Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5459879" data-attributes="member: 3820">And I don't have a problem with that principle when it's played out fairly. But it needs to play out fairly. Either we assume that the GM may also have other reasons for his behavior and cut him some slack, or we hold the player to the exact same "don't be a dick" standard in the first place. It's not that uncommon a pet peeve: there are lot of people who ask players to engage with a world as it's presented. This may mean paying attention to GM exposition of things like "orcs are not necessarily evil here. It may mean requiring players to pay attention to things their characters notice in-game. For instance, if a GM says "This owlbear looks almost twice the size you'd expect it to, and its eyes are flickering with some sort of purplish fire", that GM is essentially saying "This owlbear may likely be much more dangerous than the book-standard owlbear." If a player ignores that and say "Oh, it's an owlbear, they only have about five hit dice, we can take it easy" -- and then gets angry when it turns out the owlbear does not have five hit dice, and is as dangerous as the in-character description instead of the Monster Manual stats -- I'd be pretty peevish myself. The player is choosing not to directly listen to me in favor of metagame knowledge, no matter how erroneous. Not only is that a dubious in-character decision, it's kinda rude.</blockquote>