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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 6196753" data-attributes="member: 16586">Speaking as Player: Personally for me it's not about taking the good with the bad. A GM who manipulates settings, and makes rulings to personally benefit my PC is doing me a disservice. It has just as much of adverse effect on player agency. Once the scene is framed I want my success or failure to be dependent on the informed decisions I make, the resources I have available (both fictional and meta game if applicable), and the action resolution mechanics. If an outcome is unacceptable it should not be possible within the rules of the game. As a GM wherever possible I try to telegraph where players might have difficulties readily. The chamberlain's first sign of rude behavior should not happen after the PC approaches him and tries to parlay. If I'm doing it right he should know that the chamberlain might not respond well to social niceties.  You could open the scene with the chamberlain complaining to one of his assistants about receiving too many requests for an audience from individuals of a lower station. He might just appear dour and taciturn. He might be yelling at his assistants, etc. If the PC in question has some ranks in Knowledge (Nobility) let him know what the appropriate protocol is for requesting an audience.I also try to avoid no win scenarios. The chamberlain might not provide an audience with the king, but perhaps with enough guile he might dismissively point them to some nobles who would be willing to speak with them. Perhaps the assassin's guild the shady member of the party belongs to has done some work with the king, and could apply leverage to arrange an unofficial meet and greet at some personal cost to the PC.I personally believe that it's important to provide information that allows players to navigate situations on an informed basis. It's critically important to provide the necessary cues before their budding socialite makes a scene in court. It becomes a conflict to engage, rather than an arbitrary failure. My role is a GM is not to decide the outcome of any scene. It's to work with the players to establish what's at stake, provide a challenge, and leave room for them to make choices. By the way I don't think that the 3e or Pathfinder rules are poor rules. They fail to be very resilient when exposed to my play style because they require more force than I am willing to deal with on either side of the screen. They also do not do an adequate job of outlining their dependencies. My main issue is that they are not transparent in their play objectives and dependencies. I have the same issues with Old World of Darkness games - they lead players to believe they're playing one game while the GM runs the real game.I believe if you want to market the game as an entry level game supporting a variety of play styles it should do so with very little heavy lifting on the part of the play group. If that's not your goal have the balls to say so.The preceding was entirely my opinion and reflects my play style and nobody else's. Pemerton, manbearcat, and others have play styles which share certain features with my own. They are not exactly the same. I feel it's important to mention that because individual distinctions often get lost in these types of conversations.</blockquote>

Verification