I never said NE and FE were complicated or took a lot of time. It takes not time at all to say 'no - NE doesn't apply to that check' lol
Which says a lot about your mentality throughout this entire thread. "It's easier just to say no." Even though if your prepared and used to it. It doesn't take any longer to actually say yes when it does Apply either. So your logical fallacy is convenient for you but doesn't actually work as advertised.
I didn't say that I was saying no out of hand or without any consideration, just saying that it isn't complicated for me to know if I think NE should apply and to say yes or no
Simply when you think it does or doesn't apply isn't necessarily equal to when or when it doesn't actually apply. Or the level of information about it that can help you decide if it applies or not at the time. Which is one of your arguments about saying No. That it's quick and easy for you to say No because you've simply decided it doesn't apply over checking information to be sure it doesn't apply.
But if you use the information regularly or make a few notes when preparing. It's just as easy to say yes it does. Or even let it apply when your not entirely sure. But you'd rather make it not work because your not in favor of it to begin with.
This is why your working under a logical fallacy and just saying "it's because I think it" doesn't save it Or make it somehow more right because of subjectivity.
Your very statement says that it's easy to say no because when you say no then you don't have to consider anything at all. Whether that was your intention or not. And it's a mentality that you have shown in other posts in this thread as well. Saying no is easy because then you don't have to take work. NE and FE are quick and simple if I just say no whether No is actually how it works.
I never said NE and FE were complicated or took a lot of time. It takes not time at all to say 'no - NE doesn't apply to that check' lol
Which says a lot about your mentality throughout this entire thread. "It's easier just to say no." Even though if your prepared and used to it. It doesn't take any longer to actually say yes when it does Apply either. So your logical fallacy is convenient for you but doesn't actually work as advertised.
I didn't say that I was saying no out of hand or without any consideration, just saying that it isn't complicated for me to know if I think NE should apply and to say yes or no
Simply when you think it does or doesn't apply isn't necessarily equal to when or when it doesn't actually apply. Or the level of information about it that can help you decide if it applies or not at the time. Which is one of your arguments about saying No. That it's quick and easy for you to say No because you've simply decided it doesn't apply over checking information to be sure it doesn't apply.
But if you use the information regularly or make a few notes when preparing. It's just as easy to say yes it does. Or even let it apply when your not entirely sure. But you'd rather make it not work because your not in favor of it to begin with.
This is why your working under a logical fallacy and just saying "it's because I think it" doesn't save it Or make it somehow more right because of subjectivity.
Your very statement says that it's easy to say no because when you say no then you don't have to consider anything at all. Whether that was your intention or not. And it's a mentality that you have shown in other posts in this thread as well. Saying no is easy because then you don't have to take work. NE and FE are quick and simple if I just say no whether No is actually how it works.
That's a really long walk you just took to get to "I am the DM, so I don't have to check 15 resources, I am making a judgement call, if you don't like it you can tell me, but it probably isn't going to change my mind - but go for it"
If I am a player or a DM, the call gets made, I can provide a reason why I disagree, if I am playing and I say my piece and the DM disagrees I drop it, if I am the DM and a player disagrees I will hear them out, but I am not gonna stop the game and look up resources because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what some forum says or the way they want to interpret some paragraph in a book, it is my call, I am not gonna disrupt the flow of the game to have a long drawn out discussion.
I never said NE and FE were complicated or took a lot of time. It takes not time at all to say 'no - NE doesn't apply to that check' lol
Which says a lot about your mentality throughout this entire thread. "It's easier just to say no." Even though if your prepared and used to it. It doesn't take any longer to actually say yes when it does Apply either. So your logical fallacy is convenient for you but doesn't actually work as advertised.
I didn't say that I was saying no out of hand or without any consideration, just saying that it isn't complicated for me to know if I think NE should apply and to say yes or no
Simply when you think it does or doesn't apply isn't necessarily equal to when or when it doesn't actually apply. Or the level of information about it that can help you decide if it applies or not at the time. Which is one of your arguments about saying No. That it's quick and easy for you to say No because you've simply decided it doesn't apply over checking information to be sure it doesn't apply.
