Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9337076" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I expect a minimum of explanation when something becomes a topic of conversation. How exactly that happens is on the DM. In the described situation, the DM is making it a topic of conversation, and then coyly refusing to actually talk about it. I already said above that something as minimal as "word on the street says it's resilient against magic, though nobody seems to agree on what that means" for the "new dwarven armor" example. And, as noted, there's room for only learning how a spell works once it's deployed in combat (though that DM better be ready for criticism if the spell seems out of proportion!), but once it is deployed, yes, I'm going to ask what its mechanics are so that I can respond to it.It's not (strictly) because I see it as player-facing. It's because I put such a strong emphasis on making informed choices. Making informed choices is the heart and soul of gameplay of any kind.Cool. Would you be coy about saying anything at all other than--and this is very important--exclusively saying that other spells exist, without ANY details whatsoever? E.g., "Ah, comprehend languages. You've heard there's a Glantrian version and an Alphatian version, and also a related higher-level spell. But I won't tell you anything else about them at all. You have to learn that for yourself."Because if you're willing to share even the minimal details you've just shared with me, then that's plenty. Heck, even adding the details about confuse languages and comprehendere linguam is unnecessary in my book--just knowing that there are two regional variants which each modify one part of the spell's mechanics is fully sufficient.I am saying that if you mention to the players that there are alternate versions, and then simply refuse to tell the players anything at all about what makes them different from any other comprehend languages spell, unless and until they specifically travel to those lands and do an extensive multi-week study to learn the differences, I would be extremely annoyed and would consider that being kind of a dick about it. I don't need granular details--already said that upthread and in this post--but I'd expect to at least know, well, what  you just posted above, that the Glantrian version is no longer self-only and the Alphatian version lasts longer. Don't even need to know how much longer. Could be two hours, could be 1d4 hours, could be 8 hours, could be all day--I can find that out later when I seek out the nitty-gritty. Just telling me that it has longer duration is enough to make a meaningful, informed decision, even if it isn't a diamond-perfect absolutely-the-best-possible-EVAR decision.It really is quite frustrating how often people turn "I want to make informed decisions" into "OH SO I'M NEVER ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING, YOUR MAJESTY?" Perfection is not required, and immediately invoking it as a reason why one's opponent must be wrong is strawmanning. I just want the basics; more than the absolute bare bones "Yep, there's an X, it's a thing that exists" without having to necessarily be an exhaustive accounting of every possible factoid. Enough for me to at least make an educated guess.</blockquote>

Verification