Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ImperatorK" data-source="post: 6198991" data-attributes="member: 6695799">That's the thing. It doesn't say what playstyle it supports. It's only common sense to assume that my playstyle is equally supported than your playstyle.   So the player fails even when he succeeds. And you wonder why we don't like your DMing style. Already addressed.I don't see any such rule. No rule. But it would be weird for a Pope to refuse discussing a religious matter, because it's kinda his specialty. Similarly it would be weird for a chamberlain to refuse talking with people who have some affair with the king, because that's kinda his job. In my games convincing a chamberlain to do his job wouldn't have an unreasonable DC, otherwise why even allow them to talk with the chamberlain in the first place?  Nowhere. But the chamberlain can advice them to wait some time until the king is free and call them in out of turn. Or, if he's Helpful, he'll risk punishment but will let the PCs see the king, as per the Diplomacy rules.PCs aren't commoners. You're clearly such a superb DM that you don't have any problems with the game, so why would you be less happy? Unless you mean that our happiness would cost you your happiness. Schadenfreude? Wait a minute. Aren't you arguing that there's no balance problem in the game?Enough people wanted balance for WoTC to make 4ed the way it is (I could have sworn I said that already).</blockquote>