Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5611628" data-attributes="member: 6668292">That's not really what's happening here. Your "if they roll, and I tell them how they succeed" is just as much fiat as me saying that a guard believes you when you bluff successfully. Mine is supported by the rules, though, and the players know exactly what to expect. A success with Hussar is more arbitrarily defined than "if the Bluff succeeds, the NPC believes you" is by a long shot.If you want consistent rules for players to follow, sticking to RAW has that added benefit. I don't think you disagree with me here, but maybe you do.I don't see how following the rules and not allowing players to narrate is somehow unfair. If you want, I can ask one or more of my players to voice their opinion here. We can see if they think it's railroading, GM fiat, or unreasonable.I still don't know where you're getting "let around" to the next objective.That's slightly amusing, Hussar. Their plan was to impersonate the diplomat in the example we've been using. I say that if they succeed on their Bluff and Disguise checks, they can pull it off. Yes, this reeks of railroading <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=";)" />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=":)" />I didn't feel grilled, so thanks for handling it with such civility. I do appreciate it.Thanks, and I don't think you, Hussar, or Lost Soul are bad GMs either, even though we all probably play differently.Yep, went into that.A friend of 50 years ago. It wasn't hidden knowledge, though it wasn't widespread. So, probably not a hard check, but not one they made.Even in the example I gave, I said that successful Bluff checks and Disguise checks might get them in.Let's stick with the same example (pretending to be a diplomat). The guard knows that the diplomat arrived earlier, the king greeted him, and he has orders to let nobody inside. The party shows up and succeeds in a Bluff check ("I'm the diplomat, and these friends are my escort"). The guard has the guard captain fetched, who gets the chancellor, who talks to the king and the diplomat about it. They all get some guards and make it to the gate and talk to the PCs. The PCs make another Bluff check "we're from the nation, we were sent after the diplomat with new knowledge that needs to be discussed immediately and privately." If their Bluff and maybe Disguise checks hold up, they'll probably be let in by the king.And this is one of the worst case scenarios for the PCs (the example was originally given to show Lost Soul degrees of success and failure).If the party had beaten the diplomat, as I said, the king would have greeted them, and his Sense Motive is much lower than the chancellor's Sense Motive skill (who wasn't at the gate to meet them). On top of that, they'd have to roll a successful Disguise check, but if that passes, the king will let them in.This is not taking into account normal circumstances. This entire thread started from the original post, where the OP proposed a situation in which it would be harder. If they go to a castle that isn't ruled by an intimidating king, where guards aren't threatened with their family's death for failure, where there are no threats present, then we have an entirely different picture. The turnip farmer becomes feasible. Pretending to be a servant. Pretending to be a guard. Saying you have a message for someone. These are all reasonable.Hopefully I cleared it up some, but if you want more, let me know.I've said this already. I've directly said that a successful Disguise check could save their botched plan. Other plans may have worked, such as claiming to be a runner with an urgent message (rather than being the diplomat). There are so many different ways that this could be salvaged or succeed with better conditions.The fact that by following the rules I'm running a GM fiat, railroady, inferior game where I arbitrarily make things disadvantageous to the players and always rule against them and don't trust them is something that bugs me. These statements are incorrect, uncivil, and inflammatory. I have no idea why Hussar cannot accept the difference in play style and discuss it without using such phrases.As always, though, 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 think you have a fundamentally different take on what the checks represent than what the rules portray them as.Only if failure is reasonable. I don't think I can help you with that.Both Bluff and attack rolls state exactly what happens when you make a successful check. You can change the rules if you'd like, but you're still using the same amount of GM adjudication that I am when you narrate how that success plays out.It's not negating any success, as I've shown time and again.</blockquote>

Verification