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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Krensky" data-source="post: 5612275" data-attributes="member: 30936">No. It doesn't push them further to victory. It pushes them further towards killing their opponent with is not a necessary requirment of victory. If fact it can often be a detriment to achieving said victory. What if their opponent knows where the McGuffin is? What is he's the Dark Lord's kid brother, the whole reason the Dark Lord hasn't just said F-it and destroyed creation? What if killing this person lands them in jail and after a trial on the block for  murder? Etc.The whole argument Hussar, and to some degree, you are making is that succeeding at a test inexorably leads the players closer to victory.I say that's poppycock.Succeeding at a test means you succeeded at whatever that test was determining. You Bluff the guard, he believes the lie. You Investigate or Appraise the phylactery, you learn it's a fake. You Attack the NPC with your sword, it takes damage.Achieving goals (ie, victory) often requires succeeding in the correct tests, sometimes even in the correct order in the correct timing. This isn't pixel bitching. There's no magic dot to click on. It's a bit of common sense, knowing when to ask for GM hints, and the GM not being a douche and actually planing instead of getting liquored up and going down to the local dungeon to stomp some lowly NPCs.Which makes it much more powerful.No, I didn't. Go reread that quote.The factual question, did they lie convincingly, was settled by the Bluff versus Sense Motive opposed check and the associated modifiers.What I was using the Fate Chart for was to decide the guard's response if I was drawing a blank. Normally this wouldn't occur, but it might if the players did something really odd. Why use the chart instead of just letting them in? Because it give me options and guidance when the well runs dry. It helps generate beats and threads while answering my question.By taking ranks in Bluff, the player says he want's his character to be able to lie successfully. The more things he piles onto that, the more often he wants it to happen and the more often it should happen. Bluff doesn't let you control the thoughts and actions of the target though. It let's you lie convincingly.  Impress and Intimidate don't let you control the actions of other, just adjust their Disposition, making them more likely to do what they ask. Heck, in my game the only thing Charm Person does is raise the target's Disposition towards you. (Which is all it should do in 3e, if the developers hadn't been afraid of changing the text. The spell says it makes someone like you, not makes them your loyal henchslave.)Other then you bringing up Forge wankery, I agree.Both. The players define how they wish to overcome challenges by how the build and play their characters. The players influence the challenges they encounter by choosing what hooks they bite, which ones they ignore, which the run from, and what Sub-Plots they engage in. The GM influences the challenges encountered by what hooks he presents and how he responds to the player's choices and actions. He also influences it by setting up and maintaining the world.Final responsibility is the GMs though. If he misreads the players and ignores the signs (which should include them outright telling him they want less talky-talky and more smashy-smashy, or whatever), then it's his fault that people aren't having fun at the table.Sometimes the solution to that is more smashy-smashy. Sometimes its "I'm sorry Bob, but we all agreed to play a game of political maneuvering and conspiracy. I told you guys there would be very little combat. Do you want to make a new character who isn't so focused on something that the game isn't focused on?" Sometimes it's a middle-ground.It's still the GMs job to determine the challenges, arbiter the results, make sure everyone is having fun, and move the game along.Why?Because that's what the GM does.</blockquote>

Verification