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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5613744" data-attributes="member: 22779">Well, you've pretty much hit the list of complaints I've had.  So, let's go through them shall we?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I don't trust my players - That one's actually a bit on you.  I never said you didn't trust your players.  I asked how over ruling your players show that you trust them.  In other words, other than you simply saying that you trust your players, what do you do that actually shows trust in them?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I always rule against them - Well, every example you and everyone else here as given has always been agains the players.  Even when counter examples were brought up that weren't against the players that were equally plausible, the counter examples were brushed off as not being "by the RAW".  As if there actually was a RAW to be by when there isn't actually a mechanic in place to determine the reaction of the NPC.  If allowing the PC's through isn't by the RAW, how is preventing them by the RAW either?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I run my game arbitrarily - Well, you decided that the diplomat conveniently arrives 20 minutes before the PC's show up.  How is that not arbitrary?   Your interpretation of the results is based solely on your own feelings of what is "plausible".  How is that not arbitrary?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> I twist player success into failure - Now this one I truly do stand behind.  The players succeeded, but that success doesn't actually mean anything.  They don't get passed into the castle, the superiors get called.  Heck the superiors could just as easily get called on a failure as well.  The players discover a phylactery, use the most appropriate skill available on it, but because they didn't say the magic words, they don't get to learn that it's a fake.  How would they even think to ask?  Kn Arcana should have told them that or at least told them there was a chance that it was a fake.  But, no.  They didn't say the magic words, so tough.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> I'm not playing by his objective "better game" - I'm sorry this one offends you so much.  If I didn't honestly think there was a better way of doing things, I would have dropped out of this long ago.  I think that the advice that you are giving to other DM's leads to very poor games where player's simply stop trying to engage in the setting because every time they try, they get screwed over.  And then other DM's come to En World and tell all and sundry how their players suck because they won't engage in the game world and send them angry emails.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> I run my game based on GM fiat - Since you've already stated that the skills won't allow them to succeed  (there being no "open the gate skill" after all), any success or failure must therefore be entirely up to DM fiat.  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I don't listen to my players when they give me input on what's plausible - That's not quite what I meant.  What I asked, as I mentioned earlier, is how does over ruling their input show trust in their input?  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> I always make things as disadvantageous as possible for the PCs - Well, so far, every example you've given shows that you have taken the most disadvantageous interpretation you could.  I'm just calling it like I see it.  Perhaps you could give a few examples where the players succeed at skills and actually end up ahead of where they started.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">my players cannot succeed unless they satisfy my whims - You stated that unless the players actually ASK if the phylactery could be a fake, you would never tell them of the possibility.  The skills of the characters apparently don't come into things at all.  If the player doesn't say the magic words, he doesn't get the chance to win the cookie.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> I submit PCs to a chain of skill checks that only ends when they finally fail - The players defeat the lich and take the phylactery.  Kn Arcana, despite being the skill that determines information about magical stuff, isn't good enough.  No, they have to specifically engage the Forgery skill.  Because, apparently, knowing all about magical writing and stuff from Kn Arcana isn't good enough to be able to tell the real from the fake, nor is it good enough to be even told of the chance of the fake.  Never mind that Forgery is Language Dependent and the odds that the PC could read the language that a LICH would write its phylactery in are pretty slim.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I make my players "pixel bitch" - How is the Lich example not textbook pixel bitching?  That, right there, forcing the players to say the magic words before they can discover the failure, is about as definitive of pixel bitching as you could possibly get.  Glossing over other, quite easily as applicable skills, in favour of your one solitary interpretation of success is exactly what pixel-bitching is.  </li> </ul>So, honestly JC, no, I don't think "play what you like" is all that helpful.  Play what you like leads to stagnant games and disaffected players and frustrated DM's.</blockquote>

Verification