Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8392620" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Damage type may be part of the description, but it is also technical information. Also, while the AC ballpark is useful, it is still fairly common to mention the total, at least at my tables, because AC can change depending on reactions. But, my point still stands. Even the "bare minimum" of technical information is a significant amount of technical information.I don't understand what you seem to mean by a "nice description". A basic turn just for some comparison.Player: Okay, I'm going to move, one, two three, four, five, here behind the Gnoll Cultist. Can I get flanking with <Player 2>DM: Yep, that's advantage.Player: Okay, then I'm going to swing twice with my longsword. First attack is a 17.DM: Misses.Player: Okay, second is a 21DM: HitsPlayer: Awesome, burning a level 2 slot for divine smite.DM: Got itPlayer: That's 25 damageDM: Okay <Doing math> Still up. DM or Player (I've got some Players who describe and some who prefer me to): Sir Frederick charges across the battlefield, sliding in behind the cultist. His first blow is deflected by the creature's staff as it twists around, but his second cuts a large gash into its chest that explodes with the steely flames of Iron Lord. DM: <Player 2> you're up. And that's basically every turn. Some are faster, some have more questions, but I've never really had a "simply with a nice description" go on, unless everyone rolls and then just says what happens without talking about their rolls or abilities at all.Sure, that one isn't confusing. But just because you can show a very simple, non-confusing example doesn't mean other ones can't be more vague. Just off the top of my head..."The Infernal Knight thrusts his sword into the ground, and the souls of his victims claw up from the earth, striking at all of you. Everyone make me a wisdom save versus 20 necrotic damage as the shades howl and circle around him." They might know exactly what they have to do versus the damage, but that doesn't mean all the details of what just happened and what can be done were clear.Well, I can't say either. I'm pretty good at memorizing things and everyone pays attention as well, that's how we catch the mistakes.And there is a major assumption you are making. I haven't had a consistent table for multiple adventures... ever? I had a group of three or four who were in a few games in a row for about two or three years, but while one or two people might be consistent, new people join our games and old people leave all the time. If you approach with the assumption that the same group of people has been playing together for 5 to 7 years, that colors things when some of us have new people every year.The two aren't exclusive.And I'm more level-headed than that. Sure, I'm not really going to put up with someone cussing me out and screaming, but a bit of a pointed question is nothing. And the reason to seek clarity about the technicalities is to make sure everyone is having fun. I won't be having fun if I find out I messed up a rule to the detriment of my players. And many of my players have pointed out mistakes I made in their favor (I do this as well) because winning on the fact the DM messed up the rules isn't satisfying. And again, there is this assumption that the player must be polite... but shouldn't the DM also be polite and courteous? What's the point of saying "The Player needs to respect the DM" is the truth is "The Player and the DM need to respect each other"? It seems like making a pedestal distinction.Why don't they have the right to know? If they don't know it is a magical ability then they can't do anything to disrupt it. There are plenty of abilities that allow the players to dispel magical effects from their characters, but those don't dispel "making an accurate shot" You also can't break concentration on "being accurate".I've heard people make this claim many times, and I've talked to everyone I've ever played with, and we don't get how this is possible. The only thing we can figure is people who have "combats" where the entire party ganks a guard or two in less than a round. The only times I've seen a combat run faster than 30 minutes is when not everyone even gets a turn to act.I'm not saying you can't. But you make sweeping statements like "It would be a waste of everyone's time to answer that" and you don't seem to account for people having different ways of thinking. And you have done this consistently.Because maybe they have an ability that activates in the situation in question. And, while I get that you seem to run at a breakneck pace, I think putting forth that a delay of even ten seconds is unacceptable generally is far to strict. Additionally, my players tend to think like a team, so something that affects one member is important information for the rest of them. They don't need the spotlight back on them as soon as possible.If you find competing against the system to be competitive, I guess so, but I generally don't see competing against the game as a competition. And also, again, there is this assumption that the character doesn't know the information. But they are in the moment. They are seeing the micro-expressions, seeing the enemies stance, listening to their words and cadence, feeling the changes in the air, and seeing dozens of other signals that the player's don't get. I find myself often questioning how much information we hide that the characters would actually figure out.If they are speaking the story, you likely won't notice. If you are reading it? I've often found stories unbearable due to grammar and pacing mistakes, even if the concept is interesting. And if I'm helping someone write that story and they are making grammar mistakes? It'd be more rude to ignore their mistakes and let them continue as though they did nothing incorrect.No, it certainly isn't perfectly set up to tell those stories. Unless all you think you need is a character name and to speak the story to each other, there are no mechanics or anything to support that kind of game. You can do it slice of life sections, but you aren't playing the system as it is expecting to be played.No, we don't have to absolutely color inside the lines, but going from discussing "what kinds of information are shared at the table" to "My player's don't cheat" is a mighty leap that doesn't have much reason to be discussed.Suspension of disbelief doesn't need to be broken for the mistake to have a major impact. Making a mistake that costs someone 8 hp when they only have 60 hp, is a really big chunk of hp. You make too many of those sorts of mistakes and the player's are going to be struggling far harder than they are supposed to.You are wrong. A DM who suddenly declares that his monster can cast 9th level spells at-will, or is immune to all damage, or hits you for 9,999 damage is cheating. A DM who records every hit on the monster as only taking away 1 hp instead of the listed amount is cheating. DM's can cheat. I don't care that you also get to make the rules, changing the rules mid-fight in your favor, declaring players miss when they would have hit to protect your monster and make it "more interesting", ect ect. It's cheating.</blockquote>

Verification