How bullshit is it if I wrote into the setting notes that characters have the ability to recognize a monster on sight, but then also withheld information that a disguise can fool this innate sense?
One one hand, it's a clue about the under-workings of the setting that demi-human races can recognize a monster by observing it, and important to the background info of the setting that characters can tell a monster vs. normal animal. On the other hand, I can completely imagine someone interpreting this as "I have the ability to tell when I am looking at a monster," when the intention is "I know that the creature I'm looking at that I've never seen before would be classified as a monster," and crying foul if three imps take off a trench coat and attack.
Part of the intention behind considering holding the info back is to sort of simulate a character being born with an ability to do something and then never questioning or knowing that this sense could possibly be fooled until they run into it.
Utterly. "That weird thing looks monstrous" is not a special power or in any way noteworthy. Why mention it if not to deliberately mislead people?
fpbp
If your monsters are so generic that they could be confused for animals, the distinction is basically meaningless.
>If your monsters are so generic that they could be confused for animals, the distinction is basically meaningless.
That's how it works irl though
>it's a clue about the under-workings of the setting that demi-human races can recognize a monster by observing it, and important to the background info of the setting that characters can tell a monster vs. normal animal.
This "clue" only makes sense to you because you constructed it, and know what it's a "clue" to. It doesn't actually work otherwise: even after being told I can't fathom how it's supposed to make sense or be at all relevant.
It'd be a shitty clue if I gave it to you and you unraveled the entire thing instantly, wouldn't it?
Are you trying to actually inform your players about the setting, or just feel smug about knowing something they couldn't possibly know?
Both? Have you never DM'd before?
No. Did you ask for other people's opinions because you actually wanted a perspective other than your own, or because you wanted your ego boosted by hearing your own opinion parroted back at you?
>Did you ask for other people's opinions because you actually wanted a perspective other than your own
Yes, but you failed to read an important sentence, and when I corrected you, you threw a fit about it and broadcasted your inability to recognize the significance or understand the question, then immediately took an antagonistic stance towards me. Especially so considering your last two replies to me have been bad faith choices between with camped insults in them.
I don't really know who hurt you in the past, but your questions aren't really leading to a conducive conversation. It's just menially picking unrelated fights. All I wanted to do was point out a sentence to you that I wrote cause I felt it was important to the facts, you demonstrated evidence you didn't read or understand it.
With ALL of that knowledge before you, do you still have questions, or do you feel it's still bullshit and how much bullshit is it to you?
It seems like total bullshit, and you seem very defensive. I ignored your comment about it being a "clue" because I don't think it makes any sense as a clue, and because I think the idea of making the background information of your game some sort of puzzle is pointless at best.
>and you seem very defensive.
Nah, you were just showing very open irritation and frustration that I didn't immediately see things your way even though you showed signs of failing to understand things I had written. I still actually care about your opinion.
Also, your failure or even success at understanding the clue or its purpose is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, honestly. I'm purely asking the question "If you read this as a little side note in the setting details, would you then find it bullshit if a monster took off a mustache and hat and you didn't recognize them as a monster beforehand?" The question is about should I put the disguise information up front. The setting lore will always stay no matter what.
Why do you feel that way?
It's not actually meant as a gotcha. Maybe leading the thread with a mimic was a bad idea, but that's not the intention here. I might not even ever run a disguised or camouflaged monster. But I want to leave the door open for utilizing one, and additionally it might affect how characters act and behave in the world.
Smells like a troll.
>"If you read this as a little side note in the setting details, would you then find it bullshit if a monster took off a mustache and hat and you didn't recognize them as a monster beforehand?"
The answer to this is "Yes, of fricking course I would." No one needs a skill to recognize an obvious monster, so saying that someone can always recognize a monster on sight while secretly allowing situations where someone would not recognize a monster on sight is bullshit of the highest order.
>muh "bad faith"
Get filtered, autogynophiliac. You will never be a real woman. Go back to plebbit and commit sudoku.
Yes, it is. You are effectively lying to your players and they will rightly feel cheated.
>clue
Making a direct statement isn't a clue that it might not be true. That's nothow clues work.
That sentance didn't change a thing and the only one throwing a fit is you.
>It's not actually meant as a gotcha
It IS a gotcha though. That you have to clarify it isn't intended as such is an indicator that you fricked up.
>That you have to clarify it isn't intended as such is an indicator that you fricked up.
No it just means that you read into it something that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. Hence the requirement for a second set of eyes on something.
>the only one throwing a fit is you.
How so?
>why would you want all creatures to have a "sense monster" ability?
>if they can sense monsters
It's not a sense as in Detect Evil where they see an aura. It is "Huh, I am looking at this creature I've never seen before, and my gut instinct tells me that this is a 'Monster' ". This sense is easier to fool than they might expect because disguises can prevent this from triggering.
That's it. Your entire rant is addressing an ability that does not function the way it's intending to function.
No actually I think I found a proper degree of wording + where I should encamp the information. It won't be upfront, but it could be advice rolled on a random rumor table. "A disguise can fool our senses, fellow adventurer. Watch out!" and I think that's where I want to leave it.
The only thing /tg/ really proved to me is that they're kinda whiny.
>How so?
You've spent the entire thread trying to "nuh uh!" With piss poor justifications. Admit you were wrong and move on already.
The thread here is to get the answer to a question. 99% of the thread has been:
>This is stupid.
>>Okay. The question is "why?"
>Because [sentence that shows that anon blately misread or misinterpreted something]"
>>Oh, you missed this part of what I said.
>God, could you STOP being so butthurt about what I said and just admit you're a FRICKING dumbass?
>>....no?
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
If you don't understand something, ask me questions and I'll indulge as much as you need me to and I'm willing to share.
No. 90% of the thread has been people explaining to you that springing a shitty gotcha on your players is a bad idea. The remaining 10 percent has been you throwing a hissy fit.
