He didn't say it was exactly like the Legend Lore ability. He was saying that it is similar enough to still be in the "wheelhouse" of classic D&D, and it is. They are similar enough.
[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] was also incorrect in his statement about the Bard ability Legend Lore/Bardic Knowledge. If a Bard in 3.5 used his Bardic knowledge to find out about an important place, it's purpose wasn't get at DM secrets. The DM probably doesn't even have secrets about most of the important places, items and people that the Bard could use the ability on. In all likelihood, the DM will have to make up something relevant and useful about that important thing, just like he describes Spout Lore as doing. The big(little) difference is that in D&D, the DM might have something written down ahead of time that is relevant and useful to tell the bard, so sometimes he won't have to improv it.
No, I wasn't. That's the "success" state that I mentioned, you know, where I said they're the same outcome? You have to read my posts, Max. They're actually a bit more detailed that you want them to be in your quick characterizations. However, it's worth nothing that a sufficient GM answer to a Bardic Knowledge check is "nothing special." This is never a proper response to Spout Lore. If the player asks and succeeds, then the location is important by default. You elide this a bit by establishing that the location is important in your example, but that's not always the case when Bardic Knowledge is used in 3.5.
Further, the different in fail states is massive, and that was the crux of my point.
He wasn't talking about the spell. He was talking about the Bard's knowledge class ability.
Well, Legend Lore is a spell, If it was the Bardic Knowledge class ability, then my answer is even more apt because the spell has no failure state if the target is actually legendary.
You mean much like you, @Ovinomance, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others continually misrepresent/misunderstand our playstyle? Calling it "Mother May I", "Railroading" and more, just because it's a DM facing style? I get what you mean.
Dude. I'm running a 5e game
right now. I'm on record saying 5e fights against a non-GM centered play, so I'm running a GM centered game. I like running 5e, it scratches certain itches very well, and my players enjoy it.
If you'd bother to read my posts, I've specifically called out MMI as degenerate play -- ie, what happens if you use the tools poorly. GM centered play requires saying no, and telling players what's in your notes, and the other things -- in moderation. Take any of those to extremes and you end up with MMI, or Railroading (which requires MMI). Do them in moderation and with principled play and you don't. I really don't know how many times I have to say this to get it through to you.
In non-GM centered play, degenerate play is Czerge principle (the players proposing both the problem and the solution), and squibing (the GM not making hard moves, just continuing soft ones). Both of these lead to bad play. This play also requires the players to bring as much of the game as the GM, so there's multiple points where the game can stumble. Neither style is better, they're just different. One can be better for you, though, and that's good for each person.
