Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6304324" data-attributes="member: 17106">If we're talking about intended or appropriate use, I would suggest we should also acknowledge that the other rules are not there for players to break the game, which seems to be what certain others are advocating some of the time.Not everyone, but I think it's natural. I don't expect people to be better in the game than they are in real life. And I'm not really sure that "defensive" is what I'm advocating; I'm simply saying that the DM is not "defenseless". There is nothing that could happen in a game against his will.In practice, I will frequently let my players walk all over whatever plans or ideas I might have, but it's important to understand that this is me letting them do it because I think it's wise, not them exercising an entitlement. What I won't let them do is behave irrationally or dictate parts of the game that they don't control or break the world. Fortunately, they don't try that stuff much anymore, partially because of relationships and trust and all that, but partially because they are no longer teenage boys.Not necessarily, by any means.One of the reasons I went down that particular road is simply because it's a familiar one to me. In searching for an example of impossible skill checks, the idea of getting in to see a dignitary is something that is notably impossible for me, despite the fact that I walk by them (being a Washington, DC resident) on a regular basis. I cannot go to the White House right now and talk to the President. How persuasively I ask (which maps to a Diplo check in D&D) is irrelevant; the Secret Service will not entertain this notion regardless. If I try to drug the escort of some foreign ambassador surreptitiously (the closest equivalent of a charm), I will end up in jail. These things obviously fail. So the idea of sheltered or inaccessible people seems apparent to me. There are, and have been for most of human history, many people who were simply walled off from society.I also think that a naturalistic application of game rules results in a certain magic as technology situation, that suggests that rulers in D&D must be concentrating power the way that actual rulers do, both contemporary and historical. I don't necessarily think that every ruler must be a high-level character, but I do think that every ruler must have a decent portion of the powerful characters in his area under his direct or indirect employ. I'm sure that someone tried charming his way into a king's chamber once, and maybe it even worked once. And then the world adapted.I struggle to understand the style some people have wherein the people in their fantasy worlds are unaware that they live in fantasy worlds and are unprepared for common supernatural phenomena. Low magic settings I understand, but not high magic settings where everyone other than the PCs is unaware that they are in a high magic setting.</blockquote>

Verification