Protip, if everyone in the thread is misunderstanding your point, maybe you're fricking awful at elaborating said point. If you're so bad at it here, I can't imagine it is going to work very well at the table.
>90% of the thread has been people explaining to you that springing a shitty gotcha on your players is a bad idea.
The argument that's been presented thus far: "It's bad because I say it's bad!"
Astounding.
>Protip, if everyone in the thread is misunderstanding your point, maybe you're fricking awful at elaborating said point.
Or maybe I'm in the special ed class and I'm surrounded by morons? Ad Populum is a fallacy for a reason.
>The players will likely not be aware of anything.
The players would be aware of the innate ability. It's something all demiraces just have the ability to do so.
>Do the PCs get an actual chance at discerning the disguise before you drop it on them?[...]
Oh of course. They get all necessary checks and clues, and I can even imagine certain situations where the ability NOT triggering for them would give them an advantage on the situation as well. I have no intention of actually running a "gotcha" on them in the first place. That's the entire reason why I asked. I want to make sure someone reading that could understand that this is not foolproof. It's just been difficult to address which anons are trying to be sincere and which ones are starting a fight.
>What would be an in-game situation where this comes up?
Potentially? None. It's more of a narrative thing. Let me explain my thinking:
"Hmm, I'm thinking about my setting X. Oh, actually, since the setting is like X, then if I follow some natural thinking, wouldn't it mean that players would innately know when the creature they're dealing with is classified as a 'monster' as a built-in thing? Okay, I'll add that in as a clue to the underworkings of the setting and bizarre fluff...hey, wait, what about disguises? Those would still work in settings like X...okay, then they have to work here too. But...how do I adjudicate that? And would some players believe that they are paladins that could Detect Monster?"
That's it. That's all the hubbub.
>>What would be an in-game situation where this comes up?
>Potentially? None. It's more of a narrative thing.
It potentially may or may not be bullshit then. Does that answer your question?
>players get the relevant checks when it comes down to it
Great, then there is no problem at all since you aren't withholding information at all and players can make informed decisions.
Still I wonder where you are trying to get with all of this because reading the OP I didn't get your meaning at all and from how the thread went I have the feeling that it's the same for a lot of other anons.
>No, of course it doesn't answer the question.
I don't even know what the questions is anymore. In the op you wrote: "Would it be bullshit if..." indicating that you care about the experience people have when playing your game, but now you say: "No, I'm building the setting mostly for myself. ... The players are invited to play in it, and if they don't like it, they can DM or we can play something else." implying that this is mostly narrative reasoning.
It's extremely hard to discern what your intentions are or what the point of these mechanics/reasoning are.
>Still I wonder where you are trying to get with all of this
I bet OP is doing some One Punch Man bullshit where the monsters can look mostly human until they go "Haha I guzzled monster cum, I'm actually a monster" and power up for the fight.
>Still I wonder where you are trying to get with all of this because reading the OP I didn't get your meaning at all and from how the thread went I have the feeling that it's the same for a lot of other anons.
It was just a quick proof read. It wound up being slightly unhelpful, cause I came up with the answer a little bit after posting, but also helpful in that my explanations of the ability gave me a better understanding of how it would functionally affect the world.
>don't even know what the questions is anymore.[...]
I care about the game state and balance, and this is also for narrative reasoning, with maybe an occasional spill into a function now that I've thought about it more. But I'm also not going to compromise it to a point where I'm taking out things I feel I want.
>It's extremely hard to discern what your intentions are or what the point of these mechanics/reasoning are.
I mean, I get that. Especially because I've been withholding other bits of information, mostly because I don't want to have even MORE arguments just to explain the entire setting. But I don't believe any other context is necessary or relative to this thread.
Specific:
Working:
"You see a creature standing before you. It looks like [Something player has never seen or heard of]. You get a gut feeling that it's a Monster."
Not-working:
"You see a creature in a cloak standing before you. It's hard to make out the features. You feel a little unnerved because you cannot recognize it."
Also,
>seems to boil down to having a pokedex.
Very far off. The information that you gather from this sense is "This thing I'm looking at is a 'Monster.' " Players do not get ANY other kind of information, including names, abilities, and there are no types. That was an interesting interpretation though, I'll look out for that.
VERY far off.
Tell us a little more about the game and the setting. I'm fascinated. Can the players tell the difference between plastic fruit and real fruit without tasting it?
>"You see a creature standing before you. It looks like [Something player has never seen or heard of]. You get a gut feeling that it's a Monster."
>Not-working:
>"You see a creature in a cloak standing before you. It's hard to make out the features. You feel a little unnerved because you cannot recognize it."
Why does this require a specific ability for players to discern. This is just what you should do when describing a situation for players.
I'm honestly baffled why you think the way you do and if you are just trolling I've gotta say you got me because this is pants on head moronic.
I suspect OP is serious, this kind of logic tracks with people who believe being different for the sake of different is a good thing. Their view trends towards that if it has been done before it is a cliche, and cliches are definitionally "bad". Different is good, thus if there is a quirk it must definitionally be good, what its narrative function is in a greater dramatic arc is unimportant. And to be clear, OP is a writer, not a game master. Game masters do not think in the manner of needing uniqueness, they think in the manner of facilitating an idea (hopefully 'fun').
What we are witnessing here is a writer defending their darling.
>Specific:
>It looks like [Something player has never seen or heard of]
Hardly specific. I'm asking what situation would the context clues not already lend themselves to that. Like what happens if they see a vampire that isn't wearing a cloak, or if they see something like the head of a chimera peeking at them from around a corner, and therefore would only see the head of a lion?
Are those situations where they would instantly sense that these are monsters? Does a vampire count as disguised by default as long as it's acting human? Does a chimera accidentally concealing itself behind a wall count as a disguise?
