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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6199325" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Well, the rules must be bad then, since they do not explicitly state they do not support a Farmer game, and that is a playstyle. Or the rules are not beholden to support every playstyle, or to call out those they do and do not support. Some games do a very good job of indicating the style they aim for, and that's great - D&D could and should do more of that. But that doesn't mean the lack of an explicit statement they support a playstyle different from yours, or mine, means they are required to support every, or any, specific playstyle.It does equate to needing to keep the Chamberlain engaged longer - what prevents him walking away? [The same thing that keeps me posting, maybe...]Perhaps it includes ensuring that King's time is not wasted with rop-in visits from people who have no legitimate business with the King.In your opinion and/or under your playstyle, perhaps.The impact on any playstyle depends on the specific rule changes. I'm not suffering a balance problem now, so a change that redresses your balance concern may well tip my balance out of whack.Many products fail. The same logic would suggest they made Pathfinder a 3e derived product, so people must have wanted that. We also know which one sells better, do we not? I think there is demand for many different models, which is why One Game does not Rule them All. Had D&D, the first and best marketed, met everyone's favoured playstyle, there would be a lot less RPG's out there.@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> : I don't believe anyone has a Ph.D. in Gamer Philosophy, so I'm not addressing what might qualify someone to have an opinion.Sure. In my world, however, neither is a gamebreaker, they simply send the game in differing directions.I think they reflect those skills being of limited relevance to the focus of the game, so I believe we see this similarly. They can be ignored and rendered worthless in game, of the GM can arrange possibilities for them to be useful. They can, if nothing else, earn a few coins, and possibly insinuate one into a locale (he doesn't just sit at the Inn drinking, but gets a job and does something productive).Someone else agrees on the relative importance of profession/craft skills. No, and we should similarly not assume any playstyle not perceived as supported was intended to be supported, absent some explicit statement.Agreed - if the player is willing to take that -10 penalty. To my mind, making that check covers getting the chamberlain to sit still long enough to hear the request, and to present the request successfully - his attitude is changed. Now we assess whether, with that changed attitude, you can get to see the king (now, later, whatever) under any other constraints relevant to access to the king.To exactly the same extent they are always interpreted in the most advantageous manner for the individual player (what is the DM's "advantage"?) in a non-GM Force game. I think both have more balance, but you seem polarized. Sorry about your bad past experiences, but I didn't run them. Assuming bad faith on the part of GM or player will cause any system t fail, IMO.So clearly it was what you wanted, then? I'm unclear what your actual point is in all of this.Or it is an example of an NPC not prepared to listen to diplomacy. Or it indicates Luke sucked up the -10 penalty to get a fast check, and he failed. Sadly, you can't get closed captioning with the game mechanics typed in. Or a reskinned Stoneskin spell, or an effect provided by a Lightsaber Parry special ability of a Jedi Knight, or a special feat...If you have a better term for the series of events that unfold in play, I'm open to it. We'll have to rename "adventurers" as well, I suppose.Oo! - how exciting and challenging - we made a die roll.And the player attempt at diplomacy which fails is, to me, learning via play (rather than learning by someone telling us) that the Chamberlain is not admitting us to see the King.Again, I perceive more of a balance here than you do. The fact the players feel a need to speak to the Chamberlain implies it has been decided one must access the King through the Chamberlain, and cannot simply stroll in at his leisure. The game, the adventure, call it what you will, does not take place in a vacuum.Who says the GM framed it? Why cant the players decide their PC's will attend upon the Chamberlain to seek an audience with the King?If seeing the King is important and non-trivial, that is the difference to me. Buying spikes and rations is trivial (until, for some reason, it is not). The very fact we play something out indicates "not trivial".So we differ in our preferences - I don't see that as surprising. I'd be surprised if you do.Actually, I would consider doing just that where the combat itself is trivial.No, it's become non-trivial now.Actually, with tight math on challenges, I can have a pretty good idea who will win, but typically we observe the game conceit that challenges are within the PC's capabilities, but not pushovers.I interpret this a bit differently, but let's start at the start. You comment regularly about "fail forward". To me, failure to get past the Chamberlain to see the King is not "loss", it is "move forward". If it is loss, then I agree - an uncooperative chamberlain is a bad idea. Must there be a single key? No. Must every possible approach be guaranteed a possibility of success? Also no, at least IMO. You appear to have locked in on "meeting the King" being the only possible next step (or "lose the game", I suppose). I don't see it that way. Perhaps there are ways to access the King without persuading the Chamberlain, other means of persuading the Chamberlain, or means of accomplishing the PC's goals (not defined in our scenario) without achieving the objective of meeting the King. The game's success or failure should not hinge on "getting past the Chamberlain right now". If it does, that should be clear, and the PC's should have the ability to get in to see the King.Why does it always come back to this. Let's shout it out HEY OUT THERE! HAS ANYONE EVER PLAYED A GAME WHERE YOUR TRAVEL TIME DETERMINES WHETHER YOU ARRIVE AT A KEY LOCATION LONG BEFORE, OR WELL AFTER, THE ADVENTURE AT THAT LOCATION? No? Me neither. The game may be structured to present time pressure, but I've never seen a game where, by the time the PC's get to AnyTown, the Evil Cultists have long since finished the ritual, and the Demon Lord rules the earth. Oh, if only they had selected Teleport last level, the campaign would not have ended prematurely. This tends to be set by the GM for ramatic purposes, not determined by whether the layers roll exceptionally well, or poorly, on their "Long Distance Travel" skill.I've never seen such a chart used, or proposed, in any game I've ever played. Now, I could see structuring a race against time which is truly challenging which will determine the nature of the next challenge (ie prevent the ritual or deal