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: 6201493" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Quite possibly. For starters, there is a clearly unfriendly, if not hostile, Chamberlain.  The rules tell us that there can be circumstances (of which your character may or may not be aware) which modify the DC further.  It is, by the way, a perfectly reasonable use of the combat rules to use them to slay a Dragon.  This does not mean every character has a meaningful chance to slay every Dragon.  The question becomes "as the characters discover the Chamberlain will not grant them an audience with the King, what do they do now?"If the answer is "have a tantrum because the GM has set a situation where we cannot instantly get whatever we want", then this is really not a game I want to be playing in or running.  For my PC, the answer is "take a step back, consider alternatives, attempt to determine why the Chamberlain seems so unusual (assuming it would be usual for him to admit a bunch of adventurers who just pop by to see the King)" or otherwise keep playing in-game.  My character id not have his desire immediately satisfied.  Well and good - let's work on how we can achieve that goal.We were discussing a character attempting to use Diplomacy.  He can certainly attempt rushed diplomacy at a -10 penalty, however I suggest that, if there was any challenge to success using a normal check, success at a 10 penalty is extremely unlikely or impossible.  So we're likely back to "you can make a rushed check, but it cannot succeed unless you can roll more than a 20 on a d20".  T me, a -10 penalty is pretty substantial.  Note that you don't necessarily get to see whether the Chamberlain is going to stick around for a normal check before deciding - if he stomps out 30 seconds into your non-rushed efforts, he's not popping back in to see whether you wish to try again.That instant gratification is not essential to a good game, nor is it essential that the players be able to immediately access anything and everything they wish to access.  We seem to concur that it is OK that first level characters cannot slay an Ancient Red Dragon, but not that it is OK for it to be beyond them to persuade the Chamberlain of any given kingdom to grant them immediate access to the King.  You now chose to back this up with various D&D edition rules, rather than the theory behind the playstyle.  I suggest that, regardless of game, an Ancient Wyrm would be considered a force to be reckoned with, such that it is not a foe for novice characters, whatever the game.  But then, I don't see "grant me an immediate audience with the King" as something characters who will be challenged by a half dozen goblins or orcs would realistically expect to be likely either.So I take it, then, that your answer is to refuse to frame the scene with the Chamberlain (or the Dragon).  How does this work if they deliberately set out to locate and slay the Dragon?  You simply refuse to frame the scenes?  We have, as I understand it, established that you will not frame a scene not directly related to the stated goals of the characters.  You won't frame one for a goal they can't achieve.  So what happens next?  The game grinds to a halt and you go look for "more reasonable" players?  You say "Sure, we can do that - scrap the PC's you've been gaming with for the past couple of months so we can start a brand-new Dragon Hunt game, since I'm certainly not running it with these guys"?So we cannot deviate from anything statted up in the game previously, but anything not statted up will be challenging yet attainable no matter what level the characters may be?  The exact same task of getting the chamberlain to admit us to see the King when we op in for a visit will be 60% likely to succeed when we are wet behind the ears 1st level newbie adventurers and when we are seasoned veterans of 27th level?  Or do we have to keep changing kingdoms as we advance, moving to less and less welcoming Chamberlains and Kings?  Or perhaps, as we all age, the Chamberlain and the King become more grouchy and less willing to admin visitors so the challenge rises along with our ability to meet it?Frankly, either I am not understanding the system, or you are not selling me on Indie play.Maybe this is where the big difference lies.  Some of us  [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION], probably others) believe the rulebooks present a framework on which we must build with interpretations, extrapolations and rulings.  They are not the be-all and end-all of the game.  You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that, since there are no rules for how difficult social challenges might be, they should all be equally difficult across all levels.  So you should have a more or less equal chance to persuade a tavern barkeep to sell you a beer as you do to persuade the King name you Crown Prince, and everything in between.An obviously absurd pair of examples at polar extremes of difficulty, but all I'm getting from your comments to date is that "The Chart" says they should have about a 60% shot at success for any social scene.  I assume the Bartender will be written off as trivial, so we can just assume you successfully purchase a beer for its usual price, but there can be no social situations where the PC's don't have a decent shot at success.Or we keep working our way through various intermediaries until we reach a point where future success is not possible, at which time I refuse to frame the next scene.  Is it superior if we don't play out the scene with the Chamberlain, and instead simply make that a "transition scene"?  "Well, you talk your way past the guards, and are ushered in to see the Chamberlain.  Unsympathetic to your pleas, the Chamberlain has the Palace Guard escort you back out of the Palace, indicating that the King is far to busy to visit with passersby just dropping in.  What do you do next?"The previous roll to goad the advisor, taken directly from your example which was followed by an effort to either get a bonus causing success or a second roll, which you may or may not have allowed with no roll.  