(in D&D at least)

  • Dae@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 day ago

    I 90% agree. I think most of the opposition to this comes from people exhausted with habitual boundary-pushers who think that a nat 20 means they can get away with defying the laws of reality.

    Like, no, a nat20 persuasion does not convince the merchant to give you half his stock and all the money in the register… He would go broke and he’s got a family to support, along with his own survival that your nat20 does not also convince him to stop caring about.

    But at the end of the day, a lot of GMs who are sick of that need to be sent the dictionary page for the word “no.” The occasional use of it really does improve the quality of the game, and I’m sure plenty of players will appreciate not letting aforementioned boundry pushers continue to waste time on impossible pursuits that do nothing to move the game forward.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      “No” needs to be said before the roll, IMO. Then If the player insists on doing something impossible anyway, just role-play the failure. With that said, actions that are in a narrow sense impossible can still have positive outcomes and if there’s the potential for that then I’d say roll for it. The proverbial dragon seduction attempt can still possibly flatter a dragon with a big ego enough to benefit the PC even if it doesn’t get the PC laid.

    • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’ve seen this easily solved by assuming the 20 succeedes but the DM decides how exactly.

      “Okay. The dragon loves you know. They realize you have their old lover’s eyes. You remember this too. Old tales in your family that you thought were a joke. You are apparently related. And they do love you now.”

      If you can’t trust your players to act like adults and show some basic maturity. That’s a different issue.

      • Dae@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        This is also a great way to handle it; malicious compliance/monkey paw. Makes for some humorous moments.

        And yeah, if a player is constantly having to be told no, a talk may need to be had, and if it can’t be resolved, they probably need to go. It’s also a reason why Session 0’s are so important; talking out what’s expected of the campaign both on the part of the players and what the GM has in mind.

        • Corn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Having that 1 player being stalked by a horny dragon for the rest of the game, just in case.