Because it the benefit doesn't work in those situations, then it's not really that much of a benefit. Being able to guess that something is a monster as long as you get a clear look at it and it isn't a shapeshifter isn't a special ability, so there's no reason to give it to the players as a feature and make them think the ability does more than it says.
"You have the special ability to identify the color red with your eyes unless it's covered by something" like no shit.
>Like what happens if they see a vampire that isn't wearing a cloak
That's actually interesting. I think in that case, I would rule "This is a monster." I think I'm okay with letting go of the whole "vampire in our midst" thing. I think going with this, I'll use a Clark Kent rule. "glasses alone aren't enough of a disguise," and I don't think closing a mouth is enough.
>Does a chimera...see the head of a lion?
I'd think that would be camouflaging, so they wouldn't see it in that case. If the character saw enough to recognize it is indeed a chimera, it would trigger "Monster".
>it's not really that much of a benefit.
It's not supposed to be.
>there's no reason to give it to the players as a feature and make them think the ability does more than it says.
Yeah, and I've identified the issues with this and have it camped into a good spot where I think it will likely trigger less of the "I HAVE DETECT MONSTER?!??" thinking, and I believe that characters can reasonably come hold of the information that the senses can be fooled thanks to this, rumor tables, and other setting details I haven't included here.
I think a lot of the confusion in this thread is stemming from your use of the word monster, since it is a very broad term across fantasy.
In your setting, are monsters a connected class of creatures in the same way demons are in d&d, or is it a generic term simmilar to how monstrous creature is used in the same game?
Nah, dude the thread has been
>That's a shitty idea
>No you don't get it!
>No, we get it. it's still a shitty idea.
And even if you were right, that means your players will also not get it and also think it's a shitty idea. So you're doubly wrong.
>The argument that's been presented thus far: "It's bad because I say it's bad!"
This is blatant misrepresentation of the arguments. It's clear you didn't come here in good faith and are just looking for validation for an idea you already knew was bad, kindly frick off.
Okay. Whatever you say anon.
>Whatever you say anon.
Great, I say you're a c**t and should frick off, kindly do so at your earliest convenience.
>It's not a sense as in Detect Evil where they see an aura. It is "Huh, I am looking at this creature I've never seen before, and my gut instinct tells me that this is a 'Monster' ". This sense is easier to fool than they might expect because disguises can prevent this from triggering.
>That's it. Your entire rant is addressing an ability that does not function the way it's intending to function.
You have no idea how worse this makes all of this lmao
So there's this game mechanic that makes players recognize monsters for some reason that's somehow exclusive zo demigods but it's also just as reliable as some normal dude's gut instinct because he can tell a cow from a manticore anyway because he has lige experience
What is even the point of this game mechanic?
This. Anybody who uses "gotcha" magic to feel clever should be shot.
I'm with the other anon. This sounds like someone chronically addicted to huffing his own farts would come up. Awful, useless, and definitely done because OP wanted to be praised
It's very bullshit.
So you have a rule that only works as a one time gotcha, which also cheapens the entire system because players will be expecting another gotcha at every turn.
Its not just that its a one time gotcha, but its a concept that already exists, thay of disguising. He's basically reverse engineering and then rebuilding the concept of disguise as if its a novel idea. It barely makes sense even
Agree with this, this idea is novel, gimmicky and unoriginal yet he comes of extremly defensive of it.
It's like when Matthew Perry tried to act like he invented sarcasm and called it 'Matt Speak'. You are just giving demi humans a modified, constant detect evil and acting like it's interesting.
Seems like you're just trying to engineer a situation where you can smirk at your players.
Not at all.
As is shown in real life a lot of monstrous subhumans have the ability to somehow adequately disguise themselves as things they are not - case in point the delusion that is "European culture"
Black folks are only allowed on /lgbt/, go back.
it's bs
why would you be able to detect evil?
i have always hated dnd for this
also "detect magic" lol, wtf
In real life it is quite possible to "detect evil" based on physiognomy, there is a look the Euro has that makes their inferiority plain
Oh, damn, I just realized you're probably a SEAmonkey and not black. You're supposed to be in /vt/, then, with all the other pagpag eaters. No verification required, captcha knows I'm right.
I am of the fundamental opinion that game mechanics should not be obscured, and in fact should be made as plain as possible.
I used to go all in on verisimilitude and immersion when I was younger and less experienced, but as I've gained decades of GMing experience I've come to the conclusion that it's all right to recognize you are playing a game. It's not a secret; everyone showed up to play a game with you. And games are more fun and far less prone to being frustrating when the players understand the rules.
I understand the desire to be clever and introduce twists, but don't do it with mechanics. You'll just create an atmosphere where players get into frequent decision paralysis because they'll always feel like they don't have enough information to make a choice.
For what it's worth, I've been GMing for 25 years.
a little, surely someone must have survived having that sense be fooled by a monster's disguise and passed that experience along to others?
I hope you never run any games.
Ultimately the payoff is that you will trick them into thinking something that is a monster isn't a monster. Witches, hags, and other baddies of the woods do that all the time and they don't need a logical loophole to do it. They just charm you into thinking they're a 20-something lady with huge badonkadonks looking for hot single men in her area. Why trick them? That's not good GMing. Let the monster trick them, then it's fair.
Metanarratives are far less interesting to experience than they are to conceive of.
/tg/ often struggles with separating IC and OOC knowledge and is made uncomfortable by the idea of introducing a challenging monsters for in-universe reasons instead of prattling on about armchair game design and metanarratives. At the end of the day though, the quality of the experience depends entirely on how good of a DM and writer/judge/"storyteller" you are. Who gives a shit what the players know- if we're talking about roleplaying games, what do their CHARACTERS know?
Either your players are going to feel like you cheated them because you just wanted a cheap "gotcha" moment, or they are going to be delighted by the surprise as their characters' actions weren't poisoned by metaknowledge. How bullshit it is depends entirely on your presentation- and of course, requires that your players don't have fragile egos that get shattered whenever something bad happens to their character.
