If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
As a new player/DM to D&D 5e, my earlier brief encounter with AD&D not really counting for much, I have to say that the core books leave a lot to desired as an introduction to the game. The basic rules aren’t bad, but no one can seriously claim that the DMG, for example, was written with a newbie DM in mind! The first part is utterly ridiculous, it should be the the last. Master of the game, master of adventure then, finally, master of worlds (away from books so apologies if the part names are off, but you get the point...) Even the PHB puts the stuff players want to read first halfway through the book. Rolling a character is not the first thing a new player wants to read, it intimidating stuff with a bunch of interacting parts that don’t make much sense at first.

Anyway, back to the main thread...
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Oh good grief. You're splitting the hair between "better" and "smoother"? Seriously? And then double down by saying that by not following the rules I'm "working at cross-purposes to the game's design"? Come on, for someone complaining about being misrepresented, that's about as pedantic as it gets.
Well, smoother and better do have different meanings. And if the game is designed a certain way and you play it a different way, your purposes are objectively crossed with the games. There’s nothing wrong with that if that’s what you want to do. Also, if you tell me your game runs smoothly the way you run it, I’ll believe you. It’s entirely possible to rn the game differently than it was written and have a smooth gameplay experience.

And it's hardly vilifying is it? That's pretty strong. I'm not vilifying anyone. Simply disagreeing.
Disagreeing on the basis that he’s making a different, more malicious point than he’s actually making.

Of course the implication that my game runs less smoothly (or less well in plain English) because I do not play your way is pretty clear.
Again, smoothly and well are not the same thing. If you and your players enjoy running the game the way you do more than you enjoy running it the way Iserith does, then your way works better for your group, no arguments there. That greater enjoyment may be in spite of, or even because of, some places where your play style conflicts with the intended play, and creates inconveniences that you may or may not notice or be bothered by.

See, the problem is, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], you're presuming that the rules ONLY support one experience. That unless I play exactly the way you do, I cannot understand it, nor have I apparently ever played that way. Despite repeatedly being told that I have, in fact, played the way you play, done it for years in fact, and didn't enjoy it, I'm apparently unable to understand what you are saying.
You played D&D 5th edition that way for years? Or did you play a different game that way, like AD&D or AD&D Second Edition? Those games, from what I have heard (I haven’t played or run them myself) has a similar intended play style to D&D 5th Edition, and were a major source of inspiration to the developers of D&D 5th Edition. But they are different systems, and playing each as intended will lead to different play experiences. Now, your experience playing those games may help give you a sense of what the intended play experience of D&D 5th Edition is, but it is not exactly the same experience.

Or, to put it another way, only people who agree with you apparently understand what you are doing. That's pretty convenient no?
The reason many of us think you don’t understand our play style is that the way you talk about it does not line up with our experiences playing it. You seem to dislike a play style other than the one we are advocating. At a guess, probably the style of play you experienced for years playing another system in a similar manner. And you assume that the way we play is just like that, and you therefore wouldn’t like it. You may well be right that you wouldn’t like it. In fact, I would expect you probably wouldn’t like it. But the way you talk about our style and the way it actually goes don’t line up, which leads us to think you don’t actually understand it.

Whereas I look at the fact that a very large chunk of the books are written very much for those with little or no gaming experience means that there are large chunks of the book that I can safely ignore or change. Such as this clear delineation between player and DM roles. The books are chock a block with it. It's simply a different interpretation that yours [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]. Which leads us to treating the books and the guidelines/rules contained therein very differently.
There is an implicit value judgment here that a clear delineation between player and DM roles is something “for inexperienced players.” You are mistaking your preference for more give-and-take of narrative control between the players and the DM for a more refined taste that players and DMs will naturally grow into with experience.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
...
The reason many of us think you don’t understand our play style is that the way you talk about it does not line up with our experiences playing it.
...

There is an implicit value judgment here that a clear delineation between player and DM roles is something “for inexperienced players.” You are mistaking your preference for more give-and-take of narrative control between the players and the DM for a more refined taste that players and DMs will naturally grow into with experience.
You really don't see how what you're saying basically comes down to "obviously you haven't tried our way of doing it because if you did you'd agree that we're better than you are"?
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
You really don't see how what you're saying basically comes down to "obviously you haven't tried our way of doing it because if you did you'd agree that we're better than you are"?
I really cannot see at all how you get from evidence to conclusion on that one. Maybe you skimmed the second paragraph and thought he was claiming "more refined taste" for his own playstyle?

