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: 5611784" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Correct.Again, correct.This is no more true than rolling a Survival check to determine north, rolling a Knowledge (geography) check to determine where a city is in relation to yourself, and then telling the GM that you're heading there.The checks mechanically represent success in a limited area, and GM adjudication resolves the rest. This is true in nearly every aspect of the game. That you prefer an exception to social skills, or just Bluff, or anything else is fine. But it is not arbitrary GM fiat to follow that just like the rest of the game.Again, no more than "you rolled a success on your Bluff, so you get in. Here's how it went down" is. Your method is just as much GM fiat as mine is.You're not necessarily screwed.This is not a universal situation, it's a specific situation that I gave Lost Soul to demonstrate differing levels of success and failure.You can still succeed in your social checks.You could have succeeded in your investigation checks better than you did.Circumstances can favor you, rather than be against you.I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said, but maybe eventually you'll see what I'm trying to say.Where did I say there's an endless stream of challenges? In fact, did I give a number of challenges that they'll need to make? If so, what number?That's not what happened. You can only succeed mechanically at lying with the Bluff skill. In this case, that means a success is measured by whether or not someone believes your bluff, but not by whether or not or achieve your goal.Please, explain to me where it did, using the definition of success that I am familiar with:They were indeed successful at lying. Nothing beyond that. You can play it that way, and that's cool, and I know you have fun, and it's not wrong.But saying "you succeeded on your Bluff, so the guard reacts this way, so you get let in" is actually a little more GM fiat than "you succeeded on your Bluff, so the guard believes you, and here's how he reacts" because your method doesn't follow the rules.Bluffing the guard is jumping through one hoop. Hitting a dragon is jumping through one hoop. If you use the GitP Diplomacy rules (and adjust Intimidate appropriately), then all of a sudden Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate seem much less binary than people make them out to be. There's a back and forth, there are multiple checks, there is a lot less "I made the check, so I win" going on. I don't use the rules from GitP directly as written, but I definitely modified my old Diplomacy skill to reflect it as a base.Hussar, I really don't understand your issue. I mean, I understand it, but it's an issue with a play style with people who aren't in this thread. And, if your point is "I don't like it when people use X play style" then I understand. But attributing it to me, Krensky, or anyone else is simply false, especially when we tell you that is simply isn't the case.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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification