.  The advice ran something like this:  If the PC's come up with a plan that is at least halfway workable, roll with it.  It is not your job to nitpick their plans.  Let them be in the driver's seat.Ok, I'm paraphrasing, but, that was the gist.  And it's something I've incorporated into my GMing style ever since.</blockquote>

Verification