Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7414576" data-attributes="member: 6919838">I agree completely and disagree mostly.I **can** choose to leave the rule as is and then work around it by making most every case where it would matter **an exception** but in that case i have basicalky done a bait and switch.That rule is in the PHB, telling the players what the expected norms and results are. Why should i let that be known but then plan myself to gm fiat it out when it matters?Are they not going to ever get to explout their choice to take all darkvision races because outdoors at night i *fix* the rule on the fly with my non-absolute rules?Are they not going to feel the sting if a couple of them are normal sighted for the same reason? If the plan to extinguish enemy lights outdoors at night to exploit that blinded thing, is that a good time to let the rule stand or to, as i have when it would eork against them, non-absolute it again?The gist is this... For something as basic as "how well can we see outside at night?" I can choose as gm to be consistent with a rule the players expect and that is used **when it matters** or i can choose to be non-absolutist when it matters and then why did i choose to keep that rule in place?Now of course, the some belueve less obvious non-absolute way to keep the rule except when it matters is the setting trait so i can add glowing moss or fantobabble de jour so that the scenes where it matters all qualify for dim light outside the moonlight thing.But, to my way of thinking, i dont give my players a rule for how things work that i know i am going to non-absolute out frequently enough when it matters to make a significant difference.Instead i would change the rule in the early campaign house rules and let the exceptions be exceptional.Thats what i did in my game. Change the rule to represent how it will actually be played when it matters the majority of the time.</blockquote>

Verification