|
In my game last week, a PC made the perception check for the stork/quasit, pointed it out to the other PCs, one of whom immediately said "look! Food!" and shot his bow at it initiating combat.
Should they have gotten the +4 for the town track for violence? They were in the festival at the time, so lots of people would have seen the weapon carrying character say 'look food' and shoot an arrow at a bird for no 'reason'. But this was the festival, it could have been let loose from a petting zoo, or be tied to a midwife or psycic's tent, or be a pet of one of the hundreds of farmers in the tent city. I decided at the time that this counted as a violent act, even though they killed it and could present its true form as evidence (which they didn't do).
|
We had the same thing happen when I ran it. One player and another's pet Roc spotted the stork, pointed it out once they realized it had been following them, and decided to kill it, thinking it was a familiar spying on them.
The scenario's plot is so thin already, I basically asked them ooc to roll with it for a better finale, but it is one of those things that could have really ruined the scenario.
But it wasn't that they thought it was odd for being called out, they thought it was a animal companion or familiar, and didn't want to be spied upon, even though they essentially new what was going on.
|
How would they know it wasn't someone trying to help them?
How often do you get those compared with how often its something trying to kill you?
Pretty risky to kill a strange animal on first sighting with no way to know why it's watching you.
Its looking at me funny, KILL IT! Is otherwise known as adventuring.
Now, if someone could detect it was evil, then sure.
Of course its evil! the dm called for a perception check.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Um, well they could Detect Evil, (and Good, Law, & Chaos), but they couldn't because PLOT.
Im also, and its been a while, but Im not recalling anything implying it would come off as friendly as much as suspicious.
Um... how often have your PCs used a magic item to offset a known weakness? Why is it "PLOT" for an NPC to do the same? They are evil spys with an Aura. Of course they are going to try to hide their aura.
|
|
Um... how often have your PCs used a magic item to offset a known weakness? Why is it "PLOT" for an NPC to do the same? They are evil spys with an Aura. Of course they are going to try to hide their aura.Um, well they could Detect Evil, (and Good, Law, & Chaos), but they couldn't because PLOT.
Im also, and its been a while, but Im not recalling anything implying it would come off as friendly as much as suspicious.
Let me explain my big issue with this, (and the scenario) in a different way. It's not so much that the adventure uses an item. It's that the scenario goes out of it's way to utilize very bad DMing techniques to make it "work"".
If you read a lot of the tips and suggestions on how to be a good DM, one of the big things that often comes up is to not try to rob the characters of their class abilities or earned rewards, and especially not to do so because it wrecks your story. For example, if the players finally get access to Teleportation, don't suddenly come up with some contrived reason that they can't use it, (um,. . . that whole are area has a mysterious magical ward preventing magical travel, sorry you can't use it).
That's pretty much what the majority of the scenario does, makes up reasons why certain class features, spells, etc. . . do not work so that the, (pretty flimsy) story can work. Rather than try to allow players to use their cool features to have fun it robs them of them completely.
Without spoiling things, it's also a bit contrived that the certain NPC would have access to some of these things. On one hand, yes, there are probably going to be a lot of Cleric, Inquisitors, and Paladins around, but on the other it's a very specific spell requiring rather specific spellcasting classes, and is literally only there to prevent some classes from being able to use their toys and make sure the railroad is absolutely followed.
I think a much better way to do it would have been to allow things like Detect Evil to at least partially work, and to have given more information or insight into what's going on, but without revealing too much. For example, maybe if used on Ekira or Tobias at certain points, they catch the trail of evil, or even maybe locate something that the NPC dropped that is evil (a wand of Protection from Good) and no longer protected. Or maybe at some of the locations they do spot or sense an evil arua, but loose it, but it leads to something else. For example, at the fairgrounds, they sense evil for just a moment, and the little guy notices it, and flees behind the fair's house of mirrors, which blocks the divination just long enough for him to escape, but in a rush accidentally leaves a clue that they might find.
So it's all about how it's handled and how it's presented. There are also a few issues just are not answered about the story itself, and I personally feel everyone would have been much better served if that whole railroad train had been used to fill that in and strengthen the story instead.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
What was the quasit gonna do? Not deal with the huge weakness in his plan to corrupt an inquisitor with Detect Evil at will? For the record, on high tier Krunne does detect as evil as he's got 6HD.
