Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2573553" data-attributes="member: 26473">No fair, Jackelope King! How are we supposed to have a spirited flame war when we concur on so many points? This is the Internet, dagnabbit - no one is supposed to agree with anyone! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Here, I'll try picking at this...*sigh*Actually, I do agree that knowledgeable players are a very good thing, and I didn't mean to imply that they aren't. The problem is that I have encountered players like that, mostly since playing 3e, players who won't allow for the fact that the GM may have changed a critter ability or created a unique challenge of some kind and insist that the DC is x, not y, because that's what it says on page abc. That's the opposite of a cooperative player, as I'm sure you would agree.I guess the only thing I have to add at this point is that while a good framework is important, I do believe more effort should be invested in teaching GMs to make good calls using that framework. (That there may be a financial incentive not to is an intriguing motive as to why this isn't the case.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Shaman, post: 2573553, member: 26473"] No fair, [B]Jackelope King[/B]! How are we supposed to have a spirited flame war when we concur on so many points? This is the Internet, dagnabbit - no one is supposed to [u]agree[/u] with anyone! ;) Here, I'll try picking at this...*[i]sigh[/i]* Actually, I do agree that knowledgeable players are a very good thing, and I didn't mean to imply that they aren't. The problem is that I have encountered players like that, mostly since playing 3e, players who won't allow for the fact that the GM may have changed a critter ability or created a unique challenge of some kind and insist that the DC is [i]x[/i], not [i]y[/i], because that's what it says on page [i]abc[/i]. That's the opposite of a cooperative player, as I'm sure you would agree. I guess the only thing I have to add at this point is that while a good framework is important, I do believe more effort should be invested in teaching GMs to make good calls using that framework. (That there may be a financial incentive [u]not[/u] to is an intriguing motive as to why this isn't the case.) [/QUOTE]

Verification