NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9704228" data-attributes="member: 71699">I've noticed that tolerances or sensitivities for "information to work with" vary considerably across posters.One example that could seem clear in 5e 2024 is the Weather table which can invoke Environmental Effects. I imagine many will find that enough information to work with, but a DM would need to decide their baselines for seasons and regions. Consistent with the general design, it is intended to support campaigns in a range of imagined worlds. The Balazaring Weather table for RQ provides the same level of information, but tied to one region of one world.An example where I have observed strong disagreements on whether it's enough to work with, is combat. Some find knowing that a morningstar dealt say 4 (roll) + 2 (strength) + 2 (dueling) piercing damage enough to work with, others do not. RQ offers more information but, as was noted upthread, some observe that it involves "a replay of the character's intent and action that is nearly intolerable. It often breaks down in play, either switching entirely to called shots and abandoning the location roll, or waiting on the parry roll until the hit location is known" I've played a lot of RQ and I have not noticed that... and would be curious to know if the sample sizes were really robust.I think the most obvious challenge to questions of "enough information to work with" is simulationist FKR. It seems hard to argue that no one ever thought they could achieve a better simulation with "less information to work with" from the game system! And plausible that this was indeed achieved, given its history.</blockquote>

Verification