I also don't think they nerfed Zone of Truth all that much. It's a so-so spell to begin with, but if Krunne fails his save, the PCs can still trap him with it, they just need to come up with good questions. The kind of questions that you can't evade without looking guilty.
When I ran it the party intended to use it to add believability to their own and the prisoners' testimony. Screw you Dalton, you go weasel while everyone else is speaking clear truth.
That said, if you're halfway competent, the clues already in the scenario are easy enough to find and use, and the checks aren't that tough. I ran it last thursday and pregen Hakon4 had an almost perfect trial, failing only one check.
The thing that irked them most was that Tovril was able to get away. Hakon even chugged his potion of fly to pursue, but Tovril's superior mobility eventually allowed him to slip off.
|
|
How would they know it wasn't someone trying to help them? Pretty risky to kill a strange animal on first sighting with no way to know why it's watching you. Now, if someone could detect it was evil, then sure.
I'm pretty sure Beckett is referring to his run of this scenario for our group.
We didn't actually kill it on our first sighting. I was playing the druid, and felt a stork that was watching us is certainly out of place in Dawnton. We had picked up a lead on the baldling man in town being another Pathfinder, and we wanted to find our fellow Pathfinder (to see if he was a real Pathfinder to compare notes or the dreaded Aspis smearing our names).
Playing a druid lacking Diplomacy, and knowing we were trying to dig up clues on the murders, my druid prepared a bunch of Speak With Animals and wanted to basically inquire about things from the birds, mice, etc in town - believing this to be beneficial in two ways: (a) animals wouldn't likely lie and (b) this wouldn't make the town more nervous because a bunch of people were poking around.
I've since prepped and run the scenario, and found it to be a bit clunky, especially when it comes to the GM trying to communicate to how the PCs should split up, then not split up, as they navigate scenes. The Opposition Track doesn't run as smoothly as it should.
The best player experiences that I've heard of come from not the GMs who tried to run the scenario as written (down to proper handling of the rumor rolls and the opposition track)... but those who had very little time to prepare the scenario and completely winged it and just let the players loose in sandbox mode. I know in PFS that GMs are supposed to run scenarios as they are written, but this one benefits greatly from ignoring the mechanics written and a GM improvising what the players hear and when, and simply springing encounters on the players when he/she feels it's appropriate.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Um... how often have your PCs used a magic item to offset a known weakness? Why is it "PLOT" for an NPC to do the same? They are evil spys with an Aura. Of course they are going to try to hide their aura.Um, well they could Detect Evil, (and Good, Law, & Chaos), but they couldn't because PLOT.
Im also, and its been a while, but Im not recalling anything implying it would come off as friendly as much as suspicious.
Let me explain my big issue with this, (and the scenario) in a different way. It's not so much that the adventure uses an item. It's that the scenario goes out of it's way to utilize very bad DMing techniques to make it "work"".
If you read a lot of the tips and suggestions on how to be a good DM, one of the big things that often comes up is to not try to rob the characters of their class abilities or earned rewards...
As someone who has GMed across a *lot* of systems, you are reading the GMing advice overbroadly.
Yes, if your players get teleport, every game should not take them into a dimensional anchor. But that doesn't mean a dimensional anchor should never come up. It just means that you should use it sparingly. I know of 2 scenarios where they use alignment concealment in season 5, out of like 26. that's pretty sparing.
Without spoiling things, it's also a bit contrived that the certain NPC would have access to some of these things. On one hand, yes, there are probably going to be a lot of Cleric, Inquisitors, and Paladins around, but on the other it's a very specific spell requiring rather specific spellcasting classes, and is literally only there to prevent some classes from being able to use their toys and make sure the railroad is absolutely followed.
Given what the NPC in question is trying to do, and who they are trying to do it to, their plan makes no sense if they don't have a way to stealth their alignment. In fact, not having that capacity would make the story completely improbable, as they could never have pulled off even the success they have had so far.
I think a much better way to do it would have been to allow things like Detect Evil to...
