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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6201991" data-attributes="member: 17106">IME, when this kind of issue is raised, a player is always arguing in his character's favor. I can see the philosophical argument you're making, but I think that's the practical reality. I would not, for example, have rolled a will save and asked the DM to roll an Intimidate to determine whether I pissed my pants, and then complained when he refused.The rules say that the DM owns the game. If you're telling the DM when and how mechanics are engaged, you're not playing by the most important rule.This comes up all the time in sports. A player asks a referee/umpire to play by the rules in the event of a perceived failure on his part (actual or not), but the most important rule is that players don't get to make refereeing decisions.Not really true. If you play anything, you subject yourself to the DM's will. The difference between a wizard and a fighter is the difference between a wristwatch and a sundial. Both of them do the same thing, but the one with complicated clockwork parts has a lot more things that can go wrong. Again, granularity.Yes, that is what happened. I did not get the outcome I wanted, or even get to roll the skill check I wanted, and as far as I can tell, no choice that I could have made would have changed it. I also don't really know why.But that's okay. People don't always have control over their lives. Characters don't always have control over theirs. My actions in real life get invalidated all the time. The beauty of the DM/player structure is that it brings us closer to the reality of the situation; games with shared narrative control are more about wish fulfillment AFAICT.</blockquote>

Verification