Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5495943" data-attributes="member: 2011">Effectively, what this means is that the DM sets the DC of the action (or maybe AC in this case).A DM who wants swashbuckler style results might give it a low AC.A DM who wants plausible style results might give it a higher AC.But both DMs should probably have the attempt fail if the player rolls a 1 on the D20 and succeed if the player rolls a 20 on the D20. Even though two DMs allow the attempt to be easier or harder, it should rarely be an automatic a success or an automatic failure.I find that the concept thrown about in the 4E community of "just say Yes" via bending/breaking the rules to sometimes be inadequate to my enjoyment of the game.There is nothing wrong with the DM allowing players to "attempt" actions, but some of those attempts should fail and some should succeed. Enjoyment is not just based on succeeding every time and having the DM say Yes every time. A lot of enjoyment is based on achieving success after multiple earlier failures. Most of the best battles are against the re-occurring villain that it takes many encounters (and possibly levels) to overcome, not the plethora of one time villains that get beat every single encounter.Responsibility?This seems like a waste of time.The power should work like the power is written. There is no need (or for some groups desire) to change the power for a given scenario in order to maintain the integrity of narrative license.Yes, it doesn't make a lot of sense that Come and Get It would work on Orcus, but too bad. It just works that way (unless he has a resistance to a certain amount of forced movement in some DM's world). No reason to on the fly change the rules or tell the player to use a different power.I find it more fun to have the game work per RAW/RAI than for a bunch of DM on the fly modifications to maintain narrative license (note: that does not mean that the players know everything about the scenario, things could work in an unexpected manner because the players are unaware of all of the facts). When the DM modifies the rules for narrative license reasons, he is making the assumption that he knows more about what is fun for his players than they know themselves and/or indicating that his direction for his narrative is more important than the desires of the players for the direction of the narrative.The classic examples of this are the Deus Ex Machina to keep the PCs alive when a TPK or near-TPK is about to occur, or the Deus Ex Machina of the villain escaping when he is on the verge of losing. More minor modifications of the rules/scenario to achieve a specific narrative result are just less annoying than major ones, but they are still annoying.</blockquote>

Verification