Search results

I give him as much of the same generous and serene attitude I give everyone else as he will allow me. Perhaps the following will illuminate exactly why it is that the amount of that generosity and serenity seems so low as to be the opposite of those things: He has just declared his own...

Phoenix Fire Games (it shows up when googled, and has a facebook page if you are into that kind of thing) is my go-to FLGS in the Boise area. It's technically in Meridian, but the two cities might as well be one because they are right up against each other (the shop is only like 2 city blocks...

That sounds, to me, like a weak justification to explain how you can bring the idea that some people are cheaters into the discussion and pretend you didn't mean it to be a judgement against people that don't follow the rules you prefer. Because if you weren't meaning to call all of us that...

This is at odds with you calling me a "metagamer" for the way I acted in the fighter/troll example. Not a determination the character can make given the character's knowledge. So it is, by your chosen definition, metagaming to not use the less effective weapon because using the sword is acting...

You said a thing I did was metagaming. You said metagaming is cheating. That is calling me a cheater. I did not announce my PC knowing anything (and certainly not "everything"). I had my character act as I believe he would given his circumstance of a completely unknown monster attacking while he...

Please explain to me how you calling me a "cheater" for "metagaming" when my character has performed an action that you would not stop a completely inexperienced and unknowledgeable player from having their character perform in the same circumstance is something other than using my knowledge...

Yeah, or he could have had it be an ogre that was attacking the camp... me attacking an ogre with a log from the campfire my character is tending isn't metagaming.

It's not really accurate to say that I was "asked" anything. It would be more accurate to say that I was 'told' what my reason was, and that any in-character reasoning no matter how well it fit my character was just me trying to "cover" for "cheating" ...all while my character did nothing that...

Except that you have, Max. When I provided my scenario about my fighter character using fire as a means to attack a monster he didn't know anything about - an action you yourself agreed could be done by the character assuming the player also had no idea of the details beyond "I have fire, that...

The problem here is that choosing a particular action doesn't actually require special knowledge in most cases - explicitly so in the case of using fire against a troll when the character has no idea what the creature actually is, because fire is effective as a weapon against more creatures than...

Not necessarily. By which I mean an oath could theoretically exist which carries tenants that do run counter to retreating with your party, but none of the oath tenets that I've seen thus far do so. The closest it gets is the Oath of Devotion tenant of courage, which says "Never fear to act...

I would say "No. I reject that altered definition." for the humorous tone it has... but, I think you actually don't realize something. If a player knows [blank] and [blank] figures into their decision process, such as by the player thinking "I must do something that is not [blank]", then they...

That is both impossible to know, and irrelevant. That "<0.1% chance" is not an accurate figure. A character might believe every old lady living alone in the woods is a baby-eating hag until proven otherwise, so it's actually a 100% chance the PC would "just happen to think that". You, and...

I find the comparison humorous, even if it is meant to be a dig at my argument.

But more than one, so far, do assume incorrectly that this is even relevant. The example in which trolls and fire got brought up? The player in that example - me - was assuming that the character didn't know, and was just reacting to the stimuli of an attacking monster with the already in-hand...

In that case, disintegrate saying "only by means of a true resurrection or wish," is more specific than the text of the reincarnate spell. In fact, I'd say the only reason that clone gets by with not being halted by disintegrate is that it creates a second already-alive-by-the-time-of-death...

For me, what I want out of a monster book are stats to use the creatures that result in a wide variety of creature-involved encounters, and information that suggests ways in which to bring the creatures into a campaign, and otherwise inspires me to use the monsters in stories or helps me answer...

That's kind of hard to do when you end up in situations like I have; I ignore what I know as an experienced DM and come up with what I think my character would do given a situation, and the DM insists I'm doing something wrong because he has decided that the only acceptable proof of "separate"...

You get a laugh, even though I am sure that: was not meant to mean the thing that I read it as being in my been-up-all-night-and-hungry-for-Greek state of mind.

Well, yes, sort of. I find it more accurate to call that "thought policing" though, since the DM is literally basing their judgement of whether a character action is acceptable or not on what they perceive to be the player's thought process in arriving at the action. That is false. My example...