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: 6243928" data-attributes="member: 6681948">It illustrates my concern that, if the die rolls do not indicate a failure on the part of the PC when unsuccessful, then logically they also do not indicate any success on the part of the PC when successful.  That is, the "die roll creates circumstances" logic indicates that the PC neither succeeds nor fails based on his own skills - the die roll indicates something else.I'm not sure which point you would stay on - the thread goes in a lot of directions.The fire and acid read a lot more like he was being tortured, and they expect that to continue.I think [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] shifted the challenge from social to physical, as he says.  My point is simply that there seems no way to have an actual social challenge under this model.  The shifting backstory meant they could pretty much do as they pleased and, through a combination of "fail forward" and "successful roll means intent realized", whatever they chose would lead to success eventually.  Unless, apparently, the half orc wants to use his belching skill - I find it odd that this is so clearly wrong, but converting a negotiation into an execution is just standard, even good, play.So, if another player had objected to the attempt on the Chamberlain's life, would that mean Quinn's enchantment would fail?  Which successful rolls can players override, and which can they not?  It seems to me this started because of objections to a GM  either overriding a die roll or ruling it could not succeed at the outset - "say yes or roll the dice"; "the rules as written must be followed".  Why is it OK for players to "say no despite the dice"; "override the rules"?My question was more directed at the player theory than the character motivations.  However, given our investment, would it have been OK for sheadunne (or someone else) to have redirected that challenge to violence/combat, or is this scene somehow different?I think a lot of us have seen your interpretations as very questionable as well, including those two spells, but anyone interested in those discussions can locate them in the history, I expect.  To summarize, however, I don't think is any less reasonable than interpretingto mean that Glabrezu cheerfully grant any wish which is selfish, or harms someone (but somehow, not to someone else within the past month).Similarly, “lethal” seems at least somewhat more reasonable than “dismissed as never having any effect” when interpreting</blockquote>

Verification