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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6204039" data-attributes="member: 6681948">[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] – are you good with in-game “You cannot arrange a meeting with the Chamberlain, no way, no how”, or out of game ”you can’t persuade him so I’m not framing the scene”?   My sense is that you would rather meet the Chamberlain, discover you cannot succeed, and then seek alternatives in character.  As a player, that would be my preference. Did the roll succeed?  The GM concludes and that decides the issue. I find the continued efforts to restrict the definition falls well within that Calvinball realm. Exactly – let us use our resources, even if our use will not generate success.  While I am sure it’s not [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s intent, it seems like tossing out scene ideas until I hit one we have a shot at success in is “Mother May I” gaming, to at least the same extent as having to ask if I may use my skills. So why is a Chamberlain who cannot be persuaded to allow you to see the King so appalling?  I suspect because you can’t get to see the King.  You can, perhaps, gather intel on the Chamberlain or make other contacts in the course of the scene.  At a minimum, you now know something is up with the Chamberlain and can decide how best to investigate this.  If such a scene is impossible in Indie Play, then to me that is a weakness in the playstyle. It has nothing to do with balance.  It is an effort to magically influence the target’s mind.  It is an offensive spell with a saving throw.  It’s easier than diplomacy, and may carry some benefits diplomacy would not.  But it is also riskier, and carries potentially more serious consequences. Let’s say instead that the chamberlain is greedy and we offer him a bribe to get a bonus.  Is there no risk that will be discovered, even if successful, with negative repercussions against the characters, or is it just a free bonus? To me, those complications are natural outgrowths of the strengths and limitations of the spells.  It is  no more Calvinball than your addition of more opposition when the PC’s overcome the immediate challenge, and quite reasonably could be interpreted as less so. Agreed.  This binary “either it works perfectly every time (and wizards are overpowered) or you are adversarially Calvinballing the player by enforcing the weaknesses, not just the strengths, of the spell” is an annoying approach. Agreed.  And I find it especially problematic coming from the same playstyle that suggests all players will act in good faith to the shared narrative to then suggest a GM adjudicating a challenge would most likely be acting in bad faith.</blockquote>

Verification