Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 7183778" data-attributes="member: 2011">You are making an assumption. That the characters should observe a given effect every single time and that is the DM's responsibility to always tell them about it.Are you claiming that the DM should always tell the players about resistance, regardless of perception, knowledge, etc.?That every form of resistance for every monster that has it is immediately noticeable?That every time a PC hits a foe, that the damage and the degree of damage is also noticeable?In all types of genres, a character could get thrown across a room and slammed into a wall. Is there always blood coming out of his mouth or some other indication that he &quot;got damaged&quot;? What if it does 2 hit points out of his 300 hit points?The point I am making is that there is nothing wrong with describing resistance and letting the players know. There is also nothing wrong with requiring a perception roll to notice the difference, or a knowledge check to know that it is a possibility, or even to not in a given encounter let the players know at all, or to give a clue that the creature is actually vulnerable when it is resistant once in a while (&quot;You Fireball the foe, he screams in agony and tries to back away from the flames&quot; an old tactic by this monster). I am not advocating to never give information out about resistance, but I am advocating that it should not always be obvious or even accurate. I am advocating for some mystery in the game, not just the same old ho hum boring hints that tell the players exactly what actions their PCs should or shouldn't do. The mechanics should dictate the results, not necessarily the narrative and especially not necessarily the information that the players get.Throw a curve ball into your game. Break out of your comfort zone of DMing. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 7183778, member: 2011"] You are making an assumption. That the characters should observe a given effect every single time and that is the DM's responsibility to always tell them about it. Are you claiming that the DM should always tell the players about resistance, regardless of perception, knowledge, etc.? That every form of resistance for every monster that has it is immediately noticeable? That every time a PC hits a foe, that the damage and the degree of damage is also noticeable? In all types of genres, a character could get thrown across a room and slammed into a wall. Is there always blood coming out of his mouth or some other indication that he "got damaged"? What if it does 2 hit points out of his 300 hit points? The point I am making is that there is nothing wrong with describing resistance and letting the players know. There is also nothing wrong with requiring a perception roll to notice the difference, or a knowledge check to know that it is a possibility, or even to not in a given encounter let the players know at all, or to give a clue that the creature is actually vulnerable when it is resistant once in a while ("You Fireball the foe, he screams in agony and tries to back away from the flames" an old tactic by this monster). I am not advocating to never give information out about resistance, but I am advocating that it should not always be obvious or even accurate. I am advocating for some mystery in the game, not just the same old ho hum boring hints that tell the players exactly what actions their PCs should or shouldn't do. The mechanics should dictate the results, not necessarily the narrative and especially not necessarily the information that the players get. Throw a curve ball into your game. Break out of your comfort zone of DMing. :cool: [/QUOTE]

Verification