Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8016729" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think that when you say "are also going to be shared" what you really should be saying is "may also be shared". And although I agree that a player may have a good idea of odds based on the DM sharing details and also based on familiarity with the DM and his/her style.....I said as much in my post.....I don't think it's the same. One is a case of math. The other is determining someone's opinion, someone who may or may not share their reasoning for that opinion. Many DMs on these boards have said they often don't share DCs with their players. That alone can create a huge gray area. Factor in other uncertain elements, and the gray area simply grows. No, you really don't.You know he is unstable and does not like dissent. You also know he's used to bossing around meek townsfolk. How will the Baron react when someone clearly more powerful than he....an outsider unconcerned with his influence, and capable of toppling his little regime....shows up and insults him? Certainly these are different circumstances. And that's to say nothing of the fact that moments before, two other party members were negotiating with him amicably. There are any number of ways for the DM to adjudicate here. You do not have a clear picture at all. Especially since you are only operating on the information that the DM has chosen to share with you, and he may have been able to share more. From the player perspective, the baron is an obstacle to be overcome, right? Let's compare this with something that D&D is more specific about. Let's say the party is hearing about a dragon in the area....and how "its hide is made of impenetrable plates that protect it from all attacks!" This is likely an indication to the players that the dragon has a high AC. Is it an indication to them that if they attack it, they will be unable to hurt it? Is the Baron's dislike of disobedience a challenge to the PCs to overcome? Or simply an indication that they must try another means? Which is it? How will players know? Because when townsfolk get out of line, he throws them in the stocks?Let's look at another scenario.....what if Strahd arrived in the Baron's hall and insulted him? Would the Baron cry "Guards!" with the intent of seizing the Count and placing him in the stocks? Or should the DM take into consideration that Strahd is far different from the humble folk that populate Vallaki?So the DM in the OP thought it made sense that the Baron would simply call for the guards because one PC insulted him. Is the DM's opinion that the Baron would do so good enough reason to ignore the rules? Is this bad faith play on the DM's part? And again, you say the "players can reasonably rely..." and I think it's more accurate to say that "the players may be able to rely....". "Can" implies certainty that is absent in this scenario. The DM is responsible for what the players know about the world and the NPCs and everything else. Sometimes, players miss details or cues that they may need to be aware of. Sometimes, a DM may not be as clear with those as he thinks he's being. This stuff happens. "Less clear" by no means "equals a very good chance". It may be any amount within a pretty substantial range of understanding.I fail to see the relevance of this point about how close I am to the earth. I was making a point about an overly broad description, not broad presence.The DL series of modules is often cited as exactly that, isn't it? It's a pure railroad....you climb aboard and then it goes where it goes no matter what you do. I think that's an extreme example, but it's one that comes up a lot. And for the record, I don't think that D&D is generally played with no agency on the part of its participants. I simply believe that it can be played that way. And that it can be prone to unnecessary limits on player agency.The PC may break his foot. The DM can decide that is the result of failure. Do the rules as written block this? The player doesn't get to dictate what a failure entials, the DM does. No house rules are needed for this to be the case, although I would say that it's out of the ordinary. It's rather more dynamic than what D&D typically allows in these circumstances, but I think it's supported by the rules.I don't think that it takes "bad faith" DMing for the DM to say no inappropriately. The OP wasn't DMing in bad faith, but I think he very well could have gone another route with his decisions. He could have allowed the insult to cow the Baron, he could have simply applied a setback to whatever progress the negotiations had taken, he could have went to the dice to see how it played out. Well, yes, limits on player agency are absolutely acceptable, limited or otherwise.</blockquote>

Verification