Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 8058034">Could you cite where in 5e it's RAW?It's not that the jerk attacks the werewolf with silver without the DM knowing, it's that he &quot;pretends&quot; to discover it after another character fails to damage the wolf.&nbsp; Then it becomes a game of &quot;Wait, I think you already knew that.&quot;&nbsp; &quot;No, really, I just thought of it.&quot;&nbsp; Etc.Yes, that's being a jerk (if the social contract of that game expressly forbids it.). But that's my point: both playstyles are vulnerable to jerks.&nbsp; Therefore neither side in this debate can rely on the jerk argument.Again, why is it the 5e default?&nbsp; (Not being snarky, I honestly don't know what the passage is.)I meant &quot;necessary&quot; in an objective sense.&nbsp; If a group of players decide that they must always voice act when speaking aloud, that by definition is &quot;necessary&quot; at their table, but that does't make it necessary for the game to function well.Also, maybe it's quick and easy for you because you know FR well, but as I think the OP's story illustrates, the &quot;no player knowledge&quot; approach causes problems if the players know more lore than the DM does, which effectively creates a barrier to entry for DMs.&nbsp; The &quot;player knowledge is fine&quot; approach doesn't have that problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 8058034"] Could you cite where in 5e it's RAW? It's not that the jerk attacks the werewolf with silver without the DM knowing, it's that he "pretends" to discover it after another character fails to damage the wolf. Then it becomes a game of "Wait, I think you already knew that." "No, really, I just thought of it." Etc. Yes, that's being a jerk (if the social contract of that game expressly forbids it.). But that's my point: both playstyles are vulnerable to jerks. Therefore neither side in this debate can rely on the jerk argument. Again, why is it the 5e default? (Not being snarky, I honestly don't know what the passage is.) I meant "necessary" in an objective sense. If a group of players decide that they must always voice act when speaking aloud, that by definition is "necessary" at their table, but that does't make it necessary for the game to function well. Also, maybe it's quick and easy for you because you know FR well, but as I think the OP's story illustrates, the "no player knowledge" approach causes problems if the players know more lore than the DM does, which effectively creates a barrier to entry for DMs. The "player knowledge is fine" approach doesn't have that problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification