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: 5614348" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Alright, then. Get ready for the longest post on EN World (kidding) <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=";)" />You said (and definitely implied) a little more than that. Here we go:No, that is also untrue, not every ruling has been against the players in the examples. I'll kick off with some examples where you say I always rule against the players, fill in the middle with quotes saying where they succeed, and end with a quote where I go in-depth on how sometimes things work out to their favor. Here:I didn't "conveniently" decide that. I said when he would show up, based on a timeline. The PCs arrived the same evening. If that's "arbitrary" than so is all of GMing, and I don't understand the complaint. I'm GMing, and that's bad? I don't get it. Additionally, my own sense of plausibility is not the only factor, as I'll point out, again, below.If you want, I can once again go into what a "success" is. You can run it your way, and there's nothing wrong with that. But, according to the rules, this is not how it works. From the very beginning of the SRD:It is specifically that action, and that action alone, that is decided upon by the roll. That's all. That I am somehow twisting PC success into failure means I'm breaking with The Core Mechanic, and that simply isn't true, as I'm demonstrated, and you've agreed with. How you still come to the conclusion that I twist success into failure is, as far as I can tell, based solely on your house rules, which are fine to play by. But judging others by them and saying that they're screwing over their friends because of it is just, well, wrong.How do you get that every time they try something, they're screwed over? Go up and read my responses to you saying that I always rule against my players. Go up and read the last response, where I go in-depth on how something social directly benefited the players and PCs. Then, explain to me how my play style "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." I'm really curious how you'll back that statement up, now.I can grab a ton of quotes where you say I run my game based on GM fiat if you want. Additionally, I've stated many, many times that players can succeed at what they attempt. Go up, again, and read my quotes when you said I always rule against my players. If you're saying that my saying "the guard believes you and reacts this way" is running a game by GM fiat, then so is "you guys want to head to the next town? Alright, after five days of travel, you arrive." It's just as much GM fiat. As far as I can tell, you're telling me that by having a guard even do so much as greet them when they walk up without rolling for it, I'm using GM fiat, and that's something I can't really find offensive. I find it kind of baffling and amusing. If you're accusing me of running my game, then I'm guilty.You also skipped me railroading, for some reason. Here:That one amuses me.You seemed to imply quite a bit more. Again:I do change my position based on player input. I can bring one or more players into this conversation if you'd like, and you can ask them directly.Again, go up and read where you said I always rule against my players. Read the last example. This is demonstrably not the case. I've also pointed out that if they succeed on their Bluff and Disguise skill checks, even in a situation that is disadvantageous to them, like being confronted by the king, chancellor, and diplomat, they can still pull it off. So, again, not sure where you're getting this from.No, untrue:If their character might or would know something, they don't have to ask. If that isn't the case, and they ask if it's fake, then I'll give them every reasonable and appropriate check to determine if that's the case.If the players say, "I guess we'll head south to Woltok, then," I'll remind them that Woltok is actually north, because their characters know that. If they say "I put the scroll case into my backpack" then I won't mention what's inside of it until they give me some indication that they want to know.Yes, that's how skills work. You must engage with the appropriate skill in order to achieve success. This is outlined in The Core Mechanic, above. Knowing all about magical writing doesn't let you know if it's fake magical writing, just like knowing all about a language doesn't let you know about fake writing. That's the point of the Forgery skill. Just like with any papers the PCs look at, they can assume it's real or fake, and I'm not going to tell them which unless they inquire about it, or their characters might know / do know.Additionally, I find it amusing that you think the "LICH" would write in a language that a simple low level spell wouldn't bypass. Honestly. They just took out a lich. The Comprehend Languages spell is a first level Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard spell. If they have a spellcaster (and they had two!), I think they can pretty easily look into it if they want to.The entire lich scenario would have been bypassed even easier if they had just not engaged the lich. He still saw them as past comrades, and only sent the fake tip off to test their loyalty now that he was a lich. They don't start fight, then they don't fight him at all.Or, they could have investigated the "LICH"'s belongings. They didn't. They didn't even say they wanted to. No looking for poisons, no looking for traps, no checking if anything is diseased, no checking if his stuff is cursed, just "push his stuff into a bag, shoulder it, and back to base camp." They did this to a guy who had mentally bested the party once before, albeit not on fatal terms.They could have used Detect Magic or Detect Evil to look into things. They could have Identified his belongings. They could have used divination magic, like Commune, to ask questions. They could have thrown his stuff into a lake, dropped it into a volcano, sold it, or destroyed it. There are so many different ways things could have gone down, but they didn't. The players were reckless, and it cost them. That isn't pixel bitching.If they wanted to know whether or not it was fake, they did have to indicate that they were investigating it to some degree, yep. That's true. I don't consider that any more pixel bitching than me waiting for them to tell me where they're going. If where they're going is off, I'll give them information they know, or allow checks for stuff they might know. I would have done the same in this case, if they indicated they were suspicious of his belongings.I don't play their characters. I don't want to tell them "you do this" without them indicating that they want that action done. I find this exceptionally amusing. It almost made me laugh. Oh man. Playing a style of game you enjoy "leads to stagnant games and disaffected players and frustrated DM's." I'll have to remember that the next time I'm having fun <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification