Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6197820" data-attributes="member: 22779">Or, to put it more simply - granting authority and responsibility to the players makes for better players which makes for better games.&nbsp; Make the players each equally responsible for the quality of the game and you will see (again, totally IMO) a better game all around.Ok, the PC's know that the king is not seeing anyone and meet the chamberlain who tells them the same.&nbsp; The PC's charm the chamberlain successfully.&nbsp; Do they get to see king?To me, it brings to mind the scene in Return of the Jedi when Luke charms the chamberlain to see Jabba the Hutt.&nbsp; And, look at the results.&nbsp; The chamberlain is blamed (&quot;Weak willed FOOL!&quot;) while Luke gets exactly what he wants.&nbsp; Well, not exactly since I don't think he wanted to be dropped in with a rancour, but, he DID get to see Jabba and make his demands.&nbsp; And, &quot;Immune to Mind Effecting&quot; is perfectly fine.&nbsp; Where my problem is is that EVERY chamberlain will be &quot;immune to mind effecting&quot;.&nbsp; Every time the players try something that isn't specifically, and clearly delineated by the mechanics (and even sometimes when it is) they will get stopped in order to protect some nebulous concept of &quot;Genre atmosphere&quot;.&nbsp; Will there be times when skills don't work?&nbsp; Sure, no worries.&nbsp; Swim checks don't work in the desert after all.&nbsp; But, I think it's far more telling that many here seems to be presuming bad faith on the part of the player.&nbsp; Using charm is abusing the game?&nbsp; He's going to make the&nbsp; &quot;scene boring to remove conflict&quot;.To me, if the player tells me that he wants to do X, I presume that he actually wants to do X and believes that X will make the game more interesting for everyone involved.&nbsp; I play with people where I always presume good faith.&nbsp; To automatically shut down mechanically and thematically valid options for no other reason than because I believe it might be boring is far too heavy handed for me as a DM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6197820, member: 22779"] Or, to put it more simply - granting authority and responsibility to the players makes for better players which makes for better games. Make the players each equally responsible for the quality of the game and you will see (again, totally IMO) a better game all around. Ok, the PC's know that the king is not seeing anyone and meet the chamberlain who tells them the same. The PC's charm the chamberlain successfully. Do they get to see king? To me, it brings to mind the scene in Return of the Jedi when Luke charms the chamberlain to see Jabba the Hutt. And, look at the results. The chamberlain is blamed ("Weak willed FOOL!") while Luke gets exactly what he wants. Well, not exactly since I don't think he wanted to be dropped in with a rancour, but, he DID get to see Jabba and make his demands. And, "Immune to Mind Effecting" is perfectly fine. Where my problem is is that EVERY chamberlain will be "immune to mind effecting". Every time the players try something that isn't specifically, and clearly delineated by the mechanics (and even sometimes when it is) they will get stopped in order to protect some nebulous concept of "Genre atmosphere". Will there be times when skills don't work? Sure, no worries. Swim checks don't work in the desert after all. But, I think it's far more telling that many here seems to be presuming bad faith on the part of the player. Using charm is abusing the game? He's going to make the "scene boring to remove conflict". To me, if the player tells me that he wants to do X, I presume that he actually wants to do X and believes that X will make the game more interesting for everyone involved. I play with people where I always presume good faith. To automatically shut down mechanically and thematically valid options for no other reason than because I believe it might be boring is far too heavy handed for me as a DM. [/QUOTE]

Verification