|
|
|
#16 | |
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oklahoma City
|
Quote:
Then and now, I wanted to let the player do what he's good at, and not arbitrarily decide that this guy can't be manipulated, but I also didn't want to end up with a bunch of Will 18 mooks—I dislike that sort of response immensely, as a player. I don't have a problem with saying "no," but I don't want to say "no, because the story/GM requires that you can't do that here"—I need a legitimate reason, not a meta-game reason. Effectively, you're granting a character a situation-specific version of Indomitable. If you can assess enough penalties on the action, to the point where the attempt is pointless, as long as everyone agrees those penalties are legitimate, the issue is resolved. Then the question is "why/when?" and "how much?" (Side Note: the player-in-question added Bad Luck to his character, to give me, as GM, a free "fail" whenever I needed it)
__________________
The Art of D. Raymond Lunceford, The Daniverse: Core Group Annex The Daniverse Game Blog Last edited by Gigermann; 02-21-2016 at 10:57 AM. |
|
|
|
|
| Tags |
| social engineering |
|
|