Except that isn't how that ability works.
Neither of the people involved is remotely powerful enough to leave a lingering aura. And why would they have dropped magic items? How often do your PCs drop wands they need to have.
Basically, you would rather change the rules of the spell, and auto-fiat perception checks (You notice it but then you lose it is fiating perception, and likely to lead your PCs to try to track the aura they sensed.) That is even worse GMing.
|
|
I was actually talking about altering the way the scenario was written/run than altering the rules.
That is to say, rather than giving the NPC class levels and gear specifically to prevent players from using their abilities, (what other explanation is there, and like I said, that is my issue, it's BAD storytelling), instead have more of a mystery and challenge to it that encourages/rewards use of those abilities without giving too much away.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
except your change requires the person writing the scenario to override core rule book rules and have low level auras leave a lingering aura, which they don't do. It also requires the Inquisitor NPC in the story to be even more implausibly stupid / delusional than she is already.
Their whole plan centers around preventing the Inquisitor from detecting them as evil. How can you write the scenario such that her detect has not picked up anything for the last several months of close interaction with them, but the PCs find all sorts of evidence.
(For the record, I understood that you were critiquing the scenario writing rather than advocating GM changes to it.)
|
|
There's a vast difference between "The dm is stopping you from doing something you should be able to do" and "the character is stopping you from doing something you would otherwise be able to do." If you know you need to lie you pop some beta blockers, do feedback training or put tack in your foot.
Worse Dming would be to have the bad guys act like idiots because thats the only way the pcs can win. (mind you, a core rogue attacking in a brightly lit house comes pretty close to that...)
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Spoilers ahead.
The entire premiss of the adventure is that a quasit (evil outsider) is pulling a scam on an inquistor.
The problem is, she has that exact same tool the PCs have. If the tool works, then the scenario *would* have played out a different way, several weeks before the PCs arrive. If you rule that the tool works for the PCs, but not for the inquisitor, then the whole thing falls apart on a fundamental rules level. (Same power works the same way for PCs and NPCs.)
The only way the scenario works at all is if the quasit has taken steps to prevent that power from working.
BNW, I don't remember his build, but if he doesn't have low light or dark vision, he has to attack in a brightly lit house or he doesn't get sneak attack damage.
|
|
I have no issues with bad guys hiding their alignment.
My issues with the scenario are what felt like a clunky investigation mechanic that could be totally done away with to improve the feel of the scenario.
As Beckett mentioned above, I was playing a druid, and knowing that we wanted to be discrete in town given their suspicion of Pathfinders, wanted to constraint my investigating to visiting locations where I'd speak with animals (and charm as needed), look around, look for tracks, etc. Specifically speaking with animals since they probably saw things, wouldn't lie about them, and would be forthcoming with those details to a druid as they wouldn't possess the biased fears of townspeople.
Instead, the rails of the scenario resulted in our first phase of investigation being my druid attempting and failing a Diplomacy check which would've not been something he'd want to attempt in character.
Then, to feel even weirder, despite not trying to hide or anything, he was rolling Stealth checks.
I have yet to run this scenario since it seemed so clunky and I wouldn't want to subject players to the awkward system within.
I recall another GM reinforcing the clunky point when he explained his table obtained all the "true rumors" in their first phase of exploration and because the "opposition track" hadn't advanced enough, they were essentially in limbo for a few days (and getting further confused) until the GM finally gave in and ignored the opposition track when the table started to get frustrated and ran the final encounter.
I suppose a question to a lot of the GMs here is - how much did you not run the scenario as it's written/codified (specifically the investigation/opposition mechanic) in order to deliver a more compelling experience?
To me it felt that the mechanics of the scenario were likely confusing and/or too limiting to a GM to focus on the mystery and deliver what could've been an amazing experience.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I ran the scenario pretty closely to the way it was written - I had a slight glitch in applying the opposition track. There's a lot of things you need to keep track of there.
The scenario does feel a bit over-complicated, but on the whole, I think it makes quite a bit of sense from the author's point of view.
1) The maligned split-up mechanic. If you watch detective series, this happens all the time.
- Bringing lots of people to a questioning makes the witnesses you're questioning nervous.
