Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3437697" data-attributes="member: 18280">Please tell me when I said "Completely gone, no sir, it's not there!" I don't appreciate the snarkiness of your post, nor do I appreciate you putting words into my mouth.RCEDIT:  To be completely clear, I was responding initially to Hussar's response to DM-Rocco in which Hussar saidHow much more clearly can they state that the DM has total and complete control over what gets into the game? Sure, they do say in other places that if something is ok, you should say yes, but, the straight up, bottom line in the DMG is that the DM is in charge.My response wasWell, (1) They could say that it wasn't a secret, and (2) They could print it in big bold letters at the front of the PHB (as was done in 1e), so that the players also know that the DM is in charge. I might also add (3) They could couch all that "Just say Yes" stuff as advice reflecting one playstyle, rather than making a blanket statement. EDIT: (4) They could refer to the DM being in charge in more than one place, so you don't have to hunt for the quote, as was done in previous editions.(That "secret" in #1 refers to the quote Hussar made from the 3.0 DMG that included "Let's start with the biggest secret of all, the key to Dungeon Mastering... The secret is that you're in charge.")I am curious how that turned into "Completely gone, no sir, it's not there!" in your mind.  Especially since you responded to my post and (presumably) read it before responding.Now, it's true that I do believe that repeated forceful statements are more clear, and that hence, the more repeated, more forceful statements in earlier editions (1e in particular) are therefore more clear.A response to a complaint that 3.X doesn't state this clearly enough (such as, as I understand it, DM-Rocco's was) that says, in effect, "It could not be stated more clearly" is simply wrong.  Moreover, it gets in the way of the actual meat of the issue:  "Is it stated clearly enough?"There is a change to the way "Rule 0" is communicated in the editions.  There is a change to both the degree to which it is stated, and to the degree to which its importance is emphasized.What this means may be open to debate, and what the effects (if any) are is certainly open to debate.  That the change is real, however, is not open to reasonable debate.As always, YMMV.RC</blockquote>

Verification