Search results

I am under no obligation to prove the opposite of a claim you've made. I've stated my own position and provided what evidence their is to support my position. You've provided your position, and I've asked for evidence to support it... and you are now deflecting. Me not satisfying your request...

What a character has done or would do in other situations is not relevant to what the character is doing in this specific situation. That's just an artificial limiter applying to the character's actions that results in an action one player could take without issue (because they are known not to...

Says you. Unless you have been appointed high arbiter of all definitions without me knowing it, I'm not seeing how you saying it's true isn't entirely countered by the evidence that this other definition is not found anywhere in the 5th edition texts.

Now I'm confused. You just told me I could write "Nikki" on the sheet a few posts ago.

It's not. There are very few multipliers in the system, so a general rule of what to do when more than one applies isn't really needed like it was in the editions which specified to do something other than multiply normally when multiple multipliers applied to the same thing.

I'm not seeing how it being an easy hoop to jump through makes it not jumping through a hoop. I guess I'm just thinking of the times when things don't go perfectly smoothly, and the following sort of exchange happens: DM: "What's your character's name?" Player: "Bob." DM: "Is that short for...

...so wouldn't you save time and effort just assuming that anyone who writes "Bob" on their character sheet is playing a character who has a full name, rather than getting in a twist about whether or not the player thinks the full name of the character is "Bob"?

So... can I write "Nikki" on the character sheet under name and have the character tell people, should they ever ask, that it is short for "Nichola", or do I have to write "Nichola" on the sheet and repeatedly tell people "Call me Nikki"?

Going to address this out of order to better prioritize my thoughts on the matter: If the player info and character info are kept truly separate, then knowing what the player knows is never relevant. All that is relevant is whether the action the character is taking is one that the character...

You thinking that is the attitude I made my post with is you being in error, and you've even been corrected on the matter. You then doubled-down on the rhetoric suggesting everyone has to accept consequences as harsh as the ones you accept or they are "thin-skinned", which makes the whole thing...

This is true. It is also why WotC's definition is actually useful - it's an evolution of a word that used to mean practically nothing, because it would do no more than scare people into worrying about doing a particular thing that the outcome ended up nearly almost always being that they would...

And as I said earlier, and still stand by, you are misrepresenting what it is that is causing the player to want to drop out of the game. It isn't "just because something bad happens to his character". It's because something bad happened to the character that is likely to only be the start of...

I think it is important to remember that "needs more thought" and "needs enough thought that it is reasonable to consider this fact a deal-breaker" are too entirely different things. My games are all story heavy. Characters can come and go at the whim of my players, and it doesn't change that.

Words don't have the magical ability to convey to the person reading them the exact meaning you intended for those words, and none others - so acting like they do is a bit unreasonable. And the words you used can mean what was read, even if it isn't what you actually meant to convey - because...

That is false. Your choice to bring the words "very poor DMing" into the conversation is a clear catalyst for the feeling in question. If you'd have never said it, then it would indeed be 100% "on" pemerton that the feeling arose, but that isn't the case. Saying that you can introduce a...

That's still not what metagaming means, and it still isn't relevant what the player knows, just whether the character could do what the character did or if it was impossible (and if it was impossible, that's still not metagaming - it's cheating). There is a definition of metagaming provided in...

I was basing my response off what the OP said, in this case, this bit is the relevant one (bold added for emphasis): "They spot me from a distance, talking with a hooded figure. There is no way of them knowing who he is or how he looks. Then one of them shouts, "Did you kill the old man yet?"."...

I am shocked by how it seems that the longer a user has been a part of this forum, the less familiar they are with this forum's rules.

One need not know of an old man to yell out a sentence referring to an old man. And it's not something that requires the player to be thinking of the game as a game, either, so it isn't metagaming - even though it is, in this particular case but not necessarily all others, a jerk move.

It's a case of squares and rectangles. In this case, any time you decide to do something in-character because of something you only know about out-of-character is a rectangle. But only times where you decide to do something in-character because the thing you know about out-of-character is...