Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8547124" data-attributes="member: 93670">You raise some good points that deserve answer, but more than a few of them have already been given.  It's also worth noting  that this is the second time someone has quoted me explaining a discussion that needs to happen & why or referencing that description complete with link suggesting I talk to the player "have a direct conversation with the player when they become apparent. If you are doing that then great. If you aren't then you really ought to consider it" is a bit over the top given that so before I get into responding to anything specific: [spoiler="I'm going to repeat that"].[/spoiler]Take special note of the bolded bits  because some of it has already addressed a few of the things you said in your post.Firstly you raise the not going by RAW point, there's two problems with that interpretation.  We need to look at the actual RAW of the spell.  "Associated object means that you possess an object taken from the desired destination within the last six months, such as a book from a wizard’s library, bed linen from a royal suite, or a chunk of marble from a lich’s secret tomb."  Those are all objects likely to be pretty firmly linked through use rather than some random bit of detritus like an crumpled advertisement for a local eatery from the trashbin in a wizard's study or the packaging for a pack of cigarettes taken from the floor of the royal suite, there was a lot of discussion about that with others and myself which was when I pointed out that the universe doesn't play 20 questions to players hoping to find a loopholed  technicality around a gm's protest with an offer to invest gold & time in researching it in character.  The RAW issues & GM reasoning that were already covered don't stop there though, <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/chris-just-said-why-i-hate-wizard-fighter-dynamic.685777/post-8545476" target="_blank">" If the player chooses to tempt fate & argue with an uncaring universe about why a casually linked object is good enough that's a different matter which may or may not bring consequences left for fate & the universe to decide without negotiation. "it doesn't say it needs to be more firmly linked" is the same as "it doesn't say that it shouldn't be more firmly linked."</a>. Strict RAW is not a refuge that supports anything specifically in this case  because it supports both equally well.  I suspect that either way is an artifact of past editions where associated object was originally hashed out.  For all of the lip service that o5e pays to empowering the GM to make changes through its excessive simplicity those rules tend to be quite hostile to the gm doing so in any way  other than cranking players towards eleven  as a result of how often it deviates from natural language to clear & structured layers of attempted safeguards about badwringfun or disarms the gm through the removal of tools deemed complex from their toolbox.   With strict RAW not supporting either interpretation that leaves things like motivations & reasoning as being more relevant.  I made pretty clear the reasons throughout the discussion & was explicit when I described the discussion with bolded bits in the quote of myself above in the spoiler, <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/chris-just-said-why-i-hate-wizard-fighter-dynamic.685777/post-8546420" target="_blank">this post</a> (and I think others) where I talked about the need to fill the session with interesting content & how a more firmly linked than merely casually linked object allows me to do that might also be worth noting in this pile.  On the other side of the discussion there seems to be little more than "but RAW" (which supports both) and "but I don't want my character to be inconvenienced" ([ispoiler]too bad.[/ispoiler]  I need to make the session fun & enjoyable for all of my players not just the one who thinks themselves The Main Character).  Despite post after post accusing me of dm paranoia & abusive gm'ing the only attempt made at addressing any of the non-RAW reasons  the only effort to even acknowledge that was along the lines of a complaint that I'm incapable of handling player actions & should gitgud <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/chris-just-said-why-i-hate-wizard-fighter-dynamic.685777/post-8546444" target="_blank">here</a>.* Acknowledging that I don't run strict RAW is another point you brought up & it's a good one because that acknowledgement is only half the story. In the bolded bits where I quoted myself I noted "I'm usually fairly permissive in allowing creative applications of abilities*  that seem logical I need to be extra vigilant about player activities that seem illogical* to avoid discovering that they hinge on exploiting some rules exception I created", the players aren't running strict RAW either  and the time to complain about wanting strict RAW was the second I started letting people creatively apply abilities  so I could clear things up or flat out boot ThatGuy before they decided to make an effort of cloaking a protest in strict RAW.  There's nothing to acknowledge because it's an openly spotlighted feature of my campaign and enabling that kind of thing is the express goal of o5e's simplicity+"natural language".* Did I start out saying that I powerful being could divine & plot?... <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/chris-just-said-why-i-hate-wizard-fighter-dynamic.685777/post-8544828" target="_blank">no... I did not</a> & that's pretty much my first post on the subject because <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/chris-just-said-why-i-hate-wizard-fighter-dynamic.685777/page-70#post-8543791" target="_blank">this</a> was a completely different discussion in the wider thread.  The explanation came later and while in that cell is very much not the time to delve into the specifics beyond something like "based on your arcana check there are lots of that could have been done like [the divining & such I mentioned]".  At that point bob can provide the players with an explanation that fits fine with the problems with random objects being used as anchors previously raised by other posters at that point.... Everyone can move on & have a fun time interacting with their new patron rather than snoozing through a random & pointless wilderness encounter trying to fill time.*but the branch is way more linked than the original random object like a stone & takes more work to justify!.  Yes it is, but that runs into two problems.  It started out with things like rocks & I've established repeatedly that the universe does not play 20 questions with a player hoping to metagame a technicality around a protest & warning from the GM but that a player could <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/chris-just-said-why-i-hate-wizard-fighter-dynamic.685777/post-8545589" target="_blank">invest time & gold into researching  that</a> with their character if they really wanted to know more.  The random object selection never evolves from the more trivial to manipulate stone to the branch as a result.  Even if the player started with a branch I listed a few ways that a tree could be manipulated that were literally thought up as I wads typing, it's not a high bar because the players will probably never do it or be in a situation to do so making specifics are not important beyond "theoretically possible but very difficult, it means you are considered worth the effort guys"* Do players feel they need to hide their plans to keep from having fiat crush them?  No & <a href="https://youtu.be/7In4ftJddEo?t=89" target="_blank">here is a great video on why trying to plot around the gm in player vrs gm style is problematic & self defeating</a>.  If players were going into a situation that you expected to be dangerous & wanted to grab "a rock" during the long rest before heading out I would probably ask why because it's a completely illogical activity without the context of intent. The answer there gives me a chance to plan just in case, the trouble comes when that same player just starts doing it every day as some kind of rolling daily ritual that pointlessly requires a lot of extra planning & record keeping on the GM's part.I think that answers everything you raised & I appreciate you not phrasing everything in some kind of "have you stopped beating your wife yet" style linguistic trap that forces the person answering to defend themselves while answering like happened with so many of the accusations of abusive gm'ing & gm paranoia leveled through the thread.</blockquote>

Verification