Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bawylie" data-source="post: 6512245" data-attributes="member: 6776133">I don't think AC proves your point. A while back, I was running a Spycraft d20 game. One of my players got a baddie from behind and put a dagger to their throat - he had demands and whatever. Anyway, the time came where the player wanted to kill the baddie. I made him roll and he missed the AC. Now, there was nothing established in the fiction that suggested this dude was in any way resisting. But I made him roll anyway. The player felt robbed. I felt stupid. It was the wrong call. Now I understand, AC, checks, are to generate outcomes from uncertainties - to rob randomness of its power - they are not a filter through which all actions must pass. So no, AC doesn't prove that D&D is objective or a simulation. It's simply a variable that we sometimes use when generating outcomes. As to the last bit, whether many people play it my way, Iserith's way, or your way - that doesn't matter. Many many people say things like "all intensive purposes" instead of "all intents and purposes." People do lots of crazy stuff because of what they believe to be true or fear to be true or simply just because. But the number of them being great doesn't legitimize their position.</blockquote>