But if you use the information regularly or make a few notes when preparing. It's just as easy to say yes it does. Or even let it apply when your not entirely sure. But you'd rather make it not work because your not in favor of it to begin with.
This is why your working under a logical fallacy and just saying "it's because I think it" doesn't save it Or make it somehow more right because of subjectivity.
Your very statement says that it's easy to say no because when you say no then you don't have to consider anything at all. Whether that was your intention or not. And it's a mentality that you have shown in other posts in this thread as well. Saying no is easy because then you don't have to take work. NE and FE are quick and simple if I just say no whether No is actually how it works.
That's a really long walk you just took to get to "I am the DM, so I don't have to check 15 resources, I am making a judgement call, if you don't like it you can tell me, but it probably isn't going to change my mind - but go for it"
If I am a player or a DM, the call gets made, I can provide a reason why I disagree, if I am playing and I say my piece and the DM disagrees I drop it, if I am the DM and a player disagrees I will hear them out, but I am not gonna stop the game and look up resources because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what some forum says or the way they want to interpret some paragraph in a book, it is my call, I am not gonna disrupt the flow of the game to have a long drawn out discussion.
It doesn't require a long drawn out discussion. and game play gets interrupted for some level of discussion often enough. your again putting barriers in the way rathre than trying to do the work. The conversation can also be shelved to have after the game even if you make a temporary ruling during the game. Even if it doesn't match the ruling the conversation after comes to later. But you don't even make room for that possbility much of the time. You just jump on what you would do and have made it more and more clear that you can't be bothered to do any work.
And it's not the walk I took. It's the walk you took. Because that's the walk you clearly want to take. My walk. My Walk is even simpler. Get into the habit of doing the work when your doing all the other work for things like encounters. And then you end up with no real extra work. You already have the answer because you've already found the answers previously. You dn't need the middle of the game discussion. Or even the after the game discussion to figure it out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Simply when you think it does or doesn't apply isn't necessarily equal to when or when it doesn't actually apply. Or the level of information about it that can help you decide if it applies or not at the time. Which is one of your arguments about saying No. That it's quick and easy for you to say No because you've simply decided it doesn't apply over checking information to be sure it doesn't apply.
But if you use the information regularly or make a few notes when preparing. It's just as easy to say yes it does. Or even let it apply when your not entirely sure. But you'd rather make it not work because your not in favor of it to begin with.
This is why your working under a logical fallacy and just saying "it's because I think it" doesn't save it Or make it somehow more right because of subjectivity.
Your very statement says that it's easy to say no because when you say no then you don't have to consider anything at all. Whether that was your intention or not. And it's a mentality that you have shown in other posts in this thread as well. Saying no is easy because then you don't have to take work. NE and FE are quick and simple if I just say no whether No is actually how it works.
That's a really long walk you just took to get to "I am the DM, so I don't have to check 15 resources, I am making a judgement call, if you don't like it you can tell me, but it probably isn't going to change my mind - but go for it"
If I am a player or a DM, the call gets made, I can provide a reason why I disagree, if I am playing and I say my piece and the DM disagrees I drop it, if I am the DM and a player disagrees I will hear them out, but I am not gonna stop the game and look up resources because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what some forum says or the way they want to interpret some paragraph in a book, it is my call, I am not gonna disrupt the flow of the game to have a long drawn out discussion.
Insight + speak with animal = knowing whether that blue jay you just spoke with is telling the truth or playing a practical joke on you.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It doesn't require a long drawn out discussion. and game play gets interrupted for some level of discussion often enough. your again putting barriers in the way rathre than trying to do the work. The conversation can also be shelved to have after the game even if you make a temporary ruling during the game. Even if it doesn't match the ruling the conversation after comes to later. But you don't even make room for that possbility much of the time. You just jump on what you would do and have made it more and more clear that you can't be bothered to do any work.
And it's not the walk I took. It's the walk you took. Because that's the walk you clearly want to take. My walk. My Walk is even simpler. Get into the habit of doing the work when your doing all the other work for things like encounters. And then you end up with no real extra work. You already have the answer because you've already found the answers previously. You dn't need the middle of the game discussion. Or even the after the game discussion to figure it out.