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="Hussar" data-source="post: 5303887" data-attributes="member: 22779">Sigh, I broke one of my own rules.  Never post when grumpy.I understand what you're saying RC, now, please, try to understand a few things.1.  I completely disagree with your basic assumption in that knowledge is "very very often" in the hands of the players.  While it might be true sometimes, I think that "very, very often" is actually closer to "very, very rarely".  2.  I've repeatedly stated that your approach will work.  I stated above that there were basically three options here - ignore the problem, signpost the problem, or change the mechanics and take the problem away.  You're the only one trying to convince anyone that the other options do not exist.3.  Your examples are becoming increasingly ludicrous.  In your game, I can go to a sage or two and discover specific spells in a wizard's spellbook?  Really?  Spend some gold and I get to read the table of contents on Mordenkainen's spellbook?  I don't think so.  I really don't believe any DM would actually allow this in a game.  (watch, now someone will pop up to say they've done it.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )4.  We've been around on this issue more than once and we're just talking past each other. I understand what you're saying.  I just don't think you do.   I believe your basic assumptions about game play are entirely faulty and beyond any reasonable stretch of believability.  In other words, I think you've constructed this imaginary game table that in no way actually looks like a real game table, in order to "prove" yourself right.  Instead of taking a more realistic view of what game play looks like, you have this table where information flow is unrealistically high.  So, yes, I think your model is a very bad idea. But, then again, I could be wrong.  IF the players are in possession of the facts, and IF you signpost as hard as you are claiming (the players will have information available very, very often), then your method would certainly work.  It's not something I want to do, but, hey, if it works for you, go to it.-------------------Ok, that's enough from me.  I'm bowing out and I've said my piece.  Please, STOP referring to me.  It's pretty obvious that there are others who have come to the same (or similar) conclusions that I have, so, argue with them.  Leave me out of it and stop complaining that I've somehow skewed people's views of your point.  Just please, stop referring to me in this thread.Thank you.</blockquote>

Verification