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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7811252" data-attributes="member: 16814">Man, this is a pretzel.  Okay, let's break it down.The OP question is pretty straightforward.  It asks a question, which you've quoted, that has no uncertainty component.  It gives two possible answers, yes and no, neither of which have any uncertainty component.  Yet, you're insisting that answers to this question are trivial absent an uncertainty component.  And that "yes" answers fail this and also "no" answers fail this.  So, since, due to your assumptions about what a valid question is, you've decided that only uncertain answers are valid, despite this not being in the OP.  And, you've decided that you'll be the person to police answers you think fail this and tell them they're not good answers to the OP.  Despite not being the OP, and the OP having explicitly declined to add any such requirements even when asked.  So, let's be perfectly clear, this is you, not the OP question.  Now that we have removed the shield of the OP, let's address your other points.You state that a general question to a message board must have answers that have uncertainty, because non-uncertain answers are trivial.  You say these answers are trivial because, in a game where they were true, no one in that game would bother to ask the question.  I agree, however you've committed a pretty big category error here in that the question from the OP isn't asking me to to answer myself in my own game, but is instead polling all possible games.  To which, a 'yes, always' answer is not trivial because it informs that such a game exists.  So, that axis is flawed.Finally, let's deal with the specific.  You say [USER=6799753]@lowkey13[/USER]'s answers are good because they contain uncertainty.  Mine is bad because it doesn't.  However, this is a strawman of my argument you've presented.  I clearly lay out in my post that the presumption should be that the PCs know, and that it's the DM's job to present that information in game.  I do, however, note that if this is done and the PCs fail to engage it, then the lack of important knowledge in on them now, not the DM.  I say this because I feel secret knowledge about encounters that PCs cannot discern is playing gotcha.  I made these points in my post which started your argument that I had failed to answer the question.  So, this line is flawed because it argues against a strawman of my post to establish a difference you're using to dismiss my post.So, your entire argument is flawed.  The OP makes no need for uncertainty in response.  A "yes, always" response is not a trivial response to the question asked in the OP.  And, you've strawmanned my argument to categorize it into your already flawed bin of "yes, always" in the face of a more nuanced point.</blockquote>

Verification