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: 6203442" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, it was precisely arbitrary and changing the rules.  Go back and read the example.  The PC's want to see the King, so they talk to the Chamberlain to get an audience.  The DM arbitrarily sets the DC so high that they cannot succeed.  When that gets questioned, suddenly all these after the fact justifications get brought out (The king hates dwarves and you have a dwarf in the party, etc).  IOW, you guys keep changing the situation to try to justify the use of DM force.Stick to the original situation.  Nothing special going on.  No special circumstances.  Nothing in the background.  Just what the situation says - the PC's want an audience with the king and talk to the chamberlain to do so.  Ahn would not even allow the Players to make a diplomacy check on their own.  They have to wait until they have sufficiently persuaded Ahn to allow the check.  N'raac introduced having the chamberlain go insane and stick his fingers in his ears to prevent the diplomacy check.  Does anyone actually think that's good DMing advice?  Really?Any use of a spell to is automatically subjected to either the most restrictive interpretation possible under the rules, or, barring that, manipulating the game world (using charm gets you killed by random bar maids) to punish the players.So...Can you honestly not see why this looks like Calvinball?  In Ahn's example of the angry fighter, you changed the scene so that the fighter is suddenly hundreds of feet away or there are 13 people in the way as a justification for not allowing player actions.  But, none of those were true in the example, so, what's the point of bringing them up if it's not Calvinball?Weren't you one of those calling us incompetent for not using GM force to solve all our problems?  I might be misremembering, but, I know more than a few on your side of the fence has basically said that the reason we have the problems is that we're just not good enough DM's.Well, considering we're talking about ways to limit caster power, it's not really a stretch to think that these changes are being done as a means of limiting caster power.  That's precisely the way they were being presented.</blockquote>

Verification