Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6302846" data-attributes="member: 17106">Whether the DM thinks you have a chance or not is deeply embedded in the mechanics. If you try something that is impossible, he's the one who makes the call as to where that is.For example, if you try to cast Magic Missile on the darkness, he's the one who says that the darkness isn't a valid target for the spell. If you try to spot the aromatic vapor wafting off of a rose, he's the one who tells you that isn't visible to the naked eye. If the player tries to use a Craft check to create the first computer, that's probably not happening. In these types of cases, he may allow you to try the action, which may involve rolling dice, or he may not. He may actually decide on a DC number that is arbitrarily high and unmakeable, or he may just say that the action fails. All of this is perfectly transparent and within the rules.And somewhere, there's a line between possible and impossible, and the DM is deciding where that is. What if a character wants to bluff a cleric into believing his god doesn't exist? The cleric is brimming over with proof of the deity's existence and has devoted his life to the cause, but it is at least conceivable to imagine such a thing happening. Is that check possible? Maybe. Maybe not. And what if it's simply a character trying to talk to someone who refuses to speak to him, which is certainly conceivable. Is that check possible? Maybe. Maybe not. Somewhere the impossible ends and the possible begins, but where that is will vary considerably by DM.And again, this is how the rules were intentionally designed.***It doesn't follow, however, that the DM is enacting what he wants to happen, his motivations are up to him. Another part of leadership is not always being selfish and doing what you want. Sometimes you might have to make a decision that isn't appealing to you because you think it's for the greater good. If the DM is dictating an outcome, that does not tell you very much at all about what he wants (and indeed, it's probably in his best interest to keep you in the dark about that). It simply tells you what happened.It also doesn't follow that this constitutes sole authorship of the narrative, since a narrative is composed of more than one event. If a session consists of the DM simply telling the players what happened for four hours, then this might be a concern. But if it consists of him telling the players various things that happened for say, three hours, interspersed with an hour of the players' choices actually having a meaningful impact, and no one is quite clear on where one ends and the other begins, well that's a (probably very player-driven) collaborative game. As with life in general, playing D&D is about making the choices in front of you, which rarely amounts to complete control.</blockquote>

Verification