Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6852810" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Well, when the various posts from the original poster are somewhat contradictory - I pointed out several quotes that made it seem pretty clear that the ranger didn't know about the ring or the gauntlets at all, I don't think we can ever really &quot;settle&quot; this. I agree with you that one possible read of the information presented would mean that the ranger probably knew about the ring at the very least. But another read can also come to a different conclusion. Unless the ranger, or the DM after verifying it with the ranger, reports back, we won't. But I also think it doesn't really matter. But I'm not attempting to settle anything. As I've said before, whatever happened at that table is really between the folks at that table. I'm looking at it from a bigger picture as how I (or others) can determine whether a scenario like this is usable in my campaign, and how to do it in a way that won't result in there being a question of it being fair. For me, I think it's perfectly acceptable, and I have learned some things that will help with my game in similar situations, as well as other scenarios that have nothing to do with this particular circumstance. So I'm very happy with where the discussion has led. YMMV.I don't disagree that it's important not to disaggregate the party's knowledge and intentions from the table norm. I really don't think we have enough info to know if that's what really happened at their table, but again I don't really care. That's their table and their problem. And again I've learned quite a bit to help ensure that doesn't happen at my table.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 6852810, member: 6778044"] Well, when the various posts from the original poster are somewhat contradictory - I pointed out several quotes that made it seem pretty clear that the ranger didn't know about the ring or the gauntlets at all, I don't think we can ever really "settle" this. I agree with you that one possible read of the information presented would mean that the ranger probably knew about the ring at the very least. But another read can also come to a different conclusion. Unless the ranger, or the DM after verifying it with the ranger, reports back, we won't. But I also think it doesn't really matter. But I'm not attempting to settle anything. As I've said before, whatever happened at that table is really between the folks at that table. I'm looking at it from a bigger picture as how I (or others) can determine whether a scenario like this is usable in my campaign, and how to do it in a way that won't result in there being a question of it being fair. For me, I think it's perfectly acceptable, and I [I]have[/I] learned some things that will help with my game in similar situations, as well as other scenarios that have nothing to do with this particular circumstance. So I'm very happy with where the discussion has led. YMMV. I don't disagree that it's important not to disaggregate the party's knowledge and intentions from the table norm. I really don't think we have enough info to know if that's what really happened at their table, but again I don't really care. That's their table and their problem. And again I've learned quite a bit to help ensure that doesn't happen at my table. Ilbranteloth [/QUOTE]

Verification