Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="schnee" data-source="post: 7184299" data-attributes="member: 16728">Why are you characterizing my position as all or nothing? I never said *always*. I think you're conflating me with other people in this thread who do the 'beer and pretzels' thing and say mechanics outright. (Not my style, but I'd be happy to play in that game if the people in the group were fun.)My position is that someone who is extremely experienced, who has refined senses, and has (for the sake of this example) hit many, many things with a sword, should notice when things are not working as they expected. How soon they do may be up for debate, especially at lower levels, but characters who fight things with immunity will eventually recognize that their tactics are not working.What you have been saying in this thread so far (if I understand you correctly) is to the other side of the 'beer and pretzels' crowd, where the abstraction of the game means you reserve the right to tell the players nothing about it, or give them information that goes agains the 'type' of the monster they face. And that's where I disagree.Your argument examples posit things like 'the reason the Treant isn't being hurt by a spear is it's lucky, or it dodged' - that is completely out of character or theme for a lumbering gigantic tree. It doesn't dodge. Now, if the character did 1hp of damage with that non-magical spear, sure - it was a glancing blow that didn't seem to do a thing. With you there. If they Crit, however, and roll high damage, and nothing happens? They KNOW how hard they hit. The results should get a damn clear indication that what they did is not working.If you want to mix it up and theme it differently, sure, but that theme should be consistent, believable, and internally logical. And evidence of a team's efficacy (or lack thereof) should pile up.</blockquote>

Verification