In the first paragraph he is saying (and honestly it's hard to paraphrase it more succinctly and clearly than what he wrote) "we don't think you understand what we're saying because your descriptions of it are not accurate". No value judgment at all in there.

In the second paragraph he is saying "you seem to be assuming that because you are experienced and prefer X, anybody who prefers the opposite of X is inexperienced, and that's a false assumption".

Absolutely nothing in there about "our way is better than your way".
 
Last edited:

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I really cannot see at all how you get from evidence to conclusion on that one. Maybe you skimmed the second paragraph and thought he was claiming "more refined taste" for his own playstyle?
"More refined", much like "smoother" is just another way of saying "better than you".

Anyway I was just trying to provide feedback on why some people get the "holier-than-thou" impression.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
"More refined", much like "smoother" is just another way of saying "better than you".

Anyway I was just trying to provide feedback on why some people get the "holier-than-thou" impression.
Ok, but even so, he was not saying his own tastes are more refined, he was saying the other guy's tastes are not more refined. He was making a statement of equality, not superiority.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Ok, but even so, he was not saying his own tastes are more refined, he was saying the other guy's tastes are not more refined. He was making a statement of equality, not superiority.
Huh? I'm not better than you, you're just worse? He literally says playing his way leads to a more refined play style. You may as well replace "more refined" with "better" as far as I'm concerned.

In any case I was just trying to give some feedback on how he was expressing himself. Take it or leave it.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
You really need to re-read that passage. It’s not at all what he said. Not even close.
I blocked this poster months ago for this very reason. I suggest just letting him or her rail against what he or she thinks I'm saying because there is no way to change this mindset. It's sad and not worth spending time on in my view, plus anyone who is not already in his or her camp will see it for what it is. Any good points he or she might actually make will always be overshadowed by these antics and that's a self-inflicted loss to him or herself. When an opponent is doing this, it's often best to just let them keep doing it until they defeat themselves.

I do appreciate your efforts to clarify my position though.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
I blocked this poster months ago for this very reason. I suggest just letting him or her rail against what he or she thinks I'm saying because there is no way to change this mindset. It's sad and not worth spending time on in my view, plus anyone who is not already in his or her camp will see it for what it is. Any good points he or she might actually make will always be overshadowed by these antics and that's a self-inflicted loss to him or herself. When an opponent is doing this, it's often best to just let them keep doing it until they defeat themselves.

I do appreciate your efforts to clarify my position though.
He was quoting Charlquin. And apparently not actually reading what she wrote.

But, yeah, I think there are two (more) people in this thread I need to put on "manual Ignore."
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
He was quoting Charlquin. And apparently not actually reading what she wrote.

But, yeah, I think there are two (more) people in this thread I need to put on "manual Ignore."
There isn't much daylight between Charlaquin's position and mine, plus I have the other poster blocked, so my mistake there. But that poster has been continually railing about my position as well or what he or she can read of it in quotes from others or perhaps logging out and logging back in. This seems like a self-imposed misery to me that this person is welcome to wallow in as far as I'm concerned and is a poor approach to the goal of winning anyone over in my view.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Huh? I'm not better than you, you're just worse? He literally says playing his way leads to a more refined play style. You may as well replace "more refined" with "better" as far as I'm concerned.

In any case I was just trying to give some feedback on how he was expressing himself. Take it or leave it.
“More refined” is what I was saying Hussar was mistaking his playstyle preference for, as opppsed to simply a preference. By saying that the playstyle the 5e rules promote is for inexperienced players, it was him suggesting that his playstyle was more refined. It’s the equivalent of saying “[thing I don’t like] is for babies.” I was merely pointing out the bias in Hussar’s wording. I don’t think either of our tastes are more refined, or “for more experienced players,” I think they are simply different preferences.
 

Chaosmancer

Villager
I don't deny the rules can be ignored or changed.

Would it be reasonable to say that you consider all of the rules books simply to be advice? That they contain no rules at all? Even the parts that specifically use the word "rules?"
You are correct that taking parts of the books as "advice" and part as "rules" would be cherry-picking, though I'd say the books generally intend to include both.

