Search results

WHAT answers??? That's what I'm getting at here. The only """answer""" everyone gives is "you just HAVE to trust them". That's it. That's all people ever give. Well, that or (as noted) "wow, your inability to trust sucks for you" patronizing mockery, or the magic word "context" as though that...

It's certainly not what I'm talking about. I've already said, repeatedly, that intentional bad behavior--which is what participating in "bad faith" means--is a vanishingly small proportion of the issue. The issue is all of the many^100 ways a DM can be participating in good faith and messing...

I did not overlook that--and specifically edited my post to reflect the ongoing benefit (as I had previously said the spell would be totally worthless, which isn't true--it's just mostly so since the DM will just adjust their tactics around its usage.) It might behoove you to not try to read...

Okay. What happens if they don't? I've had exactly this question asked of my own side with the expectation of an answer (specifically, people asserting that a single final authority is always absolutely required--"What happens when you can't achieve consensus?") I know, for an absolute fact...

Nope! But remember folks: when other people invent strawmen of my arguments, that's perfectly fine. When other people put words in my mouth, that's fine. When other people ascribe extreme positions to me, that's fine. It's only when I do it to the fans of DM-above-all styles that it's a problem.

Really? Really. You're opening up >50% of the DM's notes for the players to read? Really.

The person in question was saying they wouldn't. That's why I said what I said. A player who gets outright upset because of something so mild as "it's worryingly close to the line"--necessarily an emotional description, but descriptive nonetheless--would be extremely tedious to actually...

I was talking about rules in general. They are not totally unrelated, sure, but within the context of the thread, they are distinct things. The standard "Old School <insert your preferred R word here>" attitude is that rules are the worst thing ever inflicted upon TTRPGs. Doesn't matter what...

Okay. Describe the information in observable-terms, rather than thinky-terms. "Looks like it would probably work"/"It might work, but might not"/"The attack's coming from a really awkward angle" etc. Though being perfectly honest, someone who can't accept any form whatsoever of merely flavoring...

I was talking about a completely different thing. Hence why I was talking to a different person, about a different part of this conversation. Perhaps consider that I can discuss more than one thing within a single forum thread.

If there is an educated guess being made, it must--always--be hinged upon "education" which comes from the DM in this context. If we are already saying the spellcaster can "make an educated guess" and fully 100% of that guess is already derived from facts from the DM, what is the harm in saying...

Let me put it in extremely simple terms then. Trust isn't perfect. A person can do something that puts you off. Not enough to break trust*. Just wobble it some. "Hmm," Jane says. "That seems...off." She goes to DM Alice. "Alice, you did a thing that concerned me a little." How does Alice...

BuT hOw CoUlD wE MaKe OuR oWn DeCiSiOnS iF wE dO tHaT??? There are times that, even though I know it would screw up vast swathes of modern culture (certainly an enormous slice of video gaming), I almost wish I had two-use time machine (once out, once back) so I could prevent D&D from taking...

I really wish you wouldn't make this so personal. This is literally what I spoke of: you are making me out to be some kind of mentally stunted person who cannot ever trust anyone at all for any reason. Believe it or not, IRL, I'm actually an excessively trusting person. That's one of the...

Well, I would try to communicate with the DM about it, with the expectation that they could offer me more than "just trust me bro". I don't expect to be made privy to all possible information (I don't even think the DM could do that, if they wanted to!) But I expect something more than "I cannot...

Again: no. It is that...let me put as much emphasis on this as I possibly can... IF If something concerning happens, what can be done? What options do I have? How can I expect accountability? How can I ask for redress? How can I work toward a fixed situation, where the concerns have been...

But you would screw them over if they cast it and it turned out the opponent hit them by more than +4, almost entirely wasting the spell slot? One would think a spellcaster using the spell would have a pretty good idea whether it would work or not, but your statements point in the other...

Are you talking the shield spell in your game (which I'm 95% sure isn't any flavor of 5th edition), or the shield spell in 5e? Because I'm pretty sure the question is being asked from the perspective of some version of 5e, where it really would make an awful lot of difference.

Again: it isn't a matter of the possibility. I understand the possibility is there. The problem is that the approach is predicated on the fact that (a) the GM can claim at any time that something they're doing is realistic for reasons you aren't and never will be allowed to know, and (b) your...

But nothing they tell you is ever anything more than what you already knew. That's my problem here. It's that literally ANY form of oversight, ANYTHING whatosever, is impossible. It's that ANY concern, ANYTHING at all, has exactly two possible choices for the player: 1. Ignore it and soldier...