>/tg/ often struggles with separating IC and OOC knowledge
If you want someone to separate IC from OOC there should be a payoff to it, and an obligation to walk into a trap that you know is a trap doesn't count.
>their characters actions weren't poisoned by metaknowledge
Not really, incorrect metaknowledge is still metaknowledge. Effectively OP's scheme poisons both gameplay and drama.
I mean if you tell your players "you can always spot a monster on sight in this setting" than you prove otherwise you're just lying about how the setting works from a meta perspective. In character it doesn't make any sense for people to assume that "monsters" can always be spotted on sight if they can't.
Creating a rule just to subvert it isn't clever, it's lazy.
If monsters can disguise their monstrousness, why would you want all creatures to have a "sense monster" ability? Everyone would be taught from childhood that their monster-sensing doesn't always work so be careful around things that might be monsters.
So let's imagine a scenario where people did not have this ability: They'd be taught from childhood to be careful around things that might be monsters. See how it's the same thing whether or not they can sense monster? If it's the same thing if they have it or don't have it; why put effort into managing it at all when you can simply not have it and not lose anything?
You say that you created the sense ability before you conceived of monsters that could hide it. Okay. But do they not trust their eyes when a monster eats their neighbour? Is this a world where non-monster violence does not exist? Do serial killers not exist? They aren't monsters but they sure as hell embody the concept. But before you answer these questions really think to yourself this: do you think your human, flesh and blood, players will be amazed and surprised when you do in fact tell them the 8-legged barbclam is NOT a monster? Or will they go "Huh, well that's curious. Anyway, I roll to attack."
The only time this will come up in play is when the players ask you if they can sense monsters, you say no, and then a monster attacks anyway and your defence is "Some monsters ignore the ability that lets you sense them." Gotcha! Tricked! Bamboozled! They wont enjoy that. I wouldn't. You wouldn't.
>Okay, Jimmy, your Eyes lets you sense monsters through an ability called Sight. You will always be able to tell if what you're sighting is a monster or not.
>Alright, sounds cool, do I sight any monsters around?
>No
>Alright, then I will proceed down the hall and-
>A monster jumps out. Little did you know that Sight is counteracted by an ability called Darkness!
I think OP realized how stupid his idea was.
>>why
>How bullshit is it if I wrote into the setting notes that characters have the ability to recognize a monster on sight, but then also withheld information that a disguise can fool this innate sense?
Because your idea is bad and seems like you just want to pull the rug out from you players in a "LOL I GOTCHA!!!" Which is a sign of a bad GM.
PCs don't need abilities to "sense" monsters nor do monsters need abilities to "hide" from this sense. If you want an encounter where players are confronted with a monster in disguise, you as the gm should be setting it up via your descriptions of what the players encounter.
Now why don't you detail out how this is supposed to work with players.
Honestly a lot of this seems contradictory.
>It's bad because you're pulling a gotcha
>The players don't even need that ability, they can just tell a monster is a monster
>In normal circumstances, the monster would be disguised
>Which would counteract the fact that they don't need the ability to tell what a monster is because they could tell what a monster is.
>Except with that disguise.
>So NOW when you tell them "You have this ability that you didn't need to be an ability" and then it doesn't work like normal, it's a gotcha!
>See?
If the players don't need the ability to tell an Owlbear is a monster whereas an Owl or Bear is, then why does telling them about this non-ability change the formula to a point where anons feel entitled to tell me that I should never DM a game in my life ever?
Doesn't make a lot of sense, if you ask me.
I'll ask again for you to explain in detail how this idea of yours is supposed to work with players.
Sure. Let me use a real-world analogy for the level of gravitas that this is supposed to affect the player characters.
>Two men enter the room, having never met
>Have enjoyable conversation
>"Well, it was nice meeting you Dennis."
>"Yeah, it-wait, did I ever tell you my name?"
>"...no, I don't think you did, actually."
>"How did you know it?"
>"Dunno, I just kinda felt that was right."
>"Oh. Weird. Okay bye."
However, if Dennis had shown up wearing a hat and mustache, the other man would not be able to recognize him as "Dennis".
The situation I'm trying to avoid:
>Player reads the thing in the setting sheet
>Thinks: "BEHOLD, DUNGEON MASTER! I enter the room...and using my almighty, Goddess-given powers, I use my ability to KNOW DENNIS™."
>"Curses, player! Your clever use of your powers as written have determined that Dennis is hiding under the 3-inch lead plate! He hisses at you and shirks away to the darkness!"
then
>"Oh, the mustachioed guy takes off his hat. You suddenly recognize him as Dennis."
>"WAIT WHAT THE FRICK!??!"
That's it. That's the joke.
>ultimately player enjoyment.
No, I'm building the setting mostly for myself. It's the setting that I would have liked to play if I were playing, and that's what I'm making full stop. The players are invited to play in it, and if they don't like it, they can DM or we can play something else.
>but also to list the trap item in the middle of the description.
I kind of want an example of that, honestly.
No, of course it doesn't answer the question. What scenario did you need to answer the question that wasn't already there? If I'm planning a rocks fall situation, or if I'm just mostly planning to run mimics and mimics and maybe an intelligent monster can polymorph?
This has to be a troll, holy shit.
Why?
>As demonstrated by most people here interpreting it that way
Yeah but almost every single person in this thread also demonstrated that they're moronic. It's hard to take them seriously when they also immediately jumped to massive assumptions in their own heads based on a few lines of text and inserting things that weren't there.
>Because that's a, frankly, strange way to interpret it without very specific explanation
I think it's mostly only being interpreted that way due to people looking for a power, but I am taking that into account with rewrites and acceptable losses.
>What is even the point of this game mechanic?
Read:
Again, it's not really meant to be a "power". It's a quirk that things in this setting have, similar to how we can feel hot/cold. It's not meant to be useful itself, only that the denizens can do it.
See above.
