Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7141620" data-attributes="member: 6857506">Sorry, I think maybe my questions came across with a tone I did not intend. I just wanted to understand your methodology more thoroughly, including a bit beyond the bounds of the particular example since sometimes context matters. I didn't mean to imply that there was a problem.So it sounds like you judged the DC to be, more or less, 20.&nbsp; Seems perfectly reasonable.&nbsp; But given the circumstances (at least so far as I know them), a DC of 25 would also have been plausible.&nbsp; Which sort of brings me back to my question - would you ever set a DC that you knew the PC could not succeed at?&nbsp; If so, would you have them roll anyway?I think there is still some room between &quot;not terribly difficult&quot; and &quot;invincible&quot;, and, at least for me, that territory includes situations in which success via a given approach might be possible for some character, but not for any of a given batch of PCs.I think I understand the sentiment, but really I think all DMs sort of by definition establish much of the context of the game, and likewise all DMs allow their players to establish some parts of the game.&nbsp; It's just where you draw the line.To each his own, I suppose.&nbsp; As a player I think I would find it boring to adventure in a world that continually yielded to my will, even in a probabilistic fashion. But honestly, I have never tried it, and I also recognize that this is a playstyle that some folks definitely have fun with.I, um, ok, I think I'll just let this part go.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 7141620, member: 6857506"] Sorry, I think maybe my questions came across with a tone I did not intend. I just wanted to understand your methodology more thoroughly, including a bit beyond the bounds of the particular example since sometimes context matters. I didn't mean to imply that there was a problem. So it sounds like you judged the DC to be, more or less, 20. Seems perfectly reasonable. But given the circumstances (at least so far as I know them), a DC of 25 would also have been plausible. Which sort of brings me back to my question - would you ever set a DC that you knew the PC could not succeed at? If so, would you have them roll anyway? I think there is still some room between "not terribly difficult" and "invincible", and, at least for me, that territory includes situations in which success via a given approach might be possible for some character, but not for any of a given batch of PCs. I think I understand the sentiment, but really I think all DMs sort of by definition establish much of the context of the game, and likewise all DMs allow their players to establish some parts of the game. It's just where you draw the line. To each his own, I suppose. As a player I think I would find it boring to adventure in a world that continually yielded to my will, even in a probabilistic fashion. But honestly, I have never tried it, and I also recognize that this is a playstyle that some folks definitely have fun with. I, um, ok, I think I'll just let this part go. [/QUOTE]

Verification