D&D 5E Revisiting RAW Darkness Spell

Nefermandias said:

My only real gripe with your Darkness blocking vision beyond the affected area is that it becomes no different than a cloud of black smoke instead of the magically induced ausence of light you would expect from the spell description.

Click to expand...

Mike R said:

I would expect an opaque black globe from the spell description. Attempting to dictate people's expectations to them makes your argument less convincing, not more.

Click to expand...

Maxperson said:

If I were in a game where the DM ran it like normal darkness(real world version), rather than the heavily obscured game version, I wouldn't mind very much. I'd probably think it's odd, but it's not something that's a big enough deal to get upset over.

Click to expand...

FitzTheRuke said:

I think I will handle this in order, though I can infer from your response that you're not worth the effort.

1) It's the responsibility of both parties in a conversation to reach understanding. The speaker does their best to imply the things they want to get across, and the listener does their best to infer the speaker's intent.

2) It does and I do. I'm sorry if I haven't explained it in a way that you can grasp, but we're equally at fault for that.

3) Now that's just rude, obviously. Of course I do. I have a LOT of players. I own an FLGS, and while we are not playing there now due to the pandemic, I have played with literally hundreds of people. I run 90% of the games that I play. I still have a group that plays on MSTeams every week (this is the group that I talked to) AND I run THREE PBP games HERE ON ENWORLD. (Though I haven't talked to them about it.)

4) Sure, whatever you say buddy. I honestly don't know why I bothered to answer you here.

In fact, I don't know why I've bothered to continue to engage in this thread, after trying to get out a few times (they pull me back IN!) Up until now, everyone's been pretty good to talk to, though. I guess it was too good to last.

Click to expand...

FitzTheRuke said:

Naw, I think we long ago established that if I did, everyone would just say that he's only "dimly lit" because you can see him. I think we've figured out that some of us put the description before the mechanics, and some the other way around (and most of us do one or the other, depending on what exactly we're talking about). It's all relative.

I've never expected everyone to agree, but I think I may have naively assumed that if everyone understood each other, then they'd at least agree to disagree. I'm getting the impression that even that small concession is too much to ask.

Click to expand...

Mike R said:

If the listener doesn't understand, you have failed. Improve your communication.

You are at fault. Your explanation is insufficient.

You are the only person in the thread who has consistently lowered its quality. If you hate it so much, leave. We'll all be better off.

Click to expand...

Mike R said:

If the listener doesn't understand, you have failed. Improve your communication.

You are at fault. Your explanation is insufficient.

You are the only person in the thread who has consistently lowered its quality. If you hate it so much, leave. We'll all be better off.

Click to expand...

FitzTheRuke said:

That's pretty much the reaction I would have expected to see regarding it. I've been surprised that there wasn't more... "Huh. I wouldn't do it that way, but you have fun with that."

Click to expand...

Mike R said:

If the listener doesn't understand, you have failed. Improve your communication.

You are at fault. Your explanation is insufficient.

You are the only person in the thread who has consistently lowered its quality. If you hate it so much, leave. We'll all be better off.

Click to expand...

Maxperson said:

So if I'm talking to someone with the IQ of a tree stump, it's my fault if he doesn't understand?

Click to expand...