Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jaeger" data-source="post: 8226714" data-attributes="member: 27996">That is an extremely generous interpretation of a blinded person &quot;hearing&quot; an opponent in combat.You are not only giving them the general area (which would be fine) but an exact targetable location!Free echolocation for all!No need to google. Listened.He said: 29:31 &quot;We assume that, it is also perfectly in keeping with the rules for a group to assume that unless a person hides people generally know where a person is in combat.&quot;Perkins should have put those assumptions in the rules. Because that is a pretty big deal!He didn't. No such exact phrasing exists.So I made my own interpretation based on the written text as-is.I now therefore declare the following:&quot;Hear ye, hear ye! Being unaware of writers assumptions that they did not put in the rules, and going only by the written text; I made my own ruling, based on personal experience of having run games for many years.Being confident in my own ruling, I therefore felt no need, or even thought of &quot;googling&quot; online for further clarification on the issue.&quot;Just assuming free echolocation for all never occurred to me.Because that would be stupid.However, I readily concede: that people in general will default to what a designer of the game says he meant. And consider his pronouncements RAW.So despite what I think of Perkins assumptions. As a designer his words carry weight, and no one will care what I think.Otherwise, I will say that listening to that podcast was rather enlightening. I personally find it rather interesting that so many had issues making a common sense ruling on their own.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jaeger, post: 8226714, member: 27996"] That is an extremely generous interpretation of a blinded person [I]"hearing" [/I]an opponent in combat. You are not only giving them the general area (which would be fine) but an exact targetable location! Free echolocation for all! No need to google. Listened. He said: 29:31 [I]"[B]We assume [/B]that, it is also perfectly in keeping with the rules for a group [B]to assume[/B] that unless a person hides people generally know where a person is in combat."[/I] Perkins should have put those assumptions in the rules. Because that is a pretty big deal! He didn't. No such exact phrasing exists. So I made my own [I]interpretation[/I] based on the [I]written text[/I] as-is. I now therefore declare the following: [I]"Hear ye, hear ye! Being unaware of writers assumptions that they did not put in the rules, and going only by the written text; I made my own ruling, based on personal experience of having run games for many years. Being confident in my own ruling, I therefore felt no need, or even thought of "googling" online for further clarification on the issue."[/I] Just assuming free echolocation for all never occurred to me. Because that would be stupid. However, [I][B]I readily concede:[/B] that people in general will default to what a designer of the game says he meant. And consider his pronouncements RAW.[/I] So despite what I think of Perkins assumptions. As a designer his words carry weight, and [I][B]no one will care what I think.[/B][/I] Otherwise, I will say that listening to that podcast was rather enlightening. I personally find it rather interesting that so many had issues making a common sense ruling on their own. [/QUOTE]

Verification