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="LostSoul" data-source="post: 5611410" data-attributes="member: 386">The problem I have with this approach is that the game is now asking me, as a player, to judge the validity of my actions as well as advocate for my character.  Those are conflicting goals!  If I want my PC to get what I've decided he wants, I am going to feel a pull to judge my actions as valid.  If the validity of my actions is of primary or equal concern, I am less concerned with my PC getting what I've decided he wants - and I've left the arena of the challenge-based game.Not every game of D&D must be challenge-based, of course.  I've been trying to point out what I think are flaws in one technique for challenge-based play.The challenge is one of lateral thinking.  You came up with a good plan later on in the post:I would still characterize that as role-play, though not character interaction.You just showed that success is still possible!  Maybe not through the front gate, but that's fine.  In the case I outlined the guard is a trap - talking to him is only going to get you in more danger.  Players who are smart will be able to discover this: assuming that they know the diplomat is coming and matches their PC's description, they should be able to ask someone if the diplomat has arrived yet - someone who works in the castle, perhaps a member of the kitchen staff.With that information they might be able to get into the castle through the front gate.  They could pose as agents of the diplomat, with important news that the diplomat must see.  "Highly sensitive stuff, we can't bring it into the castle.  For the diplomat's eyes only.  Those are our orders."  When the diplomat comes, assuming he falls for their bluff, the players deal with the unfolding situation.Assuming their goal is to get into the castle, they haven't yet failed.  Anyway.  The DM is setting up a situation and letting the players deal with it.  He's not trying to stop them, he's just playing the Duke as a paranoid tyrant.Once he stops doing that, either advocating for the PCs or against them, the DM is no longer a neutral arbiter and the challenge-based game falls apart.</blockquote>

Verification