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: 6201998" data-attributes="member: 22779">?Why would that even come up.  This is going back to the idea that players asking the DM to follow the rules somehow translates to the idea that the players get to make up the rules.  Intimidate doesn't do that, so, why would you ask for a ruling like this.As far as arguing in his character's favour, well that's the nature of the beast isn't it?  Your rulings are invalidating the player's choices, so, of course he's arguing in his favour.  Had you not invalidated his choice, he wouldn't be arguing with you in the first place.The game has a lot of rules.  Who says that that one is the most important?  I think that Rule 0 is a means of resolving conflict between the DM and the players when interpretations differ.  However, there is no difference of rules interpretation going on here.  The DM has flat out over ruled the mechanics expressly in violation of those mechanics.  That is not where Rule 0 is meant to be used, IMO.But, referees also don't get to fabricate entirely new rules.  A referee is not allowed to tell the quarterback he may not make a forward pass because doing so would change the results that the referee deems most fun.  Any ref doing so would find himself tossed out of the game pretty quickly.This is precisely what you are doing as a DM though.  The player is using the mechanics in a perfectly acceptable way, not abusive at all, and the DM has decided that the mechanics do not apply because the DM has decided which way the game will go.That's not what granularity means.  Granularity refers to the amount of detail contained within resolution mechanics.  Disparity of choices is not granularity.But, it's more a comparison between an Iphone and a sundial.  Not only can they do the same thing, but the Iphone can do so much more.  Until, of course, the DM decides to start limiting the casters by interpreting mechanics or flat out invalidating choices.  Some of us would rather that the game was either all wristwatches or all sundials.No, they really don't.  Your real life actions can certainly fail.  That's fine.  But, at no point does the finger of some omnipotent being come down and tap you on the shoulder and tell you that you shall attempt such and such a thing.  It is not bringing you closer to reality.  It is bringing you closer to a single vision (the DM's) of reality.  In my vision of reality, the charismatic character role plays his role and talks the angry fighter down and they go and have a conversation.  But, in your game, that will not happen.  You prefer a more restricted game with less freedom than I do.Which is fine.  But, wish fufillment?  Not even close.  Again, you're conflating the need for the chance to succeed with success itself.  There's nothing wrong with failing.  Failing is part of the shared story created by everyone at the table.  But, in your game, I cannot fail.  I cannot even try.</blockquote>

Verification