Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="J.Quondam" data-source="post: 8384511" data-attributes="member: 7030100">The problem with this (and several other arguments around here, though certainly not all) is that it's actually a meta-issue, not a rules issue. Armed with exactly zero idea of what is in any particular GM's mind or what any particular table agreed to, this argument default assumes the worst of the DM: that they're trying to be adversarial, and are out specifically to nerf any and every PC, just because they are meanies. But that's not a helpful or relevant base assumption when the topic is rules.I mean it's easy to break a particular situation. But the campaign doesn't happen in a vacuum. Sure, the ranger's unerring navigation might be shut down in this particular enchanted forest, because the hag coven was clever. So what? The player will find other ways for their PC to shine for the time being. And rest assured, that very same ranger's ability functioned just fine before this particular adventure, and it will function just fine again after.The point is that strategies to trip up PC abilities now and then* are no cause for hysterics, &quot;OMG MY PRECIOUS PC ABILITY HAS BEEN VIOLATED BY A CLICHED TROPE!!!&quot; That's just horse hockey. It's just a one-off effect to make a particular encounter a bit different. There's nothing nefarious or incompetent about it.And if there is? If the GM actually is adversarial, or going against table expectations, or provoking play-style conflict?Well, sorry.But that's not a problem with the rules; that's a problem with the group.* Yep, this obviously depends on the table's expectations for the game. Your table might not buy into such thing. Cool. Plenty of other tables do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="J.Quondam, post: 8384511, member: 7030100"] The problem with this (and several other arguments around here, though certainly not all) is that it's actually a meta-issue, not a rules issue. Armed with exactly zero idea of what is in any particular GM's mind or what any particular table agreed to, this argument default assumes the worst of the DM: that they're trying to be adversarial, and are out specifically to nerf any and every PC, just because they are meanies. But that's not a helpful or relevant base assumption when the topic is [I]rules[/I]. I mean it's easy to break a particular situation. But the campaign doesn't happen in a vacuum. Sure, the ranger's unerring navigation might be shut down in this particular enchanted forest, because the hag coven was clever. So what? The player will find other ways for their PC to shine for the time being. And rest assured, that very same ranger's ability functioned just fine before this particular adventure, and it will function just fine again after. The point is that strategies to trip up PC abilities now and then* are no cause for hysterics, "OMG MY PRECIOUS PC ABILITY HAS BEEN VIOLATED BY A CLICHED TROPE!!!" That's just horse hockey. It's just a one-off effect to make a particular encounter a bit different. There's nothing nefarious or incompetent about it. And if there [I]is?[/I] If the GM actually [I]is[/I] adversarial, or going against table expectations, or provoking play-style conflict? Well, sorry. But that's not a problem with the rules; that's a problem with the [I]group[/I]. [I][SIZE=3]* Yep, this obviously depends on the table's expectations for the game. Your table might not buy into such thing. Cool. Plenty of other tables do.[/SIZE][/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification