Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="milotha" data-source="post: 1539004" data-attributes="member: 17122">This isn't aimed at you in particular, I've just been replying to your posts.  There are lots of other GMs and players out there who read, post, and lurk on these forums.  If I can prevent one GM from going down this path, then I've done a group of players a world of good.  If I make one person stop and consider what they are actually doing, then that is good.  If I made one  person realize that they only pay lip service to not railroading the players with high DCs, then good.  I'm not saying that you in particular are doing this.As I've stated before, I find the DCs that many GMs set to be problematic.  I've had DCs set to 20 for diplomacy checks just to purchase common items at book price.  I've had GMs set the diplomacy DC at what must have been over 35 get get spells as a wizard from the local mages guild that they were members of in what was supposed to be a normal mana world.  I've had DCs set to over 30 to intimidate a non spell caster mercenary we have tied up with a knife to his throat after playing good cop bad cop on him.  I've seen diplomacy roles of 40 or above be ineffectual in our home town to get non magical assistance from a lawful good temple that asked us to do something for them.  Why?  Because the GM didn't want us to do these things.Now, why do I know this for one campaign, well, at one point I discussed some of my problems with the GM, and after a bit I realized that he was just rationalizing away these things because he didn't want us to do these things.  He basically admitted that he didn't want us doing them, so this was his method of stopping us.  I finally just quit the campaign because it was an exercise in futility.Now why am I blaming 3.X.  1) These things didn't happen like this for me under the previous editions.  Now, as I stated I think in my first post, perhaps this was an abberation.  I was never forced into having rolls decide entire negotiations.  Plus, I found that in previous editions the GMs were far more likely to actually listen to what the players were doing, and then try to respond to it.  Your Experience May Vary.2) I think that having a mechanic serves as a shield for the GMs.  They go, well I set a DC.  So, what if none of the players could reach it.  This makes them feel as if they themselves aren't preventing the players, but the dice and the mechanic are.  So, what if the DC was completely unreasonable. So what if the players with max skill ranks had to roll a 20 to reach it.   Just because the rules for DCs are written up in the book, it doesn't mean that all GMs are following these rules.  Things get ignored, forgotten, or house ruled.  Plus if the DC is kept secret how can you argue with it- you don't.3) Rolling for everything, including simple actions.  This didn't happen under previous editions for me.  Once again Your Experiences May Vary.4) I find it really sad that the way the skills and the skill points are stuctured reduces the amount of role playing that you can do if your class doesn't give you the skills or the skill points.  I find that the number of skill points narrows the character concepts and reduces the role playing potential.  Yes, I understand balance, but was this level or reduction really necessary?5) Lastly, the "I bluff the guy I got a 17 does it work" mentality gets old.  It's sad that this is allowed to work.Anyway, as for bluffing the players.  I have to say in 1e and 2e, we would have just said "No, we don't fall for it", and without a magic geas or other powerful spell, we wouldn't have obeyed the GM.  That's too much railroading, and most players won't tolerate it.Yes, we do have a 3.5/3.0 mix edition that I play and enjoy mightily.  I never said that it prevents role playing, I only contend that it encourages roll playing over role playing for some of the GMs out there.Anyway, best wishes in all.  I appologize if you took my posts as personally aimed at you.  They were not.</blockquote>

Verification