NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6202480" data-attributes="member: 6681948">You seem to read the term as “the GM dictates the results of every action taken by the PC’s”  I think that goes far beyond what the rest of us consider the “Ultimate Arbiter” role to entail. With you deciding whether the fictional positioning permits the action – Ultimate Arbiter of that decision. To reach the bar you have set, the GM would have to write a novel, not play a game, to be the “Ultimate Arbiter”.  I believe no one else sets the bar nearly that high, so you are not discussing the same term the rest of us are.  Whether the GM continually frames the scenes to enable the PC’s to succeed or to frustrate their efforts to succeed, both are railroading in a fashion.  The GM is laying a trail of breadcrumbs in that each and every scene he sets is another opportunity for the PC’s to achieve their goals.  There is no possibility of a scene where they cannot advance their goals.  Hence, linear breadcrumb trail. I am stating that overriding the mechanics in favour of automatic success is no less an override than an override which results in automatic favour.  Both are GM Force within the definition of the GM removing the results from the mechanical resolution system. When the GM “says yes”, he is agreeing to use GM force to cause the players’ desired result, which must then be his own desired result, so the GM imposing his will regardless of the action resolution mechanics.  The only difference is that the GM’s will matches that of one or more players in this instance.  I do not think a GM consistently “saying yes” would make for a better game than a GM consistently “saying no”, just a different version of a dull game.  GM force is the GM overriding the action resolution mechanics, regardless of whether the results are desired or undesired by the players. By contrast, I see no need for each scene to include a meaningful chance of achieving the goals.  The scene with the Chamberlain may well serve only to suggest the PC’s must find some other means of achieving those goals.  The difference here seems to be that one of us will tell the PC’s “There is no way the Chamberlain will admit you to see the King” where the other will play the scene out to show it, assuming that this is a Level 14 challenge attempted by Level 1 characters. Contrary to @manbearvcat’s comments.  All challenges, but not dragons.  Perhaps better said that you will refuse to include a combat challenge having a differing chance of success, but will modify the requirements of success for noncombat challenges, rather than their nature. If their low tier characters who should be dealing with village level threats are instead off to see the King, it seems we should logically have the same breakdown.  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] seems to suggest we do, but you have consistently denied it.  No, but only because these are not judgment calls.  When the existence or absence of appropriate fictional positioning is not obvious, your arbitration of whether a given action is credible determines outcomes.  Just like a GM deciding that a raging Barbarian cannot be reasoned with using diplomacy assesses that the charismatic character lacks the fictional positioning to resolve the matter with diplomacy.  My own ruling would be that you can try – but you have the usual -10 penalty if you try as a full round action, and the DC should possibly bump up a bit for being in combat as well.  Those modifiers may well mean “you can try, but it will fail”.  A 60% chance of success means you will succeed on a roll of 9+.  A -10 penalty moves that to 19, and a 2 point circumstance modifier means you now need a 21. If you said yes, you overrode the action resolution mechanic, exerting GM force to achieve the result you desired, being PC success.  As has been said numerous times, use of GM force is not a bad thing. And thus you are the ultimate arbiter of the results.  I thought you set a new scene with new complications, thus arbitrating the results of their success. Failing to persuade the Chamberlain to grant us an audience with the king being followed by the players reviewing their options and deciding what approaches they will now pursue "proactively creates their own opportunities".  The GM framing a new scene where the PC’s can move forward to their goal to meet the King is following a trail of breadcrumbs". I mean a L13 spell no one can use.  If someone can use it, it must eventually be adjudicated. You can charm the chamberlain.  You can also kill him.  Both are hostile actions, and have potential negative consequences. You might attempt to bribe or blackmail him.  These could also have negative consequences.  You could Bluff, which may also have negative consequences, succeed or fail.  The Charm spell modifies the target’s mind against his will – that is not a socially acceptable act.  It is for forcefully changing the attitude of a target, rather than using one’s persuasive abilities.  It is not Diplomacy – it is force. In the former, they receive some other means to work their way in to see the King.  In the latter, they may have to work out a means to achieve their goals without seeing the King, despite that being their current focus.</blockquote>

Verification