However, if we must choose one and only one set, why not have it all be advice? It works surprisingly well, and is consistent, and it changes nothing about our discussion. We aren't discussing mechanics or probabilities, we are discussing styles and table cultures. Whether the material in the books is a "rule" or "advice" has little bearing, and freeing myself from being constrained by "the rules" has made some of my sessions far more enjoyable than if I had played everything exactly by the book.


If that is indeed my tactic, and I don't say it is, wouldn't you rather be aware of your unreasonableness or inconsistencies so you can take steps to address them?
How far is the journey between indigo and violet?

Looking at a gradient scale of colors you can clearly find different colors on each end, but finding the exact point where one becomes the other is impossible. That's how people are, you can lay out point by point your path, but that doesn't mean the nuance doesn't exist and doesn't change the color at the end of the journey.




You don't have to use it for any trap if you don't want to. My preference is to use some degree of telegraphing for every trap. I personally don't think it's fair to my players to spring traps on them that they couldn't have seen coming. Again, it doesn't have to be obvious, but in my opinion if it wasn't possible to realize it was coming, it wasn't a fair challenge.
That's fine for you. I'm just trying to say, sometimes having a fair challenge isn't the point. When the players are confronted by 50 of the Churches Elite Paladin's because of some prophecy, it isn't fair. But, between Divination, Commune, and Divine Intervention, it makes sense they could be tracked down and ambushed if the Church is truly afraid of something.

*shrug* I don't agree.
You can not agree, but people still play games other than Dark Souls.

(Obviously I know you meant you don't agree that telegraphing doesn't always make sense. I disagree with that, and you offered no reasoning, so I can't address it. The closest I could come is you are probably going to say I am engineering the scenario, so it only does not make sense because I say it doesn't, but I feel like that ignores some details on how building a world and furnishing it with people works)


I guess, but that doesn't sound like a very fun dungeon. And it's pretty trivial to come up with a reason the Lich might have decided to leave clues. Maybe he does have living minions. Or maybe he has a sense of sportsmanship and wants to make sure the adventurers have a chance. Maybe he (wisely, in my opinion) assumes his gauntlet of death won't be able to lure in very many adventurers if they don't think they'll be able to find their way through it. This comes back to what I said about the chandelier. Sure, if the reason the chandelier is unstable is because the wood that holds it up has rotten in a place that the characters can't see... Yeah, it doesn't make sense to tell them the chandelier might break. But, as DM it is your decision to set the scenario up that way. If, like me, you think it's important that players have information, you can set it up in such a way that it is reasonable for the character to know the chandelier might break.
I see you misunderstood the scenario. I can tell because of the bolded part.

This is the gauntlet that leads to the lich's lair, his home. They want to dissuade people from trying to get through it, the entire point is that it is a security measure. You don't post the code to your home security system on the front lawn, why would a Lich who is willing to devour and destroy souls to extend their life risk anything that could lead to their death?

As for fun... I don't know. It would certainly be a challenge to get through a lich's gauntlet to finally destroy them once and for all. Be kind of anti-climatic if it was fair and the players felt like they could tell where all the traps and tricks are. It would feel like beating an equal, not destroying a great threat.


...That's a mystery, not a trap. That's is a very different situation than what we've been discussing. I also don't generally run mystery adventures because they're not my favorite, and frankly, I'm not very good at writing them.
Everything you've said applies to mysteries and puzzles as much as it does traps. It wasn't an important plot point that this lady existed, in fact I think the players are still unaware of her all these years later, but it was there if they chose to pursue the various criminal gangs they kept running into and try to track down their boss. But, even action games can have elements of mysteries, if players choose to engage in them, so I'd say it is kind of hard to cut all mysteries and puzzles out of this discussion.



No. Stumbling into consequences you didn't see coming is a mistake. Taking a risky action when you know the risk and potential consequences is not a mistake, it's a calculated risk. A gamble. If a player declares an action that has an uncertain outcome and potential consequences, I will tell them the odds and potential consequences (within the bounds of what it is reasonable for the character to know, of course). If the player was already expecting the consequences and expected the difficulty to be in the same ballpark that I gave, no harm done. If the player expected lesser consequences or a much lower risk of failure, then we've successfully avoided a mistake. Now that player can adjust their expectations and proceed accordingly. Maybe they still think the gamble is worth it and proceed, in which case, great. Maybe they think twice and decide the risk is too great, in which case, also great. As long as nobody is accidentally taking risks that are far greater than they anticipated or have far worse consequences than they thought (again, within the bounds of what it is reasonable for the character to know).
I like how you are now adding "within the bounds of what it is reasonable for the character to know". Of course, by your own arguments what is reasonable to know is only reasonable because you have determined it to be reasonable, and the unreasonable is the same way, so in the end, you are doing the same thing I am doing.

