Search results

No, but certainly this is perfectly possible. Characters are in wilderness, the hear rumours of Zirconium Dragon on the area. Characters discuss what to do, and what they know, none of them know what these sort of dragons do. Then the session ends, the player googles Zirconium Dragon and learns...

So the character is aware of what the player is aware of? So if between sessions the player reads monster manual and memorises monster information, the character magically becomes aware of it, even though they previously were not and have not had an opportunity to acquire such information?

They might. But your initial post said it was specifically about the player knowledge:

The latter is roleplaying and the former is not, which I find rather salient distinction whilst attempting to play a roleplaying game. I would expect the player attempt to make decisions as if their character would not know of the vulnerability. Now of course, fire bolt is a cantrip, and is...

My attitude assumes that characters are making decisions based on information known to the characters, thus if players wish to share actionable information that must happen in-character.

It does not, if you ensure that the characters and players are working with the same information, something you inexplicably seemed to oppose.

I mean, if you do not care about the fiction and the mental space of the characters, then I guess, but that seems rather miss the point of roleplaying games.

Same than what?

Sure, but then just make those things common knowledge in the setting.

So metagaming then?

So whilst colour-coding morality is stupid and offensive and there are way too may different dragon types these days, I don't find the basic idea that there are different species of dragons that look different including being different colours at all weird. On my current setting I only use the...

Then our values are diametrically opposite and I find your approach sufficiently alien that it is unlikely that we would reach any common ground.

To me the purpose of rules is to represent fiction. If any rule can represent any fiction, then there is really no reason to have different rules. That is to say that if warlock rules can represent artificer and vice versa, then there is no need to have different rules for artificers and...

Right. This idea simply seems not to be based on facts.

Perhaps it would be actually challenging and interesting compared to punching boring HP sacks that cannot harm you.

Oh, so either PCS have too low defence and too high offence, or the exact opposite! This seems like obvious bollocks to me. If they can be those things, they can be things between them as well. But actual PCs do not instantly die! They are in fact pretty much impossible to kill, so what you...

This seems pretty nonsensical to me and leads to gameplay where the rules cease to be connected to the fiction, in which case I don't understand why we even have these rules.

Too squishy or wimpy for what? Who cares about CR, it is meaningless nonsense anyway, and as monster creation rules do not even exist in 5.5. there are no benchmarks to meet. Just represent the creature consistently. Right. The purpose of combat stats of a NPC archmage is to answer what would...

I have been told in many threads how it is the PCs that are the super special and unique people, but apparently now it is the other way around, and every basic extra NPC has some convoluted backstory that grants them special powers!

Enough for what? And if both their offence and defence are lacking for your purposes, then just make them higher level!