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: 5612845" data-attributes="member: 6668292">And I do that as well, as long as they mention it to me that it's their standard. If they have a history of performing an action, or declare that "from now on, we're doing this" then I'll take that as the new standard.That's a perfectly valid play style. Nothing wrong with it. Again, it does not make for a universally "better game" like Hussar has implied his previous method does. I really can't find fault for you playing a style you enjoy, or in myself for doing the same.Because, 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=":)" />And that's fine to use. It's not RAW, and I'd argue it's not RAI, and it's much more powerful than if you use it by RAW. But, there are many, many people who play Bluff that way (and thus NewJeffCT made this thread). And I'm completely cool with that.However, Hussar can think it's a flaw, and voice that opinion, but making the claims he has (ie, Hussar's Greatest Hits), like I always make things the most disadvantageous to the players possible, or that there's going to be an endless number of skill checks that they eventually won't win, or that I twist PC success into failure, or that I am playing an inferior game, or that I don't trust my players, or that I railroad, or that I run the game exclusively by GM fiat, etc., really hurt his argument, in my view.These are not reasoned out arguments, they are assumptions and attacks on me. And while I feel I've been very patient, I find responding to Hussar more and more baffling. It's like my posts go ignored or twisted into something I never said. The things I do say are disregarded. I believe S'mon and Krensky have thought the same thing, this thread.That's true.I would let Bluff settle what the guard thinks of the lie, but nothing beyond that. I'd let it affect how he reacted. This is following the rules. It's not railroading. It's not GM fiat. It's a different play style.And, as I pointed out pages ago, he says that like all the players will agree out of game. I have two players who regularly agree with me, two who will advocate strongly for their PCs and disagree, and one who can be persuaded either way.On top of that, let's take two scenarios, one favoring the PCs, and one against them.Good for PCs: The PCs asked a moneylender about a slave ring in a neighboring nation, he directs them to a man they just happen to be hunting, and gives his location. Nobody questions how plausible this is, even though it's incredibly convenient for them.I know why the moneylender gave them that man's name. He was a human in a nation of troglodytes, and the party is human. The moneylender naturally assumed they'd be more comfortable with a human contact. The players have no idea on my reasoning for this, and thus I'd argue that it makes more sense for the GM to decide plausibility in a dispute (for my group). Bad for PCs: The PCs try to get into a castle by pretending to be diplomats, but it turns out the diplomat arrived 20 minutes earlier. Nobody in my group questioned how plausible this is, though it's getting questioned here.I know when the diplomat showed up, why the king personally greeted him at the door, that the chancellor wasn't there, how they'd all react in finding out that there are new diplomats at the door, the orders given to the guard, the standard treatment of the guard, how loyal the guard is, how well trained the guard is, etc. With all of that information, I'd also argue that it makes more sense for the GM to decide plausibility in a dispute (for my group).I have no problem with the players voicing what they think is plausible, and why. They might change my mind, they might not. But, for the reasons outlined above, it makes the most sense to me (and my players) for the GM to make the final call.Thank you, I've been saying this since just about the time I came into the thread.Yep. Neither way is wrong, and hearing that my style makes me play the time of game Hussar thinks it is just baffles me.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