That's still NOT what a clue is. A clue is a hint to something bigger; a statement of fact to the contrary is NOT a clue. A clue to that would be some sort of statement that implies it's not completely infallible. and again, what you've described is visual inspection. Tell me why this exists if it serves no real purpose that can't be achieved by visual inspection.
>Yeah but almost every single person in this thread also demonstrated that they're moronic
The only one moronic here is you; you've demonstrated you lack any sort of capacity to look at things from another perspective, admit fault, or understand how someone lacking information could come to a different conclusion(information you failed to provide). You also seem to have a poor grasp of fricking game design.
>Working:
>"You see a creature standing before you. It looks like [Something player has never seen or heard of]. You get a gut feeling that it's a Monster."
>Not-working:
>"You see a creature in a cloak standing before you. It's hard to make out the features. You feel a little unnerved because you cannot recognize it."
This is actually moronic. Again, this is nothing that can't be handled by visual inspection; only niche use cases would be "hey is that an actual animal or a monster" in which case it doesn't matter or "hey is that person a monster" in which case it fails due to disguise. This serves no purpose; shit like detect evil works because it can show you something you can't find out through visual inspection of a person/creature.
Actually good wording, based poster.
>real world analogy.
No. Tell me how, using the game system for the setting you are using that this idea is going to work. Tell me a specific scenario where your players will encounter this idea of yours. Unless you are being a nogame homosexual you can easily do this.
You're just plain moronic
Why is this even a thing? What you've described is just being able to tell what a creature is based on visual inspection. Why is this a power if it's not better than being able to go "yeah that weird amalgamation of animals is probably a monster?" Basically pointless and anyone spending any resource to get it will feel cheated.
>No, of course it doesn't answer the question.
Alright. So can you give an example of an in-game situation where this actually comes up? Because saying that it potentially won't come up at all means that it potentially won't even matter.
If you want specifics, be specific.
The gaint problem with this, that I'm fuming no anon has mentioned yet, is that this weakness of the sense would be known. If a simple hat and mustache, or tenchcoat etc. Work to disable it, then even something like only seeing part of a monster behind a corner, or behind a tree or mesh fence would also fool the sense. Thus everyone would learn about it pretty fast.
Well that's actually part of the mental debate I was having for this thread. The analogy I made with the sense of hot earlier would make sense, because you would very quickly run into a hot thing even as a child because the world is simply too full of hot things for this to be ignored. You will fill hot on a too-sunny day, for example. Therefore, the sense of hot which is built-in would have it's weaknesses/strength exposed pretty quickly, so that would just be common knowledge.
The question I have with this thought process is "How often are my denizens actually running into monsters, AND how often are they running into monsters that utilize some sort of camo or disguise as part of their ability?"
>There is be no reason to be so vague, defensive and secretive when asking for advice.
Read
and
If you guys want people to be more willing to be open about their settings/information, stop being c**ts and shout down c**ts on sight until they stop being c**ts. I genuinely believe I have caused less arguments with this approach than I would have providing more details even at this point. /tg/ can be insufferable.
>inb4 "YOU'RE the c**t, c**t!"
>>inb4 "YOU'RE the c**t, c**t!"
Yeah, you are. You KNOW you are, too, because you came here to ask whether or not something was bullshit fully aware of the answer, and then when you were told it was, doubled down with "muh context" fully ignoring that what you described was a dick move regardless of context. And then the additional context you provided made it worse and made it seem incredibly nonsensical and more dickish.
>The question I have with this thought process is "How often are my denizens actually running into monsters, AND how often are they running into monsters that utilize some sort of camo or disguise as part of their ability?"
See, this is why anon earlier called this some shit a writer would do. Versimilitude is a sacrifice on the alter of game design, both for smoothness of play, and for not coming off as a fricking dick. Plus, even if the average joe with this ability isn't running into monsters on the regular, the only way this would be really unknown is if monsters are incredibly rare(making it again, mostly pointless) or something they just developed and have no experience with. But even a chance encounter with a monster that ducked behind a bush would be enough to go "ah, this sense only works with direct, unobstructed sight," so even then it doesn't REALLY make a lot of sense in universe. And again, it makes NO SENSE for a game. Telling your players one thing only to roll it back later and tell them "Acshully it doesn't work like that" is still a dick move, and no amount of additional context changes that.
>Versimilitude is a sacrifice on the alter of game design
I actually think it's the reverse. Verisimilitude is a necessity of good game design. It's hard to make plans or plot points around a magical world if the magic mechanics just sort of change on a whim. That's why I'm thinking about this stuff now, not just for presentation, but how that's going to affect the people in the world, their culture, their innate feelings, etc.
>even if the average joe with this ability isn't running into monsters on the regular, the only way this would be really unknown is if monsters are incredibly rare
*Monsters with disguises are very rare.
I think if monsters have a capability or intelligence to be disguised, they wouldn't go broadcasting that information outl So the question is the rarity of these specific types of monsters and their use cases. I think regular monsters will be known enough about to know that a sense triggers.
>Telling your players one thing only to roll it back later and tell them "Acshully it doesn't work like that" is still a dick move
Sure, but I think I have it now at a point where it wouldn't be a dick move, and even if it was, it would register far lower than your rant is making it out to be. And then on top of that, I feel confident enough in providing a good and trustworthy game that even if someone took it as a dick move if that scenario even plays out, that it would minimized bruised egos to a very acceptable level.
>no amount of additional context changes that.
Well okay. If you feel that way, stop caring about and responding to my posts.
>I actually think it's the reverse.
Congrats, you're wrong.
>It's hard to make plans or plot points around a magical world if the magic mechanics just sort of change on a whim.
That's a total misrepresentation of what I said. See, this kind of shit, this is why you're a c**t. You've been acting like a smugly superior butthole all thread, while deliberately withholding supposed information that would clarify it, but calling people morons because they don't have that additional information, which you also intend to do to your players and somehow think that isn't an butthole thing to do.
>*Monsters with disguises are very rare.
Yes, and the first time a monster ducked behind a bush, the limitations would be understood. It doesn't have to be a intelligent monsters because there are other ways this limitation would become know. Again, it's clear you did not put serious thought into this.
>Sure, but I think I have it now at a point where it wouldn't be a dick move, and even if it was, it would register far lower than your rant is making it out to be.
This is how I know you're a nogames. No, the reaction would be far, far more intense than this thread, and it would poison the well for the entire table playing the game. You are not thinking as a player; they will fell RIGHTLY cheated, and the entire table will be thinking "Well when is he going to nerf one of my abilities," and they WILL argue with you about it. you will be lucky if you do not lose an entire group to this shit.
>trustworthy game
You cannot run a trustworthy game where you are lying to you players in order to dick them over later. These ARE mutually exclusive things, and players WILL recognize that. You very clearly think this is a great idea; you also very clearly do not understand how this shit will play out at an actual table, because no DM worth a shit would try to pull this kind of stunt. This is on par with the old school Paladin Falls shit from back in the old days of /tg/.
>Congrats, you're wrong.
Agree to disagree.
>That's a total misrepresentation of what I said.
If that's the case, why didn't you just correct it? What is it you are trying to say to me?
>but calling people morons because they don't have that additional information
I'm directly telling you that you don't need more information.
>Yes, and the first time a monster ducked behind a bush, the limitations would be understood.
I don't think that scenario play out as often as you are implying, or if it did, then the players would quickly run into it naturally through gameplay and should be able to deduce things about it.
>No, the reaction would be far, far more intense than this thread, and it would poison the well for the entire table playing the game.
Nah, I've DM'd publicly at FLGS. Something this small would, at best, result in a
"Oh, wait, does this not work like this?"
"Ah, no, otherwise X would have happened at Y, right?"
"Oh, okay, I guess I misunderstood that then."
"Yeah, sorry about that. Anyways it's still your turn."
>you are lying to you players in order to dick them over later. These ARE mutually exclusive things,
Yeah, I agree with you, but I've mastered the game and I know how to build up table trust before doing these things in controlled portions. The problem isn't lying to dick people over, it's doing that by crossing bad lines, or doing that to people who have PTSD from bad prior DMs who would cross those lines or do it constantly. This will be a very controlled minor hit, and it will not be representative
The issue isn't as black and white as you think it is. There's a huge difference between nullifying player powers vs. players misunderstanding their powers. And now it's controlled for the latter. You have assisted me in my purpose. If you would like to win the argument, you can do so as well.
Congratulations: You are correct about everything and I have lost. I am defeated. Well done.
>players misunderstanding their powers.
No dude, they are not "misunderstanding their powers." That is NOT what you have presented, not even close. What you have said you intend to do is straight up lie to your players.
>I am defeated. Well done.
Then frick off. You got a unanimous answer and just didn't like it, feel free to continue deluding yourself it will be any different elsewhere.
>Something this small would, at best, result in a...
Lol no. Again, this is how I know you're a nogames.
>If that's the case, why didn't you just correct it?
Because it was more important to point out how you were deliberately twisting my words like a smug, arrogant c**t. Verisimilitude takes a backseat to game design because mechanical consistency in a game is more important than the appearance of the world being extremely faithful to it's "reality." There is nothing about that that would prevent you from making consistent plot points or having the world function in a believable way, it just operates according to the rules of the game rather than the rules of the world. What you presented is a dodge; an excuse, a fricking nothing burger that's not important.
>I'm directly telling you that you don't need more information.
And yet you called people morons for not having it. Which way is it? Post full context to clarify, you won't, no balls.
>they are not "misunderstanding their powers."
No they would be if they believed they could Detect Monster. I think just the fact that they wouldn't have a radar sense on them should be enough evidence for that. But I'll fine tune it further if it needs it. Thanks for the advice.
>You got a unanimous answer and just didn't like it
A cacophony of morons isn't the same as the few intelligent responses I got.
>Because it was more important to point out how you were deliberately twisting my words like a smug, arrogant c**t.
Okay, so you were never interested in a conversation? You were interested in being a moron? Gasp. Shock. Surprise.
>Verisimilitude takes a backseat to game design because mechanical consistency in a game is more important than the appearance of the world being extremely faithful to it's "reality."
The two shouldn't ever be divorced though. I personally think mechanical consistency is what dictates the verisimilitude. And it would be mechanically consistent for a character to have a sense, whereas discovering details about that sense would need experimentation and study. That would dictate the verisimilitude of the story, and I'm more interested in the mechanical consistency reflecting the nature of the setting naturally.
>And yet you called people morons for not having it.
Yeah, cause you're moronic. You don't need it to answer the question so it's irrelevant. Demanding more information that you won't get is key signs of moronation.
>Okay, so you were never interested in a conversation? You were interested in being a moron? Gasp. Shock. Surprise.
Again, twisting my words. This is you arguing in bad faith.
>That would dictate the verisimilitude of the story,
This is shit for a novel, not a game. You are not looking at this as a player, but as a writer. If you aren't ready to make compromises for the sake of gameplay, write a novel.
>You don't need it to answer the question
Again, you called people morons for not having that information, information they could not possibly have, then refused to provide said information. They aren't being morons for not knowing something they couldn't possibly know, you're being a c**t for calling them morons.
>Again, twisting my words.
How so? You thought it was more important to call me names and argue on bad faith instead of making sure that we both understand each other. What twisting happened?
>You are not looking at this as a player, but as a writer.
I'm looking at it as both. I personally, as a player, find it more interesting when there is little/less ludo-narrative dissonance. I don't really need to make the sacrifice if I can work it in.
>Again, you called people morons for not having that information,
*and then failing to answer the question.
Do you also yell at someone if you're solving a mystery scenario when they said "You have all the clues necessary" and then still fail to solve it despite it all being logical?