And which you noted required that the player justify in terms in character which, as I read that, you had to adjudicate.  Yet previously, when we suggested the GM had to make judgment calls, you told us no, he doesn't.  You also took exception to the statement that the GM is the "ultimate arbiter" disclaiming that such a thing would never happen in Indie play.  Emphasis added above - the GM makes the judgment call whether the player meets the credibility test to undertake the desired action.  He will have to decide whether the character under the Curse of Silence can still endeavour to use Diplomacy with the Chamberlain and, if so, what penalties he will face for the inability to speak.  Just as you had to decide whether the "torn robe" comment justified a bonus, or a re-roll, and whether this automatically converted their prior failure to a success.  You, the GM, making a ruling, as the ultimate arbiter - the last word - of the results in game. Flippity flop - now we're back to a discussion among the participants.  Does the GM have the ultimate responsibility you stated immediately above, or can he simply be voted down by the group (not persuaded by the group that a different ruling is more important - if the GM votes one way, not persuaded by the group, and the group votes the other way, unpersuaded by the GM, one of the two conflicting viewpoints must prevail in the game.  Which one prevails?  In my and [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]' games, the GM makes the final call.  In your games, the closest we seem to get to an answer is that the GM holds ultimate responsibility for a group discussion.  Who decides? Again, I see the GM making the unilateral decision whether the action resolution mechanics will be engaged, or whether they will not.  That is GM control. Emphasis added.  You just told us above that we don't want scenes merely for colour.  How far do you want me to scale this down?  Am I an "Indie GM" because I don't make players roll to have their characters put one foot in front of the other, avoid cutting themselves shaving, successfully transport food from bowl to mouth using a spoon, and successfully use the bathroom facilities?  I doubt any of us are playing out an extended encounter entering the city, buying provisions or securing a room at the inn unless there is some reason such activities are unusual, and relevant to the action in-game.  IOW, it does not seem revolutionary to me that we don't spend an hour exchanging pleasantries at the City Gates unless there is something more to the activity than a mundane and unsurprising city entry procedure.  [On this note, I recall a scenario where entry to the city cost 1 sp, but anyone singing the city anthem was presumed a citizen and admitted free of charge - "just colour", to my mind, but entertaining enough when the one character noteworthy for his frugality, burst into song, the player mimicking his cracked falsetto.  I hadn't realized until today that I remember that game 15 or 20 years later, not because it was entertaining, but because that scene was clearly bad DMing as there was nothing mechanical to resolve (this predates the "perform" skill, by the way). Here again we see the GM being required to make interpretations and rulings.  I think combat has "failure" results, actually.  This strikes me as the "failure is not possible" model, as the PC's always have some new option for achieving their goals.  No thanks - maybe they are dismissed by the Chamberlain and need to go about this some other way.  Maybe, sometimes, they must be proactive and create their own opportunities, not follow a trail of bread crumbs as the GM continually sets new scenes where they can succeed after all if they just make that roll this time. Given that they can only "fail forward", still moving towards their objective, the only resolution appears to be PC success.  Not "The Chamberlain roars in anger at your impudence to a ranking member of the King's Court.  'Take them to the Dungeon!' he yells.  The guards in the room move towards you, and you can hear the footfalls of many more approaching."  That means we don't get to see the King (unless e is also imprisoned in the Dungeon), so that can't happen.Yet we have seen above several examples of final arbitration by the GM.  If I read "final arbiter" as narrowly as you seem to present it, the GM merely reads the players a story about the activities their characters engage in.  The GM has no power to veto their actions?  Above, he had to establish the credibility of the actions declared.  Where did that power go?OK, I spend an action point to make a Diplomacy check which, if successful, results in my being admitted to see the King, who has heard my compelling speech to the Chamberlain and, without further ado, names me Crown Prince and heir to the Kingdom, then abdicates in my favour."  oo - I rolled a 19 - All Hail King N'raac!  Or are you going to exercise GM force and interpret my actions in a different manner, such that the new content of the fiction is other than I, the player, have specified.  And if so, would it have worked if I rolled a Nat 20?There are numerous actions the player can declare when meeting with the Chamberlain, as well.  If the Chamberlain will not listen to them for the time required for an unpenalized diplomacy check, then that option is off the table - it is not credible within the fictional positioning.  Either that is not GM force, or your decisions regarding the validity of a specific action which is mechanically possible but inconsistent with the fictional positioning is just as much "GM force".Several issues.  First, while I agree the fictional positioning was there, you were still the one making that call.  In this case, the call is obvious.  I suspect that is not always the case.  You then are the final arbiter of whether the mechanics are engaged.Second, by saying yes, you still overrode the action resolution mechanics.  Just as I could override them by calling for no diplomacy check, simply saying "The Chamberlain leaps to his feet.  