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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 6203468" data-attributes="member: 221">I read the example and assume the DM, in good faith had a legitimate reason for a high DC. You read the example and assume it was arbitrary. What we are saying (or I am saying at least) is that there might be reasons why some things don't work (legitimate reasons, multiple scenarios, et.al) and it doesn't do any good to start slinging around derogatory terms without trying to see the other side. If a DM says, "no that won't work," or more likely, "Roll... no he is not listening," or,... "Before you can get your words to come out, he is turning away from you," then there is a possibility, however remote it might seem to you, that the DM is merely doing his job. And some of us (me) don't really like the whole, "Say yes, or roll," mentality. Sometimes I just want to say, "No, that's not going to work, try something else." That may not be your playstyle, but it is not, by default, a bad playstyle. My players don't roll until I say roll either. Different play-styles. Not bad. Not necessarily GM force. It keeps the game more orderly. And, especially with social skills, I find it works best if I, as DM extrapolate from their wishes which skill they should use and when. With N'raac, again you are assuming bad faith on the part of the DM, when there could (as I have already pointed out before) be multiple legitimate, by-the-book, reasons for that scenario and if those reasons are valid, then, yes, it might be good DMing. The game, and DMing, is always situational and, to repeat myself, it does no good to immediately jump to conclusions and accuse others of "railroading," when, perhaps, they are just being good DMs and don't happen to follow a play-style where the players get to "fail forward" and NPCs motivations are determined before the dice are rolled rather than afterwardsYou are again making baseless accusations. I do not believe you can point to an example of myself giving a spell the most restrictive interpretation possible. I tend to allow players to use whatever tools they have, by the book. This does not mean that I think that others always interpret spells right. cf. astral projection and luck blade previously. But I resent the idea that my interpretation is somehow overly restrictive. Charm is a perfect example. I have never disallowed Charm or had a problem with it in game. It works just fine, as written. About half the time, when it is used, it fails, for whatever reason (saves mostly) and the other half, it makes someone friendly. Its never been a game breaker for me. Nor have any PC wizards using it in my games ever been killed by barmaids, arrested by guards or any such thing. Of course my players tend not to be stupid enough to try and use it on possible friends in high places. Can you honestly not see why insulting other people makes you harder to talk with?  As to your accusation, I was giving examples of why a DM might tell a player "No," in the context of an attack.  I was not suggesting a DM just arbitrarily throw up roadblocks, simply because he felt like it. To me, the word "No," is a perfectly legitimate word for a DM to use, and the DM might have valid reasons for doing so. Your continued insistence on assuming bad faith on the part of DMs other than yourself is a bit grating. I do not believe you can find a quote where I called anyone incompetent. I do think that good DMing takes practice. I assume most of us have proved our bona fides that we have a few years under our belt. I do also believe, and I think everyone is in agreement on this, that different playstyles may create some problems that other playstyles do not and some mechanics will work better with different playstyles than with others. I do not think this contention is controversial at this point, and therefore, if you have problems with certain mechanics, and others do not, it is worth looking at what the difference in playstyles or gaming habits are before ruling the rules are broken.  I am not talking about limiting caster power, except as in not giving players free reign to tell DMs what happens in the game is limiting (but that is a playstyle choice and not of itself a bad playstyle, though it may be different than yours). I am fine with my high level casters being powerful. They still, with all that power, do not outshine the rogues or fighters in our group. Nor do I believe, though you keep insinuating, that I am somehow changing spells, or nerfing them against the rules, in order to somehow limit caster power. I do believe that a dynamic gameworld that responds to casters does a great deal to make casters self-regulate themselves. If selling your soul to gain the service of a devil has actual in-game consequences, then casters, especially good aligned ones, will think twice before calling up devils, demons, and such. This is not, as I am understanding the continued use of the term, DM force; rather it is the natural assumption of the designers, that DMs will make good decisions about how powerful, intelligent beings would react to mortals trying to cut deals with them. I have yet to see a legitimate example of a really game breaking spell. Charm is certainly not it. Lesser Planar Binding is not it. Magic Jar is far from game breaking IMO. Divination spells have never been a problem, especially as, half the time, the players don't know the right question to ask. And when they do know, its normally beneficial towards moving the plot along. Simply put, the spells work just fine, as is, in a dynamic game world which responds vibrantly and meaningfully to the players and their choices. Caveat: Polymorph, under 3.5, as noted before, is an exception to this opinion, not because of an inherent problem with the spell, but because of the creation of evermore monster books and therefore corner cases. I never had much problem with polymorph but I can understand how DMs with pushy players might have. Pathfinder solved this problem rather elegantly, and I recommend, as I have already, the Pathfinder solution to the polymorph problem.</blockquote>

Verification