NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jackinthegreen" data-source="post: 6105114" data-attributes="member: 6678119">I would characterize Celebrim forcing the skill checks as being true to the game but in now way thinking they're there to screw you over.  You're the one who pulled up a mount after all, so the checks are therefore expected.  If you wanted to entirely ignore the desert, that was definitely not the best choice because there are rules attached that everyone is obligated to play through regardless of whether they fail or succeed.  He wasn't doing it because he wanted you to fail.  He was doing it because the game demanded those checks based on the situation.Or did it? I agree that the checks could have been handwaved by simply asking what everyone's Ride modifiers were then saying "Despite falling off the centipede several times and even having to tie someone to the centipede to keep them on, you make it to the city without much problem.  You can roleplay the falls if you want."  You had complete control of the centipede so it's not like falling off would have been a serious thing to worry about much less enough to keep wasting time on the checks.  Or perhaps a few rolls were called for and the DM used those to be the average for the trip.  It's a bit like the way Heroes of Battle recommends streamlining large battles: Take the average and deduct troops and such from each side since rolling for all of them just isn't practical.I think we need to clarify something though: You said there were  interesting things in the desert, but you didn't care about them.  To  wit, you probably didn't think they were interesting if you didn't care  about them.  So, to you, there's nothing interesting.  Maybe later if  you cared to learn more about it, but certainly not right now.  Does that seem like a reasonable way to state your opinion?There might have been a way for the characters to know about stuff in the desert though.  Knowledge checks are one example that could have been used right then and there in your game.  You've never mentioned they were called for though, so it's assumed they didn't happen.  Since they didn't happen, either due to the DM not cuing you guys to do it or you guys didn't show the initiative, the other option would have been to give background story before you guys arrived at the desert.  Which could very well have been reasonable since the city you want to go to is on the edge of that desert and knowing the area around your point of interest could be valuable.  But since you haven't mentioned whether the DM actually gave information out, it's safe to say the players and characters effectively had no reliable information on the desert and thus it's entirely reasonable that they didn't give a damn about it because there was simply no information to care about.  Or the DM could have simply said "Once you all figure out where you are, you realize you know X, Y, and Z about this desert."But keep in mind that just because your experiences are that DMs are out to get people doesn't mean that that experience is true for everyone.  It quite demonstrably isn't since there are DMs who know that making players fail for the sake of making them fail is a douchebag move.  Celebrim and N'raac, among others, are clearly not the same DMs that screwed you over and definitely don't have the mentality that screwing over the player is a good thing.  It's actually rather sad that your experiences have led you to believe that DMs are out to get their players since such DMs have clearly failed their job of making the game work, and I hope it's something you can learn just isn't the case with a lot of them.Going back to the grell example, I recall you said that the DM wanted the grell there for a very specific reason, so it doesn't seem likely that that DM would have moved it.  Could you repeat the circumstances of that though so it's clear?  If the grell is there because the DM has a definite reason for it to stick around, then having it move is definitely not in the DM's interests.As for the horse, it's been clearly stated that having the horse turn out lame isn't a way to go "gotcha!"  It's an expected possibility if the player/character hadn't put much time into making sure the horses were suitable.  The trouble I see with that is having the possibility of the horse being lame could be more hurtful to the situation than simply saying "you get on a sturdy horse and get where you want to" instead of playing out the simulation.  How much would having that possibility add to the game?  It doesn't seem like a lot from my end, and it certainly doesn't seem like anything from yours.</blockquote>

Verification