Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8392284" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Sure, he isn't likely saying that. But, what I'm trying to understand is where you draw the line between the players receiving technical information and them asking to clarify technical information. A DM could totally choose to tell the player how many attacks and whether or not sneak attack was applying, but a player is wrong for asking if that was the intent behind the massive spike in numbers?Didn't you also say you haven't looked at a player's sheet in years? You might have forgotten something about the defenses of the player. For example, I actually was playing on a VTT game where the DM was rolling a lot of attacks, dealing a lot of damage, and the had a character take some big number, and we asked "wait, isn't that poison damage?" when we saw the roll.  Because the player had gotten a Periapt of Proof against Poison months before, and it had never come up, but he was immune to poison damage. Or, a my tables, I tend to math quickly, and tell the players their damage total after resistance. But, sometimes my players don't know if I did after resistance or before, so they have to ask me. And knowing whether or not the extra damage from an attack qualifies for resistance is important information for the player. Mistrust and making sure there is clear communication are two different things. I trust all my DMs. That doesn't mean I think they are incapable of making mistakes. Especially with how often I make mistakes as a DM.I'm sorry man, I don't buy it. Everyone messes up occasionally. Forgetting rules, mixing rules up, ect. It happens. And since some fights and games can get down to the entire party in single digit hp with no resources remaining... taking a little bit more damage than you were supposed to can be a big deal. Yes, a big enough deal to stop the combat for a moment and double check. It isn't like the combat is a narrative cut-scene, you are dealing with technical information constantly in combatAnd, I'm really not terribly comfortable with this idea that the player has to be polite and not accusatory (not saying that they should be accusatory, but it is being presented as a requirement) and if the DM feels like it they can explain what happened. This just comes across as... a bad power dynamic. Sure, if there is a good reason not to tell them, maybe because it is a plot secret, then don't tell them. Hint at the fact or outright say "it matters for the plot, so you;ll need to figure it out" but we are talking figuring out that an NPC used a spell instead of a PC ability. That's not something that is a big mystery. So why not tell them? Why act like you are doing them some big favor by being kind enough to explain the rules of the game to them?Yeah, if I make a mistake that negatively impacts the PCs, I want to know about it. I want to know about it now, not after the session when it is too late to fix it. Because I want to challenge the PCs fairly, not challenge them because I failed to run the encounters without errors.Again, people make mistakes. I actually was playing with a friend in a one-shot not too long ago. He's played a rogue for years in various games. We were in a fight and his character hit, and he grabbed a bunch of D6's. So I asked "Dude, why are grabbing all those dice?" And he looked at me, looked at his dice, looked at his character sheet and said, "Oh, right. I'm playing a paladin. I don't have sneak attack." And that is why I wanted to pull attention to your post, because in the quote you were responding to, Fanaelialae specifically mentioned mistakes and that they have happened. But, your response, and even your response here, isn't about making mistakes. It is about cheating or powergaming. Look, I'm happy for you if you and your players never make mistakes or confuse things or misunderstand a rule, but not everyone has that experience. And since the discussion is about asking for clarification in general, I feel it is really harmful to the conversation to immediately assume cheating on either side. The point Fanaelialae was trying to make I think is that since the DM asking for clarification when something weird was going on is fine, it seems strange to hold the players to a different standard. Since we don't assume the DM is cheating in creating the scenario that is strange, why would we assume the player is cheating? And if we are fine with the DM calling out the player on potential cheating, and DMs can cheat, isn't it equally fair to call out the DM on cheating if they are doing so? I don't want to assume cheating in either direction, because that isn't conducive to the discussion, but if we are, then I'd say the same standards apply both ways.</blockquote>

Verification