I'm also really curious why you've decided to prevent your players from ever making a mistake. I'm still pinning down exactly what is a mistake in your games, but if we go with your current definition of it only occurring when you stumble into a consequence with no warning, then it is impossible to make a mistake in your games. You have decided no one can ever make a mistake.

Now imagine all those times you played Dark Souls. How many times have you had a playthrough with zero mistakes? How many times did those zero mistake playthroughs happen on your first game?

People can never learn from mistakes that don't happen, and that means they can't improve.

Coulda fooled me.
Well that's a problem, if I can fool you into thinking you have no biases and aren't using language that seems loaded with meanings you don't want to convey, then I could make you look quite bad.




When I'm asked where I get all these strange ideas like only DMs calling for rolls, players describing what they want to do, and the necessity of meaningful consequences for failure before dice are thrown, I point to the rules because that's the truth. And for some reason it seems to confound about a half-dozen vocal posters on these forums.

Perhaps the wondering should be turned inward as to why.
Since I'm probably one of those half dozen, I think I should point out I've never asked you where you get these "strange" ideas (I've also never said they were strange). In fact, you've told us so many times where you got them from I'm actually shocked I don't have the page numbers memorized. As such, it does not "confound" me.

What "confounds" me, is why you seem so strict on something that is so flexible. You seem dismissive of the idea that our games run as well as yours even though we let the players ask for rolls, or have rolls with no meaningful failures. You seem "confounded" that people can have fun while not following the letter of "the rules" and keep insisting that the only way forward is following those rules exactly, even when it is unnecessary.

(and since I'm probably going to get some commentary on them being rules now, just trying to match your language.)


OK, but I'll start a new thread in General, as it's not a specifically D&D point, is not really about truth-telling or lying NPCs, and won't be terribly brief.
You'll have to include a link at some point, I'm having a hard enough time just keeping up with this thread.


You really need to re-read that passage. It’s not at all what he said. Not even close.
Really?

"There is an implicit value judgment here that a clear delineation between player and DM roles is something “for inexperienced players.” (There is a clear judgement that marking the line between player and DM is something for new players) You are mistaking your preference for more give-and-take of narrative control between the players and the DM for a more refined taste that players and DMs will naturally grow into with experience. (You are mixing up your preference for a "give and take" style for a more refined style that players will grow into with experience)"

How is "your preference" vs "a more refined style" not saying that their preference is less refined? Add in that this more refined style naturally comes from experience and there is an implication that lacking that more refined style is either choosing to play as if you were inexperienced, or comes about from being inexperienced.

Seems pretty dang close to what [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] was saying about [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] coming across as feeling superior in their style.



“More refined” is what I was saying Hussar was mistaking his playstyle preference for, as opppsed to simply a preference. By saying that the playstyle the 5e rules promote is for inexperienced players, it was him suggesting that his playstyle was more refined. It’s the equivalent of saying “[thing I don’t like] is for babies.” I was merely pointing out the bias in Hussar’s wording. I don’t think either of our tastes are more refined, or “for more experienced players,” I think they are simply different preferences.

Ah, I see that now. Be easier to spot with some clearer subject-verb usage, it gets a little muddled and I think it could be read either way.


There isn't much daylight between Charlaquin's position and mine, plus I have the other poster blocked, so my mistake there. But that poster has been continually railing about my position as well or what he or she can read of it in quotes from others or perhaps logging out and logging back in. This seems like a self-imposed misery to me that this person is welcome to wallow in as far as I'm concerned and is a poor approach to the goal of winning anyone over in my view.
Since we are trying to be helpful to each other's use of language, bad mouthing a poster again after being told they weren't talking about you (phrases like "self-imposed misery" or "continually railing" and word choices like "wallow") do not cast you in a very positive light either.

A better play would have been to just admit your fault, instead of trying to make it sound like they were attacking you by attacking someone who agrees with you.

