Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7795544" data-attributes="member: 22779">Whereas, to me, this is pretty much exactly what I'm arguing against and have been all the way along.&nbsp; The DM gets to say, &quot;Well, I gave you a chance to succeed, so, if you failed it was your fault&quot; and can absolve himself or herself of any responsibility.&nbsp; The fact that the failure was virtually guaranteed and the set up was completely borked from the outset isn't mentioned.Thinking about this, yeah, I can't see this as anything other than bad faith on the part of the DM.&nbsp; Setting up the players to fail is poor DMing.&nbsp; If the DM doesn't want skills to overlap with class abilities, just SAY THAT.&nbsp; Don't hide behind &quot;Oh, well, I gave you a chance&quot; as an excuse.&nbsp; Be honest with the player.Just because people will try it sometimes doesn't make it good.&nbsp; You wouldn't take the bet, after all.&nbsp; Why not?&nbsp; Why wouldn't you take a bet where one in four, you get your money back, but three in four you pay double?This, to me, is a perfect example of what I've been talking about all the way along.&nbsp; Goal and approach is great, when it's actually goal and approach.&nbsp; But, this isn't goal and approach, because the DM is stepping in with his own personal preferences - no replicating class abilities - and creates trap options instead of being clear with the player.And there you are, [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER], patting him on the back for it.&nbsp; And you wonder why I have issues with trusting DM's.&nbsp; [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] just flat out admitted that the reason the DC was that high had nothing to do with goal:approach methods, but, rather to force his players to play in a certain way.&nbsp; I'm not making that up.&nbsp; He directly said that.So, yeah, color me rather skeptical about the inherent &quot;fairness&quot; of the goal:method approach when every single example reveals unfair approaches by DM's and a lack of understanding of the math of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7795544, member: 22779"] Whereas, to me, this is pretty much exactly what I'm arguing against and have been all the way along. The DM gets to say, "Well, I gave you a chance to succeed, so, if you failed it was your fault" and can absolve himself or herself of any responsibility. The fact that the failure was virtually guaranteed and the set up was completely borked from the outset isn't mentioned. Thinking about this, yeah, I can't see this as anything other than bad faith on the part of the DM. Setting up the players to fail is poor DMing. If the DM doesn't want skills to overlap with class abilities, just SAY THAT. Don't hide behind "Oh, well, I gave you a chance" as an excuse. Be honest with the player. Just because people will try it sometimes doesn't make it good. You wouldn't take the bet, after all. Why not? Why wouldn't you take a bet where one in four, you get your money back, but three in four you pay double? This, to me, is a perfect example of what I've been talking about all the way along. Goal and approach is great, when it's actually goal and approach. But, this isn't goal and approach, because the DM is stepping in with his own personal preferences - no replicating class abilities - and creates trap options instead of being clear with the player. And there you are, [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER], patting him on the back for it. And you wonder why I have issues with trusting DM's. [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] just flat out admitted that the reason the DC was that high had nothing to do with goal:approach methods, but, rather to force his players to play in a certain way. I'm not making that up. He directly said that. So, yeah, color me rather skeptical about the inherent "fairness" of the goal:method approach when every single example reveals unfair approaches by DM's and a lack of understanding of the math of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification