Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7537941" data-attributes="member: 6775031">If by &quot;fairly and consistently&quot; you mean &quot;impartially&quot;, then this is a good example of the problem I encountered. When my level 3 cleric comes across a vampire, simply knowing that I can turn undead is not useful information to me. I have no idea whether the attempt is a good idea in this particular situation, or something that my character would believe to be trivial or nigh-impossible (or actually impossible). I would have to ask the DM what the chances of success are, based on observable and non-observable factors, and then trust that their assessment (based on what they know) is similar to what my own assessment would be if I had known what they know. In short, it's a huge hassle to make sure that the player and the DM are on the same page. Running through the same process, whenever a new mechanic comes into play, can be exhausting. It also prevents the player from planning for the future, since they don't know how the possibilities may play out at the next branch. If I'm cornered by thugs, I have no idea whether running away is a sensible option (as compared to just fighting them). I have no idea whether climbing a wall to escape is likely to result in lethal fall damage, or whether moving within 5' of a thug will subject me to the Dreaded Grapple Rules; but those are all factors, in whether or not I should try to run. If the DM does their best to stay impartial, then the game grinds to a screeching halt as they explain all of the variables; if they guide me toward one answer or the other (maybe they really don't want to deal with grappling, so they over-sell how bad that is), then at some point, it's like they're playing my character for me.Even when everyone is acting with the best of intentions, I've just never seen a game go well, when the players didn't know the rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 7537941, member: 6775031"] If by "fairly and consistently" you mean "impartially", then this is a good example of the problem I encountered. When my level 3 cleric comes across a vampire, simply knowing that I [I]can[/I] turn undead is not useful information to me. I have no idea whether the attempt is a good idea in this particular situation, or something that my character would believe to be trivial or nigh-impossible (or actually impossible). I would have to ask the DM what the chances of success are, based on observable and non-observable factors, and then trust that their assessment (based on what they know) is similar to what my own assessment would be if I had known what they know. In short, it's a huge hassle to make sure that the player and the DM are on the same page. Running through the same process, whenever a new mechanic comes into play, can be exhausting. It also prevents the player from planning for the future, since they don't know how the possibilities may play out at the next branch. If I'm cornered by thugs, I have no idea whether running away is a sensible option (as compared to just fighting them). I have no idea whether climbing a wall to escape is likely to result in lethal fall damage, or whether moving within 5' of a thug will subject me to the Dreaded Grapple Rules; but those are all factors, in whether or not I should try to run. If the DM does their best to stay impartial, then the game grinds to a screeching halt as they explain all of the variables; if they guide me toward one answer or the other (maybe they really don't want to deal with grappling, so they over-sell how bad that is), then at some point, it's like they're playing my character for me. Even when everyone is acting with the best of intentions, I've just never seen a game go well, when the players didn't know the rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification