Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Piratecat" data-source="post: 329789" data-attributes="member: 2">Now now, Forrester. There were only three babies, and they were tied to their fronts. Who ever heard of a bad guy tying a baby to their front AND their back? Sheesh, that's not realistic at all, I agree.But your example remains specious. I could weasel out of the zone of truth and discern lies trick without a second thought, as could any DM. Anyways, your assertion that an intelligent bad guy will change his actions based on a divination is &quot;stupid&quot; makes me laugh - on the contrary, it strikes me as both realistic and reasonable. Remember, the PCs don't necessarily know that the bad guy has changed his plans - why should they? So the battling divinations probably wouldn't happen, and if it does, you run with it. This doesn't affect verisimillitude at all. I'd guess that it does conflict with the image you have for a campaign setting, but that's two totally separate things.Because that's how the game is written and meant to be played? Because a lot of people find it fun and challenging?&nbsp; It seems to me that insisting or urging that it be played differently, just because that happens to be a campaign style which you prefer, is a much shakier stance.&nbsp; I'm not denigrating a lower magic or lower divination world, as I think they'd probably be fun too, but when the system as written is (at least to me) clearly workable and fun, insisting that divinations are inherently bad or game-breaking for everyone seems to be simply incorrect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Piratecat, post: 329789, member: 2"] Now now, Forrester. There were only three babies, and they were tied to their fronts. Who ever heard of a bad guy tying a baby to their front AND their back? Sheesh, that's not realistic at all, I agree. But your example remains specious. I could weasel out of the zone of truth and discern lies trick without a second thought, as could any DM. Anyways, your assertion that an intelligent bad guy will change his actions based on a divination is "stupid" makes me laugh - on the contrary, it strikes me as both realistic and reasonable. Remember, the PCs don't necessarily know that the bad guy has changed his plans - why should they? So the battling divinations probably wouldn't happen, and if it does, you run with it. This doesn't affect verisimillitude at all. I'd guess that it does conflict with the image you have for a campaign setting, but that's two totally separate things. [b][/B] Because that's how the game is written and meant to be played? Because a lot of people find it fun and challenging? It seems to me that insisting or urging that it be played differently, just because that happens to be a campaign style which you prefer, is a much shakier stance. I'm not denigrating a lower magic or lower divination world, as I think they'd probably be fun too, but when the system as written is (at least to me) clearly workable and fun, insisting that divinations are inherently bad or game-breaking for everyone seems to be simply incorrect. [/QUOTE]

Verification