>If you led them to believe that then they are not misunderstanding it.
There's a huge difference between making someone believe something vs. saying something that could be potentially construed one of two ways and then simply not asking questions or going off of preconceived assumptions. ESPECIALLY so when you're choosing an assumption in hopes for more power. I also used to game with rejects in the public space that would intentionally not clarifying it hoping that later upset and argumentation would cause me to budge on the subject. That's all on them.
It's only on me if I present information that could ONLY be interpreted one way and THEN "yank the rug" out from under them. And I feel I have that aspect well within control.
>instead of making sure that we both understand each other
>I'm just intentionally not answering. Sorry if you're looking for more information, but that's not what the thread is for
Post the excerpt the players will be reading
>Post the excerpt the players will be reading
You don't need that to understand the assignment.
>You've been doing this the entire thread. You have intentionally misrepresented what i and others have said; you have called people names; you have intentionally concealed information, then lambasted people for not having it;
Irony.
>In your setting, are monsters a connected class of creatures in the same way demons are in d&d, or is it a generic term simmilar to how monstrous creature is used in the same game?
It's actually a little of both. They are a connected class all unified under one umbrella, but anything and everything in the monster manual might be a monster. The term has other significance, because those under that shared class share certain traits and features. I'm even using a different term for it, but I'm just using "Monster", capital m and quotation marks, to deign that they are a separate thing.
>They are a connected class all unified under one umbrella, but anything and everything in the monster manual might be a monster.
So by that do you mean a dog could be a monster, and if thats the case could a dog also not be a monster?
Like is it a case of two beings might be completely identical except for the fact one activates the extra sense?
Or is every example of a creature that is a monster guaranteed to be a monster? Eg all dogs, all owlbears etc.
>So by that do you mean a dog could be a monster, and if thats the case could a dog also not be a monster?
Potentially, yes. In general, my plan thus far has been to keep it listed by species, so a Goblin would be a "Monster", whereas a wolf is just a wolf. But I could also fit it in the scenario that there was a specific breed of wolf that was in fact a "Monster".
So to answer your two sentences below, no to the former, yes to the latter, but it would be workable to make something of the former if I really wanted to push the concept. I could then have a dog that would in fact be a "Monster," then share all traits under the "Monster" rules.
Cool, that makes sense.
So in summary it is a world where multiple types of creature that do not appear to be related by species or allegiance can be identified instinctively as belonging to a related "monster" class.
This can be obscured through use of disguises which block the instinctive sense, with those who posess it being able to immediately recognise a "Monster" if the disguise is removed.
Is this about right? If so it doesn't sound like bullshit, but I would suggest you supply your players a very detailed background of what the "Monsters" are and what the significance of recognizing them is. Otherwise your game will likely get bogged down with explaining and re explaining how this works, which tends to kill players ability to immerse and role play in the setting.
Yup, that's pretty much it perfectly. And yes, I have made sure that the block that mentions that players can distinguish if a species is part of the "Monster" class is actually nestled inside the block for the description of what "Monsters" are and information about them.
Thanks for being the first person in this shit show to actually try to understand the conversation.
Well then it sounds like an enjoyable setting.
As an aside, would I be correct to assume that you intend to use the disguise mechanic as a hidden aspect of play until a pivotal juncture in game? Like a boss reveal or false conclusion arc? At which point it will switch from secret to a primary aspect of play.
If so this doesn't sound any different from games with a "gm only" section, such as mutant year zero. And it usually enhances the gameplay by stopping it from becoming stagnant.
>As an aside, would I be correct to assume that you intend to use the disguise mechanic as a hidden aspect of play until a pivotal juncture in game?
Not in particular. I think as I discussed with the other anon, the ease of which a disguise could fool a demi-human would be easy enough that I imagine that it would at least come up during the first few sessions of play even if I don't intentionally disguise something. I mentioned this earlier, but it was really more of a case that "Oh, all 'Monsters' in the world are like this...then naturally following this logic, players should know when they are observing a 'Monster' as opposed to a creature." It was only after I was proofreading that I realized "wait, TECHNICALLY I could potentially read this as 'Detect "Monster" ' and a player might bawl." So I made the thread, and after some ideas (mostly on my own) I came up with better wording. The thread was still a success though mostly in that it gave me more ideas and also helped me find different ways to explain the difference.
>If so this doesn't sound any different from games with a "gm only" section
There is definitely a lot going on in the setting that is going to be gm only for a long while. Which I mentioned way at the top, the fact that the players HAVE the sense in the first place is a clue into that, as opposed to what the function actually does.
>the ease of which a disguise could fool a demi-human would be easy enough that I imagine that it would at least come up during the first few sessions of play even if I don't intentionally disguise something.
I think if that is the case you might be better off disclosing it off the bat, since if your greater narrative doesn't depend on the disguise feature being secret long term, it might give the players a single "yoinks scooby doo" moment, but also potentially disrupt the flow of play more than it enhances it.
I have found in the past that concealing anything mechanical in game is a very significant choice, and should generally only be reserved for things that completely alter the flow of subsequent adventures.
I think it's readily available enough that it *shouldn't* cause any troubles, but I'll definitely keep it in mind if I need to fine tune it or be more upfront with it.
What's the worst case scenario if you decide to be honest and upfront with your players?
Same worst case scenario of some one giving you a riddle then telling you the answer after you only made one guess. That's not fun to me.
>How so? You thought it was more important to call me names and argue on bad faith instead of making sure that we both understand each other. What twisting happened?
I was pointing out you were twisting my words. You responded by saying I was never interested in conversation and called me names, which not remotely what I said. You've been doing this the entire thread. You have intentionally misrepresented what i and others have said; you have called people names; you have intentionally concealed information, then lambasted people for not having it; you were never interested in what people said, but only looking for answers you already wanted. This is arguing in bad faith.
>No they would be if they believed...