- How useful will PCs 3-6 be at the scene anyway? Since there's so much ground to cover in 2.5 days, it makes more sense to spread out.
- The PCs are trying to avoid attention. Moving around as a group would draw attention.
2) Spells that don't work. If the bad guys ignored these low-level spells we'd complain that they were being unbelievably stupid. And it's not like they don't work at all, just that the most blunt-force ways of using them don't work. On high tier, you can Detect Evil on Krunne (6HD, no spell). And it's not like Zone of Truth has no chance at all, just that he's ready to try weaseling out of it. So that challenges the players to actually RP questioning him in a way that's hard to evade.
3) Having a Town and Opposition track. These make sense, since the whole point is that the PCs are sent in to deal with a situation with rising tensions, and a murderer trying to spot the PCs. Dalton even sent a letter to the Society to lure a second team. Of course he's looking for them.
The thing that's missing, is a way for the PCs to go on the offensive. If they feel they've found enough evidence, they should be able to gather a crowd and attempt a re-trial. My players wanted to do this as soon as they found out about several of the pieces of evidence that didn't fit.
I think the scenario would've been better if it had anticipated the PCs being fast and effective, and included an alternate final encounter for these cases.
|
|
I found the best way to run this scenario was to let the players be creative in their investigation, then try to retrofit the subsystems to the PCs actions as best as possible. I was upfront that there was a certain amount of abstraction (i.e., "Well, you can do that, but that's going to count as your investigation phase.") I also allowed the PCs checks to clarify some things that were non-intuitive, ("Ok, so with your spellcraft you know of several options that would give a false negative for Detect Evil...)
For players inadvertently killing the demon ahead of time, I would adjust the Opposition track (and possibly the town track.. demons are a sensitive subject) and maybe throw in a bonus success for the final showdown depending on how they play it off.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I found the best way to run this scenario was to let the players be creative in their investigation, then try to retrofit the subsystems to the PCs actions as best as possible. I was upfront that there was a certain amount of abstraction (i.e., "Well, you can do that, but that's going to count as your investigation phase.") I also allowed the PCs checks to clarify some things that were non-intuitive, ("Ok, so with your spellcraft you know of several options that would give a false negative for Detect Evil...)
For players inadvertently killing the demon ahead of time, I would adjust the Opposition track (and possibly the town track.. demons are a sensitive subject) and maybe throw in a bonus success for the final showdown depending on how they play it off.
Basically, all of this.
the problem is not the scenario, which goes out of it's way to be malleable and adaptable, and provides the track as guides to what people are doing.
I have a ranger who does the same thing when he investigates, but in this scenario, there's no guarantee that any given animal would have witnessed anything. However, it was my impression that the scenario does encourage the GM to honor character efforts. There's a catchall for efforts that do not fit into the prescribed categories.
As Beckett mentioned above, I was playing a druid, and knowing that we wanted to be discrete in town given their suspicion of Pathfinders, wanted to constraint my investigating to visiting locations where I'd speak with animals (and charm as needed), look around, look for tracks, etc. Specifically speaking with animals since they probably saw things, wouldn't lie about them, and would be forthcoming with those details to a druid as they wouldn't possess the biased fears of townspeople.
Yes, there is a catchall for "player does something reasonable we haven't covered." In fact a sufficiently creative druid could probably "visit" every location without going to any of them. (question the animals near the farm would get you the farm rumors, question the stray dog by the store gets you the store rumors, etc.) Stealth would still be reasonable, for avoiding people talking about "that strange newcomer that keeps sneaking off into the woods where demonic rituals take place"
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
And for the record, I don't have a problem with the bad guys hiding their alignment. What I have an issue with is the scenario essentially mandating by fiat that the PCs will not be successful with DE, ZoT, etc. The scenario should say the bad guys are using X, and then its up to the GM to decide whether anything foils that. Grant it, if the rules are clear that DE registers nothing on a Commoner, that's fine to point it out.
Thats actually what the scenario does.