with its fallout) but not "arrive early and there will be an easy mopup of wimpy cultists" or "show up late and your L2 party must now defeat Orcus and his legions in mortal combat or the world will be destroyed".While the historical model for the game, I prefer the approach taken in, say, Zeitgeist which suggests "level at the speed of plot". However, that actually works better in that AP where it is keyed to reaching specific stages of the scenario's overall plot than it would in a sandbox where we don't know the plot. And really, a "story award" is just another means of advancing at the speed of plot. If we are going to play by the "XP earned" model, then my definite preference is actual, planned, relevant encounters, not random wandering monsters. But guess who sets those planned, relevant encounters? Ultimately, "level up" is a D&D artifact itself. Needing to gain xp would not be an issue in most Hero games, for example, but two groups of identical points may have vastly differing combat abilities from the outset in that point-buy system. The whole "zero to hero" model is, itself, a very specific playstyle.One logical next step is to seek out more info on the Chamberlain (and/or the King) to determine strategies which would better dispose them to receive these visitors. Maybe we can actually use the Rogue's skills at Gathering Information to discover that the Chamberlain's daughter is under some foul spell, which the Wizard's Arcane Knowledge makes him aware of a cure, but we need a rare plant. Luckily, the Ranger knows where such a plant might be located due to his Knowledge of Nature and Geography. Now the Bard has something to leverage with his Diplomacy skills.Now, that model involves all the characters - much better balanced, IMO, than "I make a diplomacy roll while the other guys watch and we win".Definitely, we don't want to contradict the prior fiction.This isn't resetting the scene, it is changing the Chamberlain's attitude. He was still Unfriendly or Hostile when they arrived. In combat, an enemy can flee. To avoid diplomacy, one can walk away.Yes, I am. To me, the layer can define their background typically at character creation, but refined in play) and the GM defines the rest of the world. I think a good GM will work to bring those backgrounds to life in the game, and there may be some back & forth in that regard. If a player's background opened the possibility of a prior connection with the Chamberlain, that would make a huge change to the whole scene, and toss out pretty much everything we've discussed.Again, different playstyles. A GM's skill at ad lib becomes pretty important if a player imposes on the scene that "Only the Elixir of Erithamus can revive the niece from the foul enchantment she is under, and it is rumoured to be held in the horde of the Great Wyrm Dasalok high on Mount Avalakthan, half a world away". We're 45 minutes into tonight's gaming session, and we want to leave immediately to retrieve the Elixir - no pressure on you to run the most epic Dragon Hunt in the history of RPG's, right? Oh, and all the other players each added four other artifacts of great mystic power rumoured to be in the Great Wyrm's horde. May as well make it a profitable quest!Are they told he is not happy or that he does not look happy? In 3e parlance, the first may be a Spot check and the second a Sense Motive check. He may be trying to appear indifferent, making it more difficult to perceive his state of mind, or he may make no bones about it, or he may even try to look more curmudgeonly than he is to deter those who are not serious about their need to see the King. To me, learning about this in play is far more fun than having it read off a cue card as though my PC is omniscient.Regardless of the methodology, the difficulty of success must be set somehow. The attitude of the target seems a valid component in setting that difficulty, so someone must determine that initial attitude. I don't want random NPCs any more than I want random monster checks, and to me the GM would be the one to frame that initial stage, and the difficulty we face. As you say, it is his job to provide the antagonists to the PC's - without, I would stress, himself being antagonistic to the players.So if I gain 3 levels, the Chamberlain moves from Unfriendly to Hostile? Funny how everyone was so much happier when we were first level!Perhaps. Perhaps it will reduce them. Perhaps it depends on whether they succeed, which requires we determine how easily intimidated the Chamberlain is, another issue not necessarily obvious by looking at him.What, none? It will not surprise you if a PC leaps across the room to strangle the chamberlain, attempts to play his bagpipes in the antechamber, removes his clothes to caper about in a loincloth or just decides "I don't want to see the king after all" and walks out? There is a pretty wide continuum between "no preconceived notions" and "I have the script - Gods help you should you deviate from it". I suggest a player stating "I spit on the Chamberlains shoes and demand to be admitted to see the King - Diplomacy roll of 37" should not be cheerfully admitted to see the King.I think we may differ on even what sceneframing means. It appears to cover including a Chamberlain, but in your view not his attitude or willingness to listen to diplomacy. To me, these are also reasonably elements of sceneframing.I don't see voicing no objection being the same as making a decision. However, I think this clarifies that the group has abdicated their control to the GM and the individual player. So who then makes the decision - you or the player? That is, should there be a disagreement as to the precise results, whose desires prevail? Does the GM have the right to override the player, or does the player have the final say over the GM?Neither do we - maybe that's why I don't post play reports...To start, trust that the GM is not out to screw over the player characters, and will not use any authority granted him to consistently and methodically rule against them at every conceivable opportunity. I believe my "trust" comments would have been directed primarily at @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=22779" target="_blank">Hussar</a> , who consistently suggests we assume players will act in bad faith, while posting comments that suggest he perceives the GM will always act in bad faith.Comparing to combat, I would expect the opposition comes predefined with attacks and defenses, and that these are not set by a PC who rolls to impose his will that the Orcs are wearing loincloths rather than chain mail, and wielding daggers rather than greatswords. Just as I would expect the attitude of the Orcs comes pre-defined, and is not set as gentle, friendly explorers by a PC diplomacy check. The question is not whether the NPC's have personality, but who gives it to them - the GM defining, say, that" unfriendly bordering on hostile to visitors" Chamberlain, or the player rolling to make that crusty exterior hide a heart of gold and a deep respect for adventurers.</blockquote>

Verification