Also, if you are blocked or are blocking someone, isn't it good policy to just not talk about them, since they can't see what you are saying? 5eyku has had me blocked for a long time and while I do occasionally read what they say in quotes, because I find they raise good points, I try not to point towards them in anyway, since they could never directly respond to me and that would be unfair.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
That's fine for you. I'm just trying to say, sometimes having a fair challenge isn't the point. When the players are confronted by 50 of the Churches Elite Paladin's because of some prophecy, it isn't fair. But, between Divination, Commune, and Divine Intervention, it makes sense they could be tracked down and ambushed if the Church is truly afraid of something.
Alright, man. If you want to give your players unfair challenges on purpose and they're cool with it, you have fun with that.

You can not agree, but people still play games other than Dark Souls.
-.-

(Obviously I know you meant you don't agree that telegraphing doesn't always make sense. I disagree with that, and you offered no reasoning, so I can't address it. The closest I could come is you are probably going to say I am engineering the scenario, so it only does not make sense because I say it doesn't, but I feel like that ignores some details on how building a world and furnishing it with people works)
I didn't offer any reasoning because it doesn't matter. Obviously we're never going to agree on this, and it seems clear at this point that you are understanding my position here, and simply hold a different one. So, I'm satisfied with that. You see where I'm coming from re: telegraphing, and you have a different preference, and that's fine. I'm not interested in trying to change your mind.

I see you misunderstood the scenario. I can tell because of the bolded part.

This is the gauntlet that leads to the lich's lair, his home. They want to dissuade people from trying to get through it, the entire point is that it is a security measure. You don't post the code to your home security system on the front lawn, why would a Lich who is willing to devour and destroy souls to extend their life risk anything that could lead to their death?
You say that like it's an objective fact, but this lich and his dungeon don't actually exist. You made the scenario up. You didn't have to set it up specifically to make any telegraphing not make sense, that was a conscious choice. Maybe you think that's more fun. I don't.

As for fun... I don't know. It would certainly be a challenge to get through a lich's gauntlet to finally destroy them once and for all. Be kind of anti-climatic if it was fair and the players felt like they could tell where all the traps and tricks are. It would feel like beating an equal, not destroying a great threat.
Have you tried asking your players if they would prefer a fair challenge or an unfair one? I have a feeling which one they'd pick.

Everything you've said applies to mysteries and puzzles as much as it does traps. It wasn't an important plot point that this lady existed, in fact I think the players are still unaware of her all these years later, but it was there if they chose to pursue the various criminal gangs they kept running into and try to track down their boss. But, even action games can have elements of mysteries, if players choose to engage in them, so I'd say it is kind of hard to cut all mysteries and puzzles out of this discussion.
Look, man, I don't think you need to telegraph the identity of your elf or whatever. I've been talking about traps and hazards here, you're the one who decided to extend it to mysteries.

I like how you are now adding "within the bounds of what it is reasonable for the character to know". Of course, by your own arguments what is reasonable to know is only reasonable because you have determined it to be reasonable, and the unreasonable is the same way, so in the end, you are doing the same thing I am doing.
I've been saying all along that I wouldn't tell the players consequences it wasn't reasonable for their characters to know. I've also been saying that my preference is to set challenges up in such a way that it is reasonable for the characters to know the potential consequences of their actions, because that leads to a gameplay experience I think is more enjoyable for most players.

I'm also really curious why you've decided to prevent your players from ever making a mistake. I'm still pinning down exactly what is a mistake in your games, but if we go with your current definition of it only occurring when you stumble into a consequence with no warning, then it is impossible to make a mistake in your games. You have decided no one can ever make a mistake.
It's impossible for you as a player to mistakenly blunder into unexpected consequences. Because doing so isn't fun. Again, this is not a controversial thing at my table. I've never had a player express that they wish I wouldn't let them know what consequences their actions might lead to.

Now imagine all those times you played Dark Souls. How many times have you had a playthrough with zero mistakes? How many times did those zero mistake playthroughs happen on your first game?
You're conflating "mistakenly blunder into an unexpected consequence" with "fail to notice a trap." My playstyle does not prevent players from failing to notice traps. Players get nailed by traps with some frequency in my games, even with the telegraphing I do. They just don't unknowingly spring traps as results of failed rolls to disarm traps they have spotted. Sometimes they knowingly do so though.


Well that's a problem, if I can fool you into thinking you have no biases and aren't using language that seems loaded with meanings you don't want to convey, then I could make you look quite bad.
What the heck are you babbling about?

Really?

