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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7084084" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't understand why you're trying to correct me on my understanding of an episode of play that I GMed and you didn't, using a mechanic that (as best I'm aware) you are not familiar with and that I am very familiar with.The players succeeded in a skill challenge which established that the advisor revealed himself in a way that did not undermine the PCs' standing in the eyes of the baron (and other worthies), but rather redounded upon the advisor himself. That's not up for dispute: it's what happened at the table.The fact that you keep redescribing the outcome, by reference only to a narrow conception of the events in the fiction, rather than the actual outcome, doesn't change the reality of what actually took place. You say the challenge to out the advisor also prevents mitigation, even though one doesn't affect the other since they are two separate events. This assertion is an error. Success in the challenge established, in the fiction, the relationship (i) of the advisor to the baron and (ii) of the baron to the PCs.I don't know what you mean by "separate events", but neither (i) nor (ii) is separate from the players' success in the skill challenge. They are the direct consequences of that success.Thus, when - in the next session - I started framing something that put that success into doubt, a player called me on it. He was correct to do so. The players are entitled to their victory, and it is not liable to being undone by GM reframing.</blockquote>

Verification