Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8392792" data-attributes="member: 7032025">You know what, this part of the discussion is a bit sterile, we have points of views which are not that different in the end, yes, there is technical information, but much less than what the OP is speaking about. Whether it's significant or not is really a matter of perspective.My view is that it is limited as much as necessary for comprehension because it's supplied mostly by description. Some people want more technical detail, it's fine if they want/need it, just not our preference, that's all.Player: "I move behind the gnoll" (we don't use flanking, it's one of the really bad options of the DMG, but it's another topic).This is because the player has estimated that he could (looking at a gridless map on a VTT or thinking about the situation in TotM), and if the DM agrees it does not go further than this. If the DM disagrees, he will tell him "it's a bit far" but most of the time it will be OK.And that is globally fine, as you can see there is absolutely zero detail, in particular no detail about the spread between the two attacks and the amount of radiant damage done by the smite. This might be relevant to the DM, who will only ask for it if it's relevant.This is why I don't think that there is much gap between us on that topic, but there is a large gap with what the OP is describing, that's all.See above, I'm more that type of player doing my descriptions myself, the level of technical details is minimal and well below what the OP mentions.And this is more or less what we are doing, what we are not doing is saying "The infernal knight uses his "soul tear" power, radius 20 feet, DC 15 Wisdom save".You are right, we have some variability at our tables, but it's mostly people who have been playing together for years. However, I've also ran beginner games for my daughter's friends in the UK using exactly the same techniques with just a bit more guidance because they are beginners and it works.The DM sets the scene, the players play in it with the knowledge that the DM imparts, that's all. But the OP's guy is different, he wants to game the world using the rules, and for that he wants extreme details.And I hasten to say that some complete tables like to game that way and it's fine too. I'm just exposing another way that works, that I've seen working at many tables, not saying that it has to apply to everyone and especially those who prefer another way of playing.It depends on the tone of the question, but again, I feel that the difference is not that great.You have a very rules orientated table, which is fine, but there are also many tables that play in a different fashion, who actually abide by what the PH say: "There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."So when the story is more important than winning and losing (and in particular winning under some conditions), you get different weights on your decisions.Yes there is. Isn't it the case ?I have explained this many times, the DM is afforded more respect for the very simple reason that he is doing work to prepare and run nthe game. By default, a player could come to the table, seat his ass down and expect to be entertained.That respect does not allow a DM to act as an a-hole, but as a player I am always, by default, respectful of the preparation time and the work done by the DM, and I thank him at the end of the evening.That being said, as a DM, I also thank my players for playing at the end of the evening, and ask them if they have suggestions for the next time.And how would they know that it's magical ? Do they automatically see magic ? No, they don't in general, so there is, once more, no reason for them to know.Well, if a player could see magic (or took the time to do it), he might know whether it's magical accuracy (hunter's mark) or just skill-based accuracy (sneak attack). But you are basically granting free divination powers to your players...Come and play at our tables. Using TotM can be wrapped in 30 minutes without too much of a problem.And again, there is nothing wrong with running a technical game, it does not prevent story and roleplaying, but a game only lasts a certain amount of time, and every minute that you spend on the technical resolution of the fights is one less minute spent on what really matter to us, story and roleplaying. In our last game of Odyssey of the Dragonlords on Friday, we had two significant but quick shuffles that lasted minutes and al the evening was for story and roleplaying. If your player enjoy technical gaming, then it's another part of the evening that you enjoy as well. No problem either case, just a different balance of activities that make people happy.And so have you. I know your way of thinking very well, I've played that way in particular at 3e and 4e for years. But there are other ways of thinking that it seems YOU have not thought about.It's fine 95% of the time, I never said that we could not pause for complex cases, but we won't slow the game for extra technical information that is not needed for the characters themselves, and that we think the player should not have in any case to avoid him having to balance between two solutions, one of them influenced by knowledge his character should not have.Great for you, but we are all LARP players, and we find that the level of coordination required to get that information is hampering our enjoyment, it's too much metagaming for the level of verisimilitude that we want. What is happening over there is interesting, but is probably not something that the other characters know too much about, especially in technical details that we don't care about in general.See above, "winning".I'm not trying to emulate reality because, despite having been in hundreds of LARP fights, I can tell you that you see almost nothing most of the time. Combat is so fast, maybe you can read something about the guy just in front of you, maybe the global situations, but even registering that a spell was used on you from 5 meters away is difficult.So we are going more by the movies/books of the genre that we try to emulate, and in them combat is usually extremely chaotic with quite a bit of tunnel vision.Again, it's a question of degree. We are not stupid either, doing mistakes every single action that we are taking.why would that be ? Is he asking for help ?And once more, it's a deviation from the rules as written to expect people to play "the system". Re-read the introduction to the PH, I have given you many citations previously. Or watch a bit of Critical Role.It's fine to play technically, it is NOT fine to say that not playing the system technically is not the expectations, it's not only wrong, it's factually wrong as written by the devs themselves: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."Fine, let's drop it then.Are the players having fun ? If yes (and it's the case at our tables), it does not matter that the character is struggling with 8 less HP. Actually, it's fun to roleplay the struggle.This is important for you because you play the game technically, and it's fine, please understand that the game can be played in a completely different fashion where 8 fewer HP will not matter much.I won't dispute with you, at least two other posters are in line with my view, you won't budge, that's fine, but neither will I.What listed amount ? Where ? If I decide that my Demilich takes only one point of damage per PLUS of the weapon, it's purely my decision as a DM, how exactly is that cheating ?As another contributor told you, acting like a 10 years old (actually this is even insulting to 10-years old) is not cheating, it's acting childishly, it's completely different. But if a mature DM did this and had good reasons about it including his players having fun, it would not be cheating.You have a very single minded devotion to a specific way of playing the game where you let the rules master you, please understand that there are other ways to play, at least, if not more, supported by the rules, and that calling this cheating is derogatory to other ways of playing. Please stop.</blockquote>

Verification