Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5844783" data-attributes="member: 957">But the 3E rules for &quot;gaze&quot; are not specific to Medusa.&nbsp; They are applying a general rule for gaze attacks to the specific case here.There is no obligation under those rules to describe being subject to a gaze attack as having yourself SEEN the source of that attack.&nbsp; If you want to hold this to a standard that I must prove that getting it is wrong is ruled out, then I simply won't go there.&nbsp; I again readily agree there is room for getting it wrong.&nbsp; But if you combine the generic gaze rules with what is common knowledge about Medusa then it is trivial to come to the correct conclusion.&nbsp; It is only by refusing to use common knowledge and rational thinking that the potential for confusion comes.&nbsp; I've said many times before, on other topics, that no rule system can ever cover every situation and if you expect to play an RPG purely by the guidance of the rules with no DM thoughtfulness, then the quality of that experience will be very limited.&nbsp; And in this specific example I believe that the threshold of DM thoughtfulness is very low indeed and the reduction in quality for not applying it is very high.&nbsp; But there is no stick there to enforce that.&nbsp; You can ignore that or use it as you will.Again, the bottom line remains that you are completely free to choose to get it wrong.&nbsp;&nbsp; But you can also choose to get it right entirely by the rules.&nbsp; And I'm shocked by the idea that there are people throwing such basic common understanding by the wayside.&nbsp; If they just find it more fun and choose to play that way then more power to them!!&nbsp; I fully endorse play what you like.&nbsp; But claiming this is understood and intended is silly.In the end I guess I'd just say that I'd wager that playing in a game DMed by any 3E designer and saying &quot;I look at Medusa&quot; would not be responded to with &quot;roll a fort save&quot; but instead &quot;ok, you forfeit your save, you turn to stone.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5844783, member: 957"] But the 3E rules for "gaze" are not specific to Medusa. They are applying a general rule for gaze attacks to the specific case here. There is no obligation under those rules to describe being subject to a gaze attack as having yourself SEEN the source of that attack. If you want to hold this to a standard that I must prove that getting it is wrong is ruled out, then I simply won't go there. I again readily agree there is room for getting it wrong. But if you combine the generic gaze rules with what is common knowledge about Medusa then it is trivial to come to the correct conclusion. It is only by refusing to use common knowledge and rational thinking that the potential for confusion comes. I've said many times before, on other topics, that no rule system can ever cover every situation and if you expect to play an RPG purely by the guidance of the rules with no DM thoughtfulness, then the quality of that experience will be very limited. And in this specific example I believe that the threshold of DM thoughtfulness is very low indeed and the reduction in quality for not applying it is very high. But there is no stick there to enforce that. You can ignore that or use it as you will. Again, the bottom line remains that you are completely free to choose to get it wrong. But you can also choose to get it right entirely by the rules. And I'm shocked by the idea that there are people throwing such basic common understanding by the wayside. If they just find it more fun and choose to play that way then more power to them!! I fully endorse play what you like. But claiming this is understood and intended is silly. In the end I guess I'd just say that I'd wager that playing in a game DMed by any 3E designer and saying "I look at Medusa" would not be responded to with "roll a fort save" but instead "ok, you forfeit your save, you turn to stone." [/QUOTE]

Verification