Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7599354" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Do you know that the Russo brothers killed Quintillions of people by having Thanos snap his fingers? And man, if you haven't, go rewatch those fights with Thanos in Infinity War, there is no way that was a balanced fight. Seems completely unfair, especially when he got the ability to manipulate reality at his will. Wasn't it a great show? If I create a lich that is an undead sociopath, with no regard for mortal life except as a fuel source to delay it's own death for as long as possible... Why on earth would I have it sandbag the heroes by posting a riddle before a trap? "Oh, if the heroes are clever enough they'll bypass my defenses, right into my inner sanctum, but of course they'll never be more clever than me and catch all the clues I left them."No. This is a being of cunning, evil, and above all a desire to preserve its own existence, it will not try and be clever at the risk of making itself vulnerable, it will work to make itself unassailable. Did I make it that way? Yes, just like Sherlock Holmes was a drug addict, CU Thanos was obsessed with balance, and Mammon is obsessed with gold. I could also make my lich like the Riddler, desperate to prove itself smarter than anyone else and layering clues upon clues into everything. I could make him a jester, chortling and making bad puns while fighting the heroes where a rubber chicken suit. I can make anything. But, what makes the right impact? Sometimes, it is to have the joke character, sometimes the character who is too consumed by ego, honor, or duty. Sometimes, it is the character who will utilize every resource to its full potential, no games, no compromise, they will come at you with everything they are capable of. Which villains do you think are the most viscerally satisfying to take down?I have a feeling if I phrased it that way, you would be right. What if I asked them is they would prefer a realistic world compared to a saturday morning cartoon? (Unfair analogy, it makes your style seem cartoonish)What if I asked them if they would prefer the greatest challenges I could lay before them, or a game where I took it easy on them? (again, unfair, makes it sound like you take it easy on your players.)If you ask a black or white question, and phrase it correctly, you can get anyone to agree to anything. And even though I constantly feel like my games aren't good enough, I have yet to have a single player agree with me, so they must at least enjoy the way I lay it out. We've been talking styles, I never once said I was limiting it to only traps and hazards. That's why I kept bringing in examples that are not only traps or hazards. If you should telegraph everything, then you should mean EVERYTHING, not just this subset of things. So... when I set up something and say "well it isn't reasonable for them to know this" I should be reminded that it is only unreasonable because I made it so, therefore I should make it reasonable. You only tell them what is reasonable, but you set up challenges so that the consequences are reasonable to know... and you only tell them the reasonable bits and leave out the unreasonable ones? I hope you can see where I'm confused here. Either you are telling them everything, because their consequences should be reasonable to know, or you are doing the exact same thing I am and holding me to task for not doing it on a large enough scale? I mean, we are both not telling them what it is that is unreasonable to know, and we are both crafting the scenarios and deciding what is reasonable or unreasonable... so the only difference is how much we decide is unreasonable. Right? Nope. I said what I meant. You are making it impossible to make a mistake. I've watched playthroughs of Dark Souls, failing the dodge at the right time is a mistake, rolling over an edge is a mistake, hitting the button too many times and not leaving enough poison cures in your inventory is a mistake. Your players can be inattentive, they can miss things, but they can never make a mistake. Because if they were to make a mistake, you would tell them they were about to make a mistake. At that point, it is no longer making a mistake. It is choosing to face the consequences of a risky action. In that thread of our conversation, I pointed out at the end of a section that I was not attacking your choice of style, but instead trying to show you that your word choice was indicating biases. You responded with "could have fooled me" Instead of trying to defend myself, I went on a merry little thought experiment about if I was trying to fool you. What would it be like to fool you into thinking that your words couldn't have interpretations that you did not want them to have. If I could fool you into thinking that you are not coming across in ways that are hurting your position. If I could fool you into thinking that, then you'd never see how badly you come across with some of your statements. Because it showed what we were seeing before you made your position more clear. It helps you understand where we saw the fault in your statement, and I followed it with the acknowledgement of your intent, to show that I know understand what you were trying to say, despite what it looked like you were saying. Besides, anyone not willing to read another line down to see where I was wrong was never going to read your clarification anyways. Why not, if we must have only rules or advice, not some mixture of both, then advice fits far better for me. I tend to change things pretty drastically from the DMG and MM, I have attempted a few different rewrites of some classes (nothing good, so don't ask to see them), and have take to using entire sets of cobbled together 3rd party material that directly contradicts what is in the DMG or PHB. If it must be one or the other, then advice is closer to how I view the material. I'm trying to decide if this was meant as humorous or not. You are trying, not by your admission but a lack of denial points this way as well, to lead me to a point and then say "aha, you are inconsistent". But, I see a good deal of the path ahead, the types of questions you want to ask (Can you see value in finding your inconsistencies? Seriously? Why no Mr. Parker, I am the type of man who sees no value in self improvement whatsoever, that makes me look reasonable you know) and am pointing out that asking a series of black and white, yes or no questions, and leading me to your conclusion against my agreements would in no way make me inconsistent. You are looking for the exact dividing line on a gradient scale, and it doesn't exist. Woohoo, I barely register <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />I wouldn't say I am grossly mischaracterizing you, statements such as "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." Is pretty clear, the problem isn't you it is them. They are obviously not dealing in good faith, otherwise things would be clear to them. That seems fairly clearly your intent. Sometimes, it is only a perceived intent, but you imply a lot with some of the statements you make. I mean, to borrow one of your techniques, would you prefer a bumpy plane ride or a smooth plane ride? Ooh, my game is in peril now. That is much more exciting. I mean, by choosing not to care whether a roll has meaningful consequences I have tinkered with the DM adjudication proccess, or the "How to Play" section, or both. Double Peril? Of course, you aren't saying my game is in peril as a judgement call or anything, it is simply a sign that it might be "less smooth" than it might otherwise be. Because at this point it is a glorious collage and has enveloped us all. Personally, I just find it rude not to respond to people, so I tend to just keep talking.</blockquote>

Verification