This is an excellent teaching example of how NOT how to talk to other members on this messageboard. Thank you!
Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)
- Thread starter cross ofth carpenter
- Start date
This is an excellent teaching example of how NOT how to talk to other members on this messageboard. Thank you!
Wicht
Hero
For me, there's two ways to handle the elf situation...
The easiest is for the DM just to roll discreetly whenever the characters are exploring a room on behalf of the elf and you know there is a secret door there. Tell the players that you will tell them if they passively notice one and not to bother asking.
The other is for the DM to have the player roll a set of perception checks and jot them down. Every new secret door the character passes uses the next check on the list and it gets discreetly marked off. This puts the roll in the hands of the players but requires more work on the DMs part.
Either way, the Player should not need to ask for a passive ability, and if mine did ask, I would just say, "I've taken care of it for you and will tell you when your character notices something."
The easiest is for the DM just to roll discreetly whenever the characters are exploring a room on behalf of the elf and you know there is a secret door there. Tell the players that you will tell them if they passively notice one and not to bother asking.
The other is for the DM to have the player roll a set of perception checks and jot them down. Every new secret door the character passes uses the next check on the list and it gets discreetly marked off. This puts the roll in the hands of the players but requires more work on the DMs part.
Either way, the Player should not need to ask for a passive ability, and if mine did ask, I would just say, "I've taken care of it for you and will tell you when your character notices something."
ImperatorK
First Post
So it has nothing to do with the ability. Gotcha.
And... what's exactly wrong with my post?
There is no possible universe where calling other members "snotty", "despicable" and users of "passive-aggressive dick moves" that is OK on this forum. If you need further clarification, please feel free to email me (my email address can be found via the link at the bottom of every page), but please do not discuss moderation in-thread. Thanks.
Everyone else - back on topic!
ImperatorK
First Post
Um... the discussion was about a hypothetical DM. >.> Not my fault that Shidaku used "Me" in the discussion and then took it personal for some reason. :/ I mean, it's okay to call (hypothetical) players tools and snotty, but not DMs?
Last edited:
The man said:
"If you need further clarification, please feel free to email me (my email address can be found via the link at the bottom of every page), but please do not discuss moderation in-thread."
That's standard policy. We expect you to abide by it.
Hussar
Legend
Funny. Nothing but a shrug Ahn? Really?
So, what's the difference here? What's the difference between the player with a passive ability that expects that ability to be used by the DM and a player with diplomacy who expects the DM to follow the rules for diplomacy, or a player with a spell who is following both the letter and the intent of the spell? To me, there's no difference here.
Why is okay for the DM to rewrite the rules for casters but, apparently not ok for this elf?
This is why I argue about Calvinball. How is the player supposed to know when the DM is going to start playing silly buggers with the rules? Sure, in extreme cases where the player is obviously not following the intent of the rules - such as unlimited wishes through Astral spells. Ok, fine. While that might be in keeping with the letter of the spell, it's certainly not in keeping with intent. I think that unlimited wishes was never the intent for an Astral Projection spell and I think we can all agree on that.
But, then you get situations where the DM will either start futzing about with the mechanics, or, if that doesn't work, start manipulating the setting, all to achieve exactly what Shidaku above is trying to achieve - make the game play the way he wants it to play.
So, in the end, why are you not all jumping behind Shidaku here? He's doing exactly what you all have been advocating for a hundred pages or more. And, we've even got other DM's agreeing that the player is the problem. Do you agree? Is the player the problem? Shidaku has followed your advice - taken ownership of the game and made sure that his vision of the game is the dominant one. What's the problem?
So, what's the difference here? What's the difference between the player with a passive ability that expects that ability to be used by the DM and a player with diplomacy who expects the DM to follow the rules for diplomacy, or a player with a spell who is following both the letter and the intent of the spell? To me, there's no difference here.
Why is okay for the DM to rewrite the rules for casters but, apparently not ok for this elf?
This is why I argue about Calvinball. How is the player supposed to know when the DM is going to start playing silly buggers with the rules? Sure, in extreme cases where the player is obviously not following the intent of the rules - such as unlimited wishes through Astral spells. Ok, fine. While that might be in keeping with the letter of the spell, it's certainly not in keeping with intent. I think that unlimited wishes was never the intent for an Astral Projection spell and I think we can all agree on that.
But, then you get situations where the DM will either start futzing about with the mechanics, or, if that doesn't work, start manipulating the setting, all to achieve exactly what Shidaku above is trying to achieve - make the game play the way he wants it to play.
So, in the end, why are you not all jumping behind Shidaku here? He's doing exactly what you all have been advocating for a hundred pages or more. And, we've even got other DM's agreeing that the player is the problem. Do you agree? Is the player the problem? Shidaku has followed your advice - taken ownership of the game and made sure that his vision of the game is the dominant one. What's the problem?
Ahnehnois
First Post
It's okay for the DM to rewrite the rules for anyone, for any reason. The secret door thing is an odd little rule that works differently from the way any other perception abilities do. It's also a very small niche ability. What are the odds that in an actual game session, an elf character will come within 5 yards of a secret door (that goes somewhere worth noting) and not be searching for it? If the DM wants to say "forget that elf thing, everyone just searches and spots and listens the normal way", I don't see the big deal. It's not a significant balance factor, and the elf's actually usable perception ability (the +2 to skills) still works.
I don't see that it matters much how a DM handles (or doesn't handle) the elf secret door ability.
What sort of game are you playing? If it's a classic dungeon crawl, then the odds are pretty high.
Similar Threads
