Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by Grantig

Missing out additional info, as a history check fails and maybe later coming to a wrong assumption is completely different from such hard-checks as "kid dies because surprise skill check in the middle of a conversation".
A hard-check in a surprise situation, okay, but several of the checks here seem just to be there to enforce reloading.

That is another critical point. In D&D you always know that "phew, ok...gonna go talk to that druid. Can someone cast guidance on me? Druid player, can I get enhance ability on Charisma? Oh, I cast disguise self on me to make myself look like a wood-elf. Here goes nothing!"

NOW you can mess with rolls being important. Players know, will prep, will get info, use spells, all of that before going in and talking to an important NPC. If I narrated them walking into a tense situation with the King of All Lands and God and Satan and they saw it from 100 feet and cut them off as they began to whisper plans on what to do and said "So, you continue walking the 100 feet up to them. They immediately notice you. What do you say". Lol, wow that is fucking them. That is exactly what they do with cut scenes over and over for this stuff.

The thing is, in this Kagha situation, you can do all that stuff. You probably have talked to the tieflings and know that Kagha has arrested their child for stealing the idol, so you have in information to prep. Cast guidance and disguise self on yourself before you open the stone door.

If you don't prep before opening the door, that's kind of on you. And at that point you're 15 feet away, and maybe your DM would still allow you to cast guidance. But most DMs would either not allow that or would roleplay the Kagha noticing the players and asking "Hey, why are you casting all those spells aimed at influencing opinions on yourself from 15 feet away from me?" (which the game can't do)

It is why I made a broader point and the details that you are referencing were contextual to that. I maybe be just one DM, and not most, so I cant speak for the world, but I do have some experience in this:

[Linked Image]

When an NPC says "Kagha is waiting for you in the door" you don't blow all your spells (actual rest mechanic wink ) for....what exactly? talking? sneaking? saving children? for what is a meet and greet. You don't place people into important situations blind. The level of information gathering you are talking about still doesn't lead to the expectation that you cross that threshold and need to deal with her about to kill a kid. Even seeing the kid, you dont expect her to be anything more than an overprotective druid scolding a child. I am sorry, it is unreasonable to think that given the information you are given and the likelihood of piecing it together on your first time playing the game to be able to prepare for that conversation sufficiently that you can give yourself a good chance at having the outcome you wanted (not that you KNOW what the situation is!).

Guards would take you to her. They would make you wait while you watched a conversation like what happened. You MIGHT be able to say "no!". The point, like I said quite clearly, was that shouldn't have been a life or death scenario. Regardess of the guard rails you put up to keep it moving forward, the stakes are too high for what you could reasonably expect to influence having literally just walked in the door. If they want to kill the kid for narrative and Kagha building,then do so. If not, give a buffer where people can try to make sense of the scenario before having to pull the trigger.

The bolded here? This is a misconception on your part. This is something that a quality DM may, in fact, have in store for their campaign. This, is why I would never want to play in a campaign you run, because it's all going to be "oh, that's fine, you won xxx automatically". I can sit home and write all of that I'd ever need to feel good about myself, or my gaming sessions. What about this event was not foreshadowed, even if not the exact situation? Did you not get the same cutscene the rest of us did upon first approaching the grove? What I didn't expect to find was a subordinate Druid disageeing with her decision to imprison the girl, a fact that makes even less sense after this encounter, when you talk to him. Again, she's not planning to kill the girl. Nothing in her dialog points to that being her intention, she even blatantly says to lock her up until the ritual, and yet, you come here and claim her intent was to kill the girl, after citing your experience as a GM? It's spoken dialog, and you still missed it?