Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8396537" data-attributes="member: 7032025">You know what, I was about to apologise in turn, but after you just called me a liar in another post, I don't think I will.You find my language combative and confrontational, I just suggest you reading yours with an open mind, and seeing if you don't find that in your own speech> some examples below.After that, when you say "By the rules, the player is not incorrect in assuming that they will know when a spell is cast", it's just another of skewed reading of the rules. Just to point something, when you say "the casting of a spell is noticeable" (and I put you to the test here, PROVE to me that it is), does it meant that it is noticed ? No, it just means that it COULD be noticed, and the game leaves it completely to the DM as to things are noticed or not. Almost everything in the rules are left to a DM's interpretation anyway, but you insist, despite everything in the rules also telling you that it's up to the DM, to have a player feel entitled to cite the rules to the DM to demand "justice". I just don't. Your perspective here is a 3e one, and even per the RAW, it's wrong, so please don't come and try to insist that anything in the rules that you really seem to stick to is on your side. It's really interesting how some parts of the rules are holy to you and others completely ignored. Don't you think that you are missing a few things there ?I think almost everyone here has told you why they think that a DM can't cheat, so I won't continue here, in particular because I find it funny that you accuse me of being extreme in my examples and in turn bring "what if a DM uses weighted dice" as an example. Not only is it ridiculous but even if a DM ended up doing this, all it takes is for the DM to decide that the rule is that he is allowed to for it stop being cheating.As for the designer's "blurb", yes I will continue quoting it as a proof that you are just sticking to the letter of some rules rather than understanding the spirit of the game. No, to play, there is no obligation to read the rules for your class. Or for spellcasting even if you are a spellcaster (and if you think that there is, please prove it). I have initiated lots of people to the game and they played really well without reading a single sentence of the rules because they understood the spirit of it. And yes, my view on that spirit is supported by many section of the game itself, where as how can you optimise when it's not necessary to read all the rules, you might have missed the section that actually provided the optimisation.As for the "lead storyteller" vs. "referee", I actually agree that they should not be opposed, and it was actually the apology that I was going to make at the start, because although our games are really different, I think that they still share some common element because you (at least I hope) and I are not extremists. But seeing the types of examples that you pull out to try and prove that DM could be cheating, or about the fact that a spell being cast has to be noticed really shows me that I don't think that we have much to discuss, especially when you are calling me a liar  straight to my face.And yes, coming back to this thread, I do believe that the player was hounding the DM to death, we have a real life example and not a completely hypothetical one. This attitude is not normal in that game, and the player's playstyle is clearly not the one that the DM is running at the table. Seeing that he is the only doing that should lead him to question the way he plays and whether it is the right table for him.</blockquote>

Verification