Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6304456" data-attributes="member: 17106">I've very rarely seen that happen, even from my perspective as a player, even having had plenty of DMs who had their problems. Certainly not relative to the amount of unreasonable actions that players push.But to go back to the point I made about operator error earlier (one that the continuation of that DMG paragraph makes clear as well), the game itself is not responsible for people using it poorly. That's the point of the whole "rocks fall and you die" idea. As a DM, you are absolutely entitled to do just that. But that doesn't mean you should. Why would you?In the example I'm referencing about interacting with nobles and their henchmen, the question is if the DM is being reasonable and the player unreasonable, is the player entitled to throw the book at the DM and overrule his judgement.True, but so can perfectionism. The DM is in charge of everything not because he is always right, but because having someone be in charge enables the game to run quickly and smoothly. ""A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later" (also something that I've seen in the DMG, though that is hardly the original source.All of which I'm totally on board with.And again, the examples I'm talking about are only if the players do something genuinely wrong. If they don't, no worries. A lot of things fall within the realm of actions that I will accept.That's why I think using rules as world-building tools, rather than treating them as exceptions, is valuable. Real world combat has changed drastically over time with the application of technology. Someone with a rifle is "overpowered" relative to someone with a musket. However, the balance between comparable parties never changes.If we assume that Charm Person exists for everyone, than it follows that there must be other people who've tried to abuse it, and various successes and failures in that regard have shaped the world. If, then, there are people who are in power, we then accept that they have their power even though certain magic exists. It's not just charm magic. They're in castles even though you can teleport. Given all that, we can conclude that the social structures of the world and the powers enumerated in the PHB are integrated, and people have some ways of dealing with things. What those ways are will vary from table to table, but generally, a certain level of cultural competency with regards to dealing with adventurers will be assumed.High level play is certainly different.In a high level game, one might face a different question. If the PCs are trying to force their way in to see some noble, did people know they were coming? Are they celebrities whose movements are tracked by many? Are they of cosmic consequence, and do people run divinations on their likely actions, and do poweful entities have some sort of little black book with the PCs names (among others) in it? The scenario is very different.I don't operate with high-level play as a baseline assumption. I think it's fairly uncommon as a rule. My examples don't really account for how differently things might play out at high levels.However, the player of a 20th level character doesn't have any more narrative control than the player of a level 1 neophyte, magic or no. What he has is a different playing field. The definition of the reasonableness of his actions has changed based on context.***And, indeed I'm right now prepping a high-ish level game, wherein characters may very well be entering fortresses without the owner's permission and having some pretty involved conflicts with authority figures. Which is all well and good, but doesn't mean that my players will suddenly gain an entitlement to dictate outcomes.</blockquote>

Verification