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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 6196682" data-attributes="member: 221">Strawman. Nobody suggested a game in which Diplomacy never worked. What we have suggested are 1) situations where diplomacy will not work, and 2) the fact that the rules are pretty clear (especially in PF) that Diplomacy is subject to DM discretion from beginning to end. It seems to me that you are begging the question that it is a GM being antagonistic. Perhaps the Chamberlain is crazy. Perhaps he is possessed. Perhaps he has such a seething hatred of the PCs because of their arrogance that he is beyond being reasoned with. Perhaps there is some valid, in game reason for the behavior, all according to the rules, which make this occur and the person that throws a temper tantrum and storms out will not have the pleasure of finding out what the reason is.Likewise, the example given of a moat that pushes swimmers out seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing to have, especially if its explicitly part of the adventure. I could easily, using the rules as written, design a moat where swimming was deadly, impossible, or the moat simply repelled all comers. That is, using the rules (no need for DM highhandedness), it is easy to create encounters that challenge the players normal thinking and calls for a different resolution mechanic than that which the players might expect. This has been part and parcel of the game since the beginning and it strikes me as passing odd that someone would object to it.One of the things that is annoying me about this whole "DM Force" debate are the constant assumptions being made about other people's games. It seems like, to suggest that the DM is the final arbiter of the game, must mean to some that the DM makes sure everything turns out exactly as he desires. Which to me, is going from point a to point b and then jumping way-over to point Z without touching any of the points in between. I like to think that I am a good enough DM, that if I want an event to go a certain way, I can manipulate the players into making the choices I want without ever changing the rules, and, full confession, I have done that at times. I have never, ever, that I can remember, changed a rule, or some in-game event because I did not like it. I have at times, done short retcons of a situation if the players point out that I forgot something major to their advantage. But the idea of changing things to tell some sort of story I want to tell is faintly repugnant to me and is not at all what I would suggest as good DMing. If I can't set up the situation before hand to go the way I want, then it turns out like it turns out. Now, caveat, I have at times, increased monster difficulty (at the start of the combat, using the PF templates, which is what they are for) because the party was larger, overpowered, or what have you. But that's not to make the game go my way, that is to keep it from being boring and is, I think, an example of good DMing.But this is to say that all these examples some of you keep giving as to what constitutes "DM Force," are foreign to me. At the same time, I do think the DM is the final authority, and if he thinks something, in the game, should not work, because of this rule, that consideration, or what have you, his ability to do so, if he does it well, helps keep the game world running smoothly and maintains a higher degree of consistency and plausibility for events within the game world.</blockquote>

Verification