DE does not detect evil on non clerics less than level 4. It does not detect evil on creatures under unseen alignment. The scenario points out that in the low tier, the thief is too low a level to detect, and the quasit is using unseen alignment. (Note that it *does* detect as magical, and that K: arcane can tell you what effect it is under, and someone being under the effect of unseen alignment is probably a dead giveaway, and certainly an invitation to dispel...)
ZoT states that the subject is aware of it, and can try to equivocate. The scenario reminds you that the subject is aware of ZoT, and that he will definitely try to equivocate.
none of these are "fiating failure" beyond what is already in the rules. It just pulls all the relevant rules to the same place.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Note: "Most Interrogations."
"Did you do X? Answer the question, yes or no."
"Geez, you people are so impatient. To understand what happened, you need to understand the situation here. Let me explain."
"Just answer the question, yes or no"
"I am trying to answer the question, you keep interrupting." (He is trying to answer the question. that is the (limited) truth. He is trying to answer the question with out admitting his guilt, that is the full truth.)
He just has to keep this up for at most 5 minutes. Maybe 10.
speaking of the full truth.
Creatures within the emanation area (or those who enter it) can't speak any deliberate and intentional lies. Each potentially affected creature is allowed a save to avoid the effects when the spell is cast or when the creature first enters the emanation area. Affected creatures are aware of this enchantment. Therefore, they may avoid answering questions to which they would normally respond with a lie, or they may be evasive as long as they remain within the boundaries of the truth. Creatures who leave the area are free to speak as they choose.
Can the PCs trap him into admitting something damaging? sure. Is it going to be easy? No. Can you play his evasions back against him to condemn him in the eyes of the community? Definitely.
Remember, this is not a modern court of law with a judge who can cite him for contempt. This is a village green court, where what matters is who can play the crowd better and make the other side look like a villian. He cheerfully enters the zone of truth because he is arrogant and believes he can turn it back on people. As a person who has actually pulled off things like this in larp games and convinced people "oh, he must be telling the truth, he can't lie in a zone of truth, he must be innocent this time" (in spite of everyone knowing my character was a confirmed liar, a scoundral, having been spotted at the scene of the crime, and having left physical evidence behind...) his confidence is not entirely misplaced.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Except people aren't that simple.
As someone who has actually pulled this off, against people who "knew how zone of truth worked" and therefore "knew I couldn't lie" you can, with sufficient skill and verbiage use that belief to convince them of your innocence. (And yes it was enforced by the fact that there was a GM sitting right next to me, flagging me if I tried to say anything untrue)
And yes, people tried asking me yes or no questions. And I just didn't answer them with yes or no, and treated attempts to force me to do so as obvious and pathetic attempts to trap me into a false confession.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
No, society wouldn't function like that because someone can use partial or leading questions to make someone look guilty, so society would know equally that someone who gets someone into a zone of truth and forces them to only use yes or no answers is probably trying to rail road them into false guilt.
Especially when the person doing this is complete strangers from an organization who are untrusted and whose compatriot have already been convicted of guilt.
Remember that people in that town have never been more than 3 miles out side town, and no one in that town has ZoT on their spell list (unless the inquistor does? and she has only been in town for a short time)
So none of them have any personal experience with it.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
No. You a stranger are telling the community I have lived in for a month, some of whom are my friends, that if I don't give you an answer to a question you chose while under the effect of a spell you cast, that they should consider me guilty.
That is very different.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Also, don't forget, glibness is also a spell as are a huge number of other abilities that avoid forcing you to tell the truth (including making your saving throw.)
All he has to do is make his saving throw, and then answer your questions yes or no, and since it is an area affect spell, it doesn't break the spell, and no one knows.
So I doubt the spell, which can so easily be avoided, would make the structural social changes you seem to think it would. (In fact, society might be more wary of someone glibly answering yes or no, because it may mean they have some immunity.)
Abadar's truthtelling would be more useful, in that at least you can see that it works, assuming you convince the crowd that it works the way you say it does and you aren't just casting an illusion.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
It is a second level spell. It lets you catch the unskilled and the unprepared. The skilled and the well prepared will not be caught. How powerful do you want a level 2 spell to be? It's like saying "web is useless because anyone with a high enough escape artist isn't going to be affected more than being slowed down."
Fundamentally, a lot of the magic in the game world would, if commonly available, fundamentally alter the world. In a world where it is trivially easy to get create water or purify food and drink, the world should be greatly different. But as far as we can tell, much of the world is the same as ours.
I do think you greatly underestimate the psychological advantage of having people "know" you cannot lie.
Basically, this is what I see as the effect of zone of truth, mechanically:
It does not auto win the trial.
the NPC is forced to make a bluff check vs Erika and the Sherrif.
If he fails, I would treat that as if he had tried to fabricate a piece of evidence and failed. (reduce the number of successes PCs need to convince Erika and the sherrif by one, the opposite of what would happen if the PCs tried and failed.)
Even he succeeds, the PCs can use his attempted evasions as a "piece of evidence" with a bonus based on how well they chose their questions.
I'm not saying it should have no effect. Just it shouldn't be an autowin button
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
It occurs to me that we are also reading the paragraph fundamentally differently, so please correct me if I am wrong.
You are reading:
Most interrogations of Dalton result in, at best,
frustrating but tantalizing circumstantial revelations.
as:
It just doesn't work, they don't get anything conclusive.
I am reading it as:
They get circumstantial revelations.
Most of the pieces of evidence they have to present are exactly this sort of circumstantial revelations, as are all of the evidence against them. (That and I am totally open to embracing the "Most" at the beginning of that sentence. If the PCs come up with something clever, they should get even more.)
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Most of the pieces of evidence they have to present are exactly this sort of circumstantial revelations, as are all of the evidence against them. (That and I am totally open to embracing the "Most" at the beginning of that sentence. If the PCs come up with something clever, they should get even more.)
I don't see the difference. I'm also focused on this part, "frustrating" and recognizing that any GM who sees that will make sure that whatever results, it is not sufficient for anything. Per the scenario, the players should be frustrated in their efforts to use ZoT. The sidebar doesn't say the players add a mark to their case, but instead are frustrated. And yes, I don't believe that the majority of GMs will view the word "most" as a means for them to do otherwise.
I grant that GMs may do that. I believe that *would* be bad GMing, especially in light of the *numerous* other places the scenario says to reward cleverness and other solutions.
Some PC may come up with
additional evidence beyond the examples listed below;
feel free to reward up to a +4 bonus for other legitimate
evidence based on its relative effectiveness compared
to the examples presented here.
I don't know what you would call questioning him under zone of truth other than "additional evidence." Frustrating does *not* mean failed, and if things like "I believe the person murdered at the farm was killed somewhere else and dragged there" is any more than vague circumstanial evidence, I am not seeing it. (Note, the PCs don't have to prove it, just say it.)
|
|
The PRD says this on Saving Throws:
Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.So per RAW, no one knows if ZoT works on someone or not since ZoT is an Area spell, and not a target spell. Also, a person makes one saving throw when they enter the area, and that's it.
Alone, ZoT is actually 100% worthless. If you do not know that someone is under the spell, then you have no way to know if what they tell you is a truth or a lie by virtue of the spell. That's why you'd need Detect Magic in conjunction with ZoT to know if someone is affected by the spell.
Detect Magic also is used to determine if people have cast what they say they are casting.
Detect Magic, (unless you are talking about someone observing from outside while it is being cast) will not help. Detect Magic will show that the caster is casting a spell, and will also show that there is magic in the area, but because it's an area affect, the entire area will detect as magic, not any individuals, regardless if they made their save or not. If you are one of the individuals inside the area, even if you failed your save, you automatically know about the Zone of Truth, and how they can lie without lying or avoid answering all thy want.
Sense Motive is the skill you are looking for, and the DC is 25.
Sense Enchantment: You can tell that someone's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect even if that person isn't aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target's activities.
I don't see the difference. I'm also focused on this part, "frustrating" and recognizing that any GM who sees that will make sure that whatever results, it is not sufficient for anything. Per the scenario, the players should be frustrated in their efforts to use ZoT. The sidebar doesn't say the players add a mark to their case, but instead are frustrated. And yes, I don't believe that the majority of GMs will view the word "most" as a means for them to do otherwise.
Frustrate: to prevent (a plan or attempted action) from progressing, succeeding, or being fulfilled.