Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9347728" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I have no problem with points 3 and 4, but (as stated) I don't consider those part of the rules of the game. Yes, they're numerical attributes, but there's a difference between knowing how the game itself functions, and knowing that this particular monster has 62 HP, +5 Strength modifier, etc.It's the first and second points I'm contesting--primarily the second. I can live without knowing the first, but don't really see how it's possible to control that information outside of the context of the fourth point: if players are never ever allowed to see the DMG, then DMs can't ever play the game again, and that's putting an even worse burden on them than we already had.But the second? Why is that in any way valuable? How is it helpful to deny players knowledge of how saving throws work, and whether one has hit or not hit? These aren't things that differentiate one monster from another. They aren't challenges to be overcome with learning. They're just facts about how the game in general works. What is gained by such alleged "mystery"?I don't get why or even how those things are "rules" of the game though. Like, immunity as a term is a rule of the game, sure. But it's not only expected, it's practically required that DMs invent some of their own monsters, unless they're rigidly running a module (and most of the DMs advocating black-box rules are not doing so, wouldn't even want to do so.) That pretty clearly moves away from "the rules of the game" and into...just individual DM expression.</blockquote>

Verification