Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7533937" data-attributes="member: 6880599">Your ignoring my argument and making it something I never said. I never said, the players should get what ever they want or that the impacted NPC/Player should have to obey the players whim. I said their should be a role and it should have an impact on the effect. Your agreement is take the far extreme that I already said in multiple posts is too far because when used against a target player would mean trading one lose of agency for another.  "There is no DC.  It's just not possible." is lose of agency because your denying the attempt that is no different from "It's not loss of player agency if the guards don't let you into see the king." Its literally the same thing. If you want to make an task impossible … ok, but you then apply an effect on skill test failure and skill test success in which they might achieve a partial goal even if they stated goal is impossible. I the example of the king and the money I already said I would "not allow the the king be persuaded to give way all his treasure" but I would require a test, I would punish a failure and I would reward a success based on the skill used. If that failure would be death and the reward be that King laughs and continues on his way  allowing a better than normal result, or perhaps an opportunity to get a quest from the king for having a pear if they rolled really well, that's fine as long as if another player tried it the options would be the  same and the skills the player choose have an impact on that roll, the player gets to try what he wants and I don't disregard their choices as a player for their character. An auto fail, is "Your character wouldn't do that.  You may not even try." but its masked in conflict avoidance because when a GM is stealing player agency but doesn't want to admit to the crime out loud at risk of scrutiny from their entire D&D group. I have seen this first hand where an GM autofails an attempt at something the player rolls a natural 20 with a +15 and fails the test that was fez able to complete then the whole group complains about what a dick the GM is after the game. Its okay for the GM to make things impossible but its not ok for the GM to deny a Player character skills entirely. Those are very close but not the same.I had a character with high perception and we had GM who like ambushes who autofailed 100% of my spot checks so that he could trigger ambushes right on top of us and we are surprised. The group stopped him after a few session and said "look he is the party scout, that is yet another awesome roll that resulted in not spotting anyone and ambushers right on top of us with a surprise round, stop metagaming already!" He admitted to doing it for "Narrative" but as we pointed out that's not D&D as group story teliing its railroading. He could still do ambushes but with a character on active lookout that character should get a role and with a success some level of result from that skill. If an ambush is needed for the party narratively, It can still happen just let the scout know at the last second so that one party member does not get "surprised" and it triggers before he can want the part. That is something. But nullifying party member skills drives GMs to railroading taking away player agency for what they want to happen instead of playing together. D&D is not GM story time, its a group game.</blockquote>

Verification