"There is an implicit value judgment here that a clear delineation between player and DM roles is something “for inexperienced players.” (There is a clear judgement that marking the line between player and DM is something for new players)
Yes, a judgment Hussar is implicitly making by calling out the clear delineation between player's and DM's rolls as an example of a place where the 5e rules are written for inexperienced players. Something I disagree with.
You are mistaking your preference for more give-and-take of narrative control between the players and the DM for a more refined taste that players and DMs will naturally grow into with experience. (You are mixing up your preference for a "give and take" style for a more refined style that players will grow into with experience)"
Yes, he is making the mistake of thinking that his preference (a "give and take" style) is a more refined one than the one the 5e rules present as standard, when in reality it is simply a preference that is neither more or less refined.

How is "your preference" vs "a more refined style" not saying that their preference is less refined?
It is saying that his preference is not more refined, as his statement seemed to suggest it was.

Add in that this more refined style naturally comes from experience and there is an implication that lacking that more refined style is either choosing to play as if you were inexperienced, or comes about from being inexperienced.
I agree, that was a pretty bold thing for Hussar to suggest!

Seems pretty dang close to what @Oofta was saying about @Charlaquin coming across as feeling superior in their style.
That's a pretty impressive misreading of what I said.

Ah, I see that now. Be easier to spot with some clearer subject-verb usage, it gets a little muddled and I think it could be read either way.
And yet you left in your mis-analysis of my post for some reason.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
You are correct that taking parts of the books as "advice" and part as "rules" would be cherry-picking, though I'd say the books generally intend to include both.

However, if we must choose one and only one set, why not have it all be advice? It works surprisingly well, and is consistent, and it changes nothing about our discussion. We aren't discussing mechanics or probabilities, we are discussing styles and table cultures. Whether the material in the books is a "rule" or "advice" has little bearing, and freeing myself from being constrained by "the rules" has made some of my sessions far more enjoyable than if I had played everything exactly by the book.
It seems odd to me to call rules that refer to themselves as "rules" advice. Even rules about how to conduct the game outside of the rules of the game are called "table rules."

How far is the journey between indigo and violet?

Looking at a gradient scale of colors you can clearly find different colors on each end, but finding the exact point where one becomes the other is impossible. That's how people are, you can lay out point by point your path, but that doesn't mean the nuance doesn't exist and doesn't change the color at the end of the journey.
So is that a "yes" or a "no" on finding value in seeing one's own inconsistencies and contradictions?

Since I'm probably one of those half dozen, I think I should point out I've never asked you where you get these "strange" ideas (I've also never said they were strange). In fact, you've told us so many times where you got them from I'm actually shocked I don't have the page numbers memorized. As such, it does not "confound" me.

What "confounds" me, is why you seem so strict on something that is so flexible. You seem dismissive of the idea that our games run as well as yours even though we let the players ask for rolls, or have rolls with no meaningful failures. You seem "confounded" that people can have fun while not following the letter of "the rules" and keep insisting that the only way forward is following those rules exactly, even when it is unnecessary.

(and since I'm probably going to get some commentary on them being rules now, just trying to match your language.)
I don't count you in that half-dozen. Your posts barely register to me compared to others who are in nearly every other thread I'm in, talking largely about the same things.

I wouldn't call myself "strict." I change rules regularly to suit the campaign. What I don't change are the fundamental elements such as how to play the game and the adjudication process.

I also make no judgment as to how well your game runs, having never seen it firsthand, only observing that sometimes running the game in a way that runs contrary to its design can make for a less smoothly running game. We see this sort of thing reported on the forums all the time. I am also not confounded by how others have fun, nor do I say that following the rules is the only way forward or always necessary. I say what I do and why, that's all. And while I don't count you among the aforementioned half-dozen, statements such as these put you right in line with their tactics of ascribing to me things I do not believe by grossly mischaracterizing things that I say. I would hope you don't continue to follow suit.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I blocked this poster months ago for this very reason. I suggest just letting him or her rail against what he or she thinks I'm saying because there is no way to change this mindset. It's sad and not worth spending time on in my view, plus anyone who is not already in his or her camp will see it for what it is. Any good points he or she might actually make will always be overshadowed by these antics and that's a self-inflicted loss to him or herself. When an opponent is doing this, it's often best to just let them keep doing it until they defeat themselves.

I do appreciate your efforts to clarify my position though.
Oho, so now even your way of posting is better than ours!

Poe's Law Disclaimer: the above is intended as humorous satire. Any resemblance to honestly held views is intentional.
 

Advertisement

Top