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: 5611416" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Hussar, man, I really hope you read this one.We agree here.And in my version, all it takes are rolls and plausibility.And this is where I said I have multiple problems: it doesn't follow RAW, so the players lose a certain amount of ability to rely on the rules, and it's much too narrative for my style.It's not wrong to play that way, but the fact that you think I railroad, use GM fiat, and consistently try to screw my friends over is baffling.No, it's not. They only get to roll on one thing: whether or not the lie is believed. If the Bluff check succeeds, then they've succeeds, and I'll play it that way. But, that's the only thing they get to roll on. As they never, ever get to make a check to "get into the castle" or the like, I cannot, by the rules, take that success away by making their Bluff check fail. There may be a time, in fact, where failing your Bluff check is more advantageous than succeeding one is. I'll touch on this later in the post.There's not much of one. But, then again, nobody is advocating this.Incorrect. Again. I state that they will not just be let in on the first Bluff check. I state that they can indeed succeed. I'll get the quotes for you:Hussar, these are all from the last page. I did not have to go digging for these. I've said repeatedly you can succeed in your goal, not just the Bluff check. I've made clear that success is a possibility. Where you keep getting statements like "In JamesonCourage's example, he flat out states that the rolls won't let them succeed" I really have no idea. It just doesn't add up to me.If you want, I can link more quotes where I said how they can succeed, but even in the above quotes I talk a little about them being able to succeed better on their investigation checks, as well as them still being able to pull something off with a successful Disguise check to impersonate the diplomat. Really, man.There isn't. In 3.5, there is no skill challenge rule, where successes indicate that something happens, and then you narrate how it happened. That's a fine rule. I spent about a day looking into how I could apply something similar in my game (with no real success), because I really like how it could speed up play, and it reminded me of the extended rolls from WoD.However, in 3.5, if you follow RAW, or even RAI, in my opinion, then there's just no way to reconcile your interpretation of the rules. "Success as according to Hussar" is much more arbitrary to me than "success in what the skill says you'll succeed in" and that's why I don't prefer it.However, you are not alone in how you like to play things, and you are not wrong to play that way. Nor is anyone else, really, as long as they're having fun with it. But it's not right for me, it's not right for my group, it's not as fun for us, it's not as immersive for us, it does not make for an objectively "better game" for every group, and it's not RAW (or even RAI as far as I'm concerned). I don't feel bad about playing the way I do, and neither do my players.Play what you like, though <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'm sure you've heard me mention it before, but in case you don't recall (as you have no real reason to), but my players might get into one combat encounter every 10 hours of real time. The rest of the time, it's "other solutions" and the like.My players know that their success or their failure is based on how they roll, and how plausible their actions were. They know exactly how we play. We like exactly how we play. We are not a worse group for it. I am not using GM fiat, I am not railroading, I am not consistently ruling against my players, I am not setting them up for an encounter for which they have no chance of success.First of all, I don't arbitrarily choose results that are most disadvantageous to the PCs. Where you get the idea that I do, I have no idea. I could make this situation much, much worse. Selowrap, the illusionist with which they have a beef with, could frame them moments before they arrive. Or, the chancellor was at the wall as well to greet them (and he has a much higher Sense Motive). Or, the diplomat arrived 5 minutes after the party, and now the castle is on high alert, with them stuck inside, rather than on the outside. I could go on and on, and I'm just using plausible outcomes, now. I could start using things like "the king has a fever, and in his delusions, he has ordered all soldiers to shoot down anyone who approaches the castle."Secondly, they could have done much better on their investigation checks. I've touched on this a few times. I can link even more quotes, if you'd like.Not only am I not playing as you're describing, but my players are incredibly inventive, and do not seek to use combat first as an option unless their story really calls for it.There's nothing really wrong with this method, but the guard's reactions hinge on a few factors. How afraid of the king he is, how afraid of the Merry Prankster he is, if his family is on the line, how loyal he is, etc. All of these should factor into his reasoning for any action. If that means that he ends up letting the PCs in, I see no problem with it. But, I think it should be determined by the GM, not by the dice, when playing with my group. The dice dictate whether or not the guard believes you; the GM, who can factor for things the dice can't, decides how he acts. The rules agree with me.Super subjective.I'd still make them roll. The rules show that you need to roll here (making a Bluff check).And man is that subjective.This is an example of where failing a Bluff check would be advantageous for the party.PC: I'm the Merry Prankster [fails Bluff check].Guard: Funny guy. Either tell me your business, or get out of here.Much better than success on the roll might get you. And, it follows RAW, so the players know what to expect. And, it's less narrative, so it fits our style more.Secondly, not all groups respond with "more killin'." Mine sure don't. Extrapolating your varied and in-depth experiences to every group and making a statement of what makes for an objectively "better game" doesn't sit well with me when you're using Fun as the measuring stick.I really don't understand how we're not seeing eye to eye on this. Please read all of the quotes I linked. Maybe that will clear things up.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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification