Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7732327" data-attributes="member: 29398">And - with apologies to your left toenail - the amount of relevance to anything is also the same: zero.But sometimes in both the real and game worlds, minor things like the amount and type of cloud cover can become extremely relevant.&nbsp; In the real world we can simply look at it and observe for ourselves, while in the game world we're reliant on the DM to provide this information in the amount of detail required for the purpose at hand...which means that if the amount of detail isn't enough the players/characters either have to a) ask for more, or b) proceed using incomplete information where doing so may or may not come back to bite them later.Of course.&nbsp; But if there's something obvious such as a pool of acid at the foot of the wall being fed by rivulets of acid running down said wall, it's kind of incumbent on the DM to point it out.&nbsp; Even if she quite reasonably judges that the PCs can't tell the difference between acid and water without a (player-stated) closer look, she still has to mention the pool and rivulets...right?Perhaps.&nbsp; It could also be overflowing in detail and very rich in environment...at risk of bogging the whole game down in said detail and richness.The question then becomes why the DM failed to describe it.&nbsp; If she simply failed to point out something obvious, that's on her.&nbsp; But if she judged (or secretly rolled, whichever) that the PC doesn't notice the not-obvious environmental factor and the PC subsequently fails a climb check, she's perfectly within her rights to narrate this overlooked factor as the reason.Hmmm...the way you describe it sometimes, it seems mighty close.Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7732327, member: 29398"] And - with apologies to your left toenail - the amount of relevance to anything is also the same: zero. But sometimes in both the real and game worlds, minor things like the amount and type of cloud cover can become extremely relevant. In the real world we can simply look at it and observe for ourselves, while in the game world we're reliant on the DM to provide this information in the amount of detail required for the purpose at hand...which means that if the amount of detail isn't enough the players/characters either have to a) ask for more, or b) proceed using incomplete information where doing so may or may not come back to bite them later. Of course. But if there's something obvious such as a pool of acid at the foot of the wall being fed by rivulets of acid running down said wall, it's kind of incumbent on the DM to point it out. Even if she quite reasonably judges that the PCs can't tell the difference between acid and water without a (player-stated) closer look, she still has to mention the pool and rivulets...right? Perhaps. It could also be overflowing in detail and very rich in environment...at risk of bogging the whole game down in said detail and richness. The question then becomes why the DM failed to describe it. If she simply failed to point out something obvious, that's on her. But if she judged (or secretly rolled, whichever) that the PC doesn't notice the not-obvious environmental factor and the PC subsequently fails a climb check, she's perfectly within her rights to narrate this overlooked factor as the reason. Hmmm...the way you describe it sometimes, it seems mighty close. Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification