Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4186733" data-attributes="member: 30001">As I've said before though, there are all sorts of things that exist &quot;in your mind&quot; and in any other DMs or game designers.&nbsp; But DnD is a shared experience and IMO the DM needs to respect the rules interpretations of polite players who have an honest difference of opinion.&nbsp; Ultimately, of course, the decision rests with the DM.&nbsp; But IMO, it's good communication, good DMing, and good game design to anticipate the game concepts that could be a problem and to clarify them in terms that everyone can understand - not to punish or ridicule people for not having the same initial impression of what a word means.I'd be distracted if someone upended a bag of rats on my head.It seems to me paradoxical (and actually, wrong) that you would assume on one hand that a concept is &quot;self-evident&quot; and on the other hand describing this concept is then so onerous that doing so makes you angry.&nbsp; IME to the degree that something is difficult to define it is worth defining when you care about what other people think.&nbsp; Granted, you can always find extreme examples that make the process of defining what you're talking about seem ridiculous, but defining what it means to &quot;threaten&quot; or flank someone, as you did above, IMO is completely sensible.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 4186733, member: 30001"] As I've said before though, there are all sorts of things that exist "in your mind" and in any other DMs or game designers. But DnD is a shared experience and IMO the DM needs to respect the rules interpretations of polite players who have an honest difference of opinion. Ultimately, of course, the decision rests with the DM. But IMO, it's good communication, good DMing, and good game design to anticipate the game concepts that could be a problem and to clarify them in terms that everyone can understand - not to punish or ridicule people for not having the same initial impression of what a word means. I'd be distracted if someone upended a bag of rats on my head. It seems to me paradoxical (and actually, wrong) that you would assume on one hand that a concept is "self-evident" and on the other hand describing this concept is then so onerous that doing so makes you angry. IME to the degree that something is difficult to define it is worth defining when you care about what other people think. Granted, you can always find extreme examples that make the process of defining what you're talking about seem ridiculous, but defining what it means to "threaten" or flank someone, as you did above, IMO is completely sensible. [/QUOTE]

Verification