'Visitors for the King', he gleefully exclaims 'Come right this way'.  The Chamberlain cheerfully ushers you in to see the King."  [And just as he could then present them to the King as worthies from another land, or now claim they forced their way in, even after being informed of His Majesty's strict instructions that no one is to be admitted, under penalty of death - so admittance could be good or bad for the PC's.]Third, had the Wizard's player not taken this step, the advisor would have walked away without being goaded, correct?  Would the game then have failed for want of an action point, or would it have moved forward in a different direction?  It seems like you made the decision here that failure was not an option.  That is a final arbitration.It is, if the point is that it proceeds much like play in any other game.  "We will try to goad the advisor into attacking" hardly seems unique to some unusual and revolutionary new playstyle.Agreed.Were there "fails" above, "forward" or otherwise?  I saw the players use the mechanics to succeed.  Had no AP been spent, or had the Wizard failed his roll, it seems the advisor would have left, frustrating the PC's intentions.  Would wargame play have been different from that result?Given we seem to have relegated storytelling play to "I will read you the story of your PC's adventures", I doubt very much that we can find a group of storytelling gamers.To me, fiat would indicate he changed the rules.  He did not.  The answer to the question was not provided.  Wicht interpreted the rules to provide an answer.  I'm back to "it depends" here.  Have we ever used a charged item while Projected before?  If the rules are now being changed, this should not be announced after the fact.  Is this a game where wizards study at universities, so magic is pretty common and fairly well understood, or one where wizards are a rare breed trying to rediscover mysteries lost to the ages?  The former seems more conducive to a full and detailed knowledge of how each spell will function in unusual situations, the latter less so.  Perhaps our Wizard friend should make a Knowledge: Arcana check.  What's a reasonable DC?  It seems like the spell description covers the basics.  A "really tough question" is the next step up, and that's DC 20 - 30, so I think I'd go with 29 (20 + Spell Level), or perhaps I'd call it 15 + Spell Level for spells the wizard knows.  Seems like a good discussion to seek group input on.Now, let's add an assumption that the issue came up before, and was resolve by Wicht's ruling.  However, this player forgot it, or maybe wasn't there for that session.  So Wicht assumes he knows, the player assumes hell get back with wishes intact, and several weeks later, the player tries to use the Luck Blade again, to be told "You used those up on the Astral Plane, remember?"  The fairest answer, to me, is to allow the wizard whatever mechanic we would have allowed to "know" how the spell worked and, if he knew, let him take back some actions (even back to selecting the spell).  But it's now been several weeks of play, the spell has been used a few times, the wishes changed the flow of the game earlier - it's pretty tough to just unravel.  So what now?I could argue the onus was on Wicht to re-state that charged items used under Astral Projection are used up.  I could argue the onus was on the player to remember the ruling, or to ask, but if he's simply reading the text and assuming the items are not discharged, should he ask?  Maybe the onus is on the player to recognize this interpretation effectively leads to unlimited wishes and ask whether he's missing something, or whether the rules should be changed.  I view unlimited wishes as a pretty unreasonable result, so I kind of lean to asking before assuming it will work that way.  Saying nothing and hoping to slip your unlimited wishes past the GM strikes me as adversarial play.Once the player has the spell, the same scope remains.  We've already demonstrated a 9h level spell has scope for GM/Player conflict, so what level shall we make it?  If we pick 13th, that probably reduces the scope quite a bit, but it doesn't leave a useful spell, does it?Why not interpret the spell by the actual wording, fully informed by its status as a 1st level spell, rather than skipping the parts that suggest it has limitations, and that the existence of the 5th level Dominate Person indicates Charm Person is much less powerful?  That seems just as viable.  We also come back to the subtlety question.  It would be nice to have a ruling, but I think it reasonable to consider any spell with a save not labeled "harmless" is an attack, and would be viewed as such.  Would a spell that enhances the caster's own interaction rolls be different?  Perhaps - but that's not what Charm Person does.By the way, since the challenge of Diplomacy on the Chamberlain should be about a 60% success rate, should the Sense Motive roll to notice the Chamberlain or King has been charmed be similarly adjusted?  Should the others have a 60% chance of noticing that, or a 40% chance (which is a 60% chance for the player to succeed in being unnoticed)?Based on what you think you're "not doing", I think you view the use of GM force very differently from what ahnehnois and I see in our games.  "GM Force" seems to have been watered down a lot as this thread progressed.  Apparently, just saying "OK, you can roll" means we have not used GM force, and saying "No need to roll" is not GM force provided we proceed on the basis of a success.  And it's OK to have no chance of success as long as this is based on something a game designer wrote in a rule book, not something the GM decided without the proper paperwork to back him up.  Looking at skill DC's, I guess I can decide it's "nearly impossible" for a bunch of adventurers to get in to see the King, so that's DC 40.  Still up for that -10 penalty, since the Chamberlain is not sticking around to listen to your bizarre reasons why your rag tag mercenary band are special snowflakes to whom the usual rules of state should not apply.</blockquote>

Verification