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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6201981" data-attributes="member: 22779">And I think that's the break down in communication we're having here.  To me, there is no difference.  Both are task resolution mechanics.  The level of granularity doesn't matter, to me.  If you do the talky bits, you use the talky bits mechanics.  If you do the fighty bits, you use the fighty bits mechanics.But, the bottom line is, you use the mechanics.Careful there.  I'm not talking about the player "getting what he wants".  I've never, ever, in this entire thread talked about the player "getting what he wants".  That's been added in but is not the issue and never has been.  I want that to be crystal clear.It's about the player not having his choices vetoed through DM force.  The player is attempting a mechanically sanctioned action and the DM is over ruling the mechanics.  Success or failure in the attempt doesn't matter.No, it makes me a player who wants at least partial ownership over the game.  It probably makes me a poor fit at your table.  But hard line?  Not in the slightest.  Telling DM's, "Hey, let's actually play by the rules" should not be cast in a negative light, IMO.Nope.  Because all of those things are defined in the rules.  If the rules allowed me to add in a +2 bonus (such as with an Aid Another check), then fine, I use the mechanics there.  But, the rules don't allow me to add in circumstantial bonuses.  It works both ways.  The DM doesn't get to invalidate player choices, and the players don't get to make up the rules.But, you're conflating a number of issues.  For one, is asking the DM to play by the rules a meta-game consideration?  I suppose it is.  But, I would more consider it a basic, fundamental approach to any game.  The italicized bit though is what I find the most telling.  Why?  Why should playing anything other than a straight up fighter be an exercise in gaming the DM?  Because that's what you're saying.  If I play anything other than a straight up fighter, then I automatically open myself up to DM interpretation and DM invalidation.Now, you see no problem with that.  Me, I have no interest in that game.  It's Calvinball if the fundamental elements of a class are up for debate depending on whose table I sit at.  I should not be forced to play a specific class just so I can be confident that the DM will not change the rules on me.If that's the case, then there are serious flaws in the system.  IOW, if I want to be more versatile, I should game the DM.  No thanks.  I'd rather play the game on the table.  Because, at the end of the day, no, I don't have options.  What options did your charismatic fighter have?  Did he get into the fight?  Did combat ensue?  You stated that you were trying to avoid combat (by trying diplomacy).  The DM invalidated your action, without any recourse, and you were forced into a situation that you had specifically tried to avoid.Now, had you tried and failed?  Fair enough.  There's nothing wrong with failure.  And, in this situation, it's not like trying to stop a fight is outside the mandate of Diplomacy.  I mean "negotiating peace between feuding barbarian tribes" is specifically called out as a use of Diplomacy, so, I wouldn't think it's too much of a stretch to say that changing an NPC's reaction from Hostile to Friendly (or even possibly Neutral) would avoid combat.But, the DM has decided that your actions don't matter, and his interpretation is the only valid one.</blockquote>

Verification