Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 8088220" data-attributes="member: 6701124">The game used to deal with the problem of a 5 INT &quot;genius&quot; in the rules in 1e and 2e by talking about using out of character knowledge and saying it's bad. That strikes me as saying it isn't entirely obvious that it is bad (is a rule needed against the obvious? -- the movie Babe not withstanding).Now in 5e -- in an era where there are lots of games that encourage non-DM players to shape the world, seem not to have a problem with OOC knowledge and don't have ability scores -- they decided not to include a prohibition against OOC knowledge.&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you think that was intentional, a mistake and we could get them to admit it should be there on twitter, or that it has somehow become obvious since 2e that OOC knowledge is bad?[And, well, my table wouldn't be cool with 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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; ].</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadence, post: 8088220, member: 6701124"] The game used to deal with the problem of a 5 INT "genius" in the rules in 1e and 2e by talking about using out of character knowledge and saying it's bad. That strikes me as saying it isn't entirely obvious that it is bad (is a rule needed against the obvious? -- the movie Babe not withstanding). Now in 5e -- in an era where there are lots of games that encourage non-DM players to shape the world, seem not to have a problem with OOC knowledge and don't have ability scores -- they decided not to include a prohibition against OOC knowledge. Do you think that was intentional, a mistake and we could get them to admit it should be there on twitter, or that it has somehow become obvious since 2e that OOC knowledge is bad? [And, well, [I]my[/I] table wouldn't be cool with it :) ]. [/QUOTE]

Verification