If you led them to believe that then they are not misunderstanding it.
My guy, literally no one will ever care as much about this as you do. If you have a table, they will not care. If it's for a book, no one will care.
It does not matter.
Thinking it matters is an excuse to not progress, because you can be "Hung up" on a minor detail and still feel like you're working on something while you spin your wheels.
Just do what you want. No one cares.
>My guy, literally no one will ever care as much about this as you do.
>Just do what you want. No one cares.
?
Why did you even bother posting?
I'm reading the messages, I'm just intentionally not answering. Sorry if you're looking for more information, but that's not what the thread is for and this thread is not for you. At this point I'm just responding if I think the topic point is interesting enough or I think there's been a misunderstanding that hasn't been explained already. I'll probably stop even watching the thread shortly as soon as I think the other anon goes back into his loop for the third time.
This entire thing is kinda meh in my opinion on two fronts:
A)
>players reading campaign notes
Lol. The only people who will know about these abilities and possible contradictions are OP and we anons in this thread. The players will likely not be aware of anything.
B)
>resolving the act of being fooled
Do the PCs get an actual chance at discerning the disguise before you drop it on them? Is there a check involved that the demi humans can pass or fumble or are you just going to drop it on them as a matter of fact when it happens?
If it's the later then that's pretty weak from a gaming perspective.
Honestly this whole thread feels kinda strange since you OP and other anons seem to talk circles around each other because the issue at hand seems kinda vague.
What would be an in-game situation where this comes up?
sounds like a typical /tg/ problem. You're so obsessed with world building for a setting NO ONE will ever actually play in that you fail to consider that if you would be truly writing for a game then the setting has to bend towards game mechanics and ultimately player enjoyment.
If your setting bites the game you want to play eith it in zhe ass it needs fixing.
I try to be sneaky and mention superfluous objects when describing rooms but also to list the trap item in the middle of the description.
>someone interpreting this as "I have the ability to tell when I am looking at a monster,
As demonstrated by most people here interpreting it that way, this is what most people are going to interpret it as.
> the intention is "I know that the creature I'm looking at that I've never seen before would be classified as a monster,"
Because that's a, frankly, strange way to interpret it without very specific explanation. Whatever makes this makes sense in your head isn't being articulated very well.
Without good context/or a very specific wording of the ability on the sheet, the player is going to feel like you cheated to pull the gotcha.
OP has written multiple pages of description for an ability that seems to boil down to having a pokedex. Christ almighty. It only took us this long to realise that the ability OP wants their characters to have is the same ability humans in the real world have when they see a mountain lion in their living room.
Unless the mountain lion is wearing a fake mustache.
What's that coming over the hill..?
I use my special racial ability to detect if that's a mountain lion.
Sorry, that ability only works some of the time.
Ahhh darn. If only I had known that monsters could deceive my sense monsters ability!!!
Jsus christ this thread. Just say "When a monster is viewed clearly and unobserved, x race has a sense that immediately identifies it as a monster." You don't need a smug surprise cumshot or you'd invest more energy into writing a clever one.
That doesn't quite work for me. It's not how the sense works narratively. They wouldn't know institutionally that it needs to be viewed clearly, and the unobserved part doesn't make sense unless that was a mistake on your part.
>Why does this require a specific ability for players to discern.
Bad take and projecting.
>That's still NOT what a clue is. A clue is a hint to something bigger;
Then this fits. I just haven't explained what the bigger picture is, and I don't have an intention to. It's just hte reason why I would like for it to stay.
>you've demonstrated you lack any sort of capacity to look at things from another perspective, admit fault,
Why would I admit fault when I'm not wrong? Contradicting me pointlessly isn't a refutation of the idea.
>Again, this is nothing that can't be handled by visual inspection; only niche use cases
Again, you're looking at it like I'm supposed to give them Detect Monster. That's not really what it is. This is why I believe you're moronic and your contradictions don't really matter too much to me. Sorry.
No, you are wrong, you just won't admit it. You never came here looking to fix a problem; you have been arging in bad faith. I brought up Detect Evil for a reason, which you delibrately ignored, to follow up with an ad hominem attack. Your monster sense serves little purpose(bad game design), is inetentionally vauge to frick with players(bad game design). Purposely withholding information players should rightly have for a gotcha is a shitty thing to do and no amount of mental gymnastics will change it. And that still is not a clue.
Okay. Whatever you say. Congratulations you win.
Can I win too? You said I was projecting but I'm not writing anything.
Of course. You can win too. Congratulations.
No.
>Why is this even an ability?
It's not an ability, it's a characteristic of the people in the setting.
Let me put it this way: You can sense when something is hot, and you know when you are experiencing "heat", right? That's a sense that your body just happens to have in order to interact with the world around you. However, you might not instinctually know/understand that you can put cold or thick things on it as a barrier, or that you can put the hot thing against other things in general to warm them up or even kill them. That's something you only really develop in your formulative years while experimenting or playing around with things.
This is roughly the same idea. PCs in this setting have a sense when something is a "Monster" that goes off.
>Your idea is dumb. Never implement it. Never run any games. Never play in any games. Never post here again and stop writing.
There is a non-0% chance that you have played with me in a game and we both enjoyed it.
Thanks! That's kind of you. 🙂
You're very welcome! I hope you have a good Thanksgiving.
Likewise!
>It's not an ability.
>It's a characteristic!
Splitting hairs when we are talking about games. This dosen't need to be a "characteristic" because it serves no purpose.
>but muh demi humans blah blah blah.
I've engaged you far more honestly than you deserve and for far longer than I should have. You absolutely should never get close to anything /tg/ related nor should you ever try to write again.
>Your idea is dumb. Never implement it. Never run any games. Never play in any games. Never post here again and stop writing.
>There is a non-0% chance that you have played with me in a game and we both enjoyed it.
I don't play online games, let alone with random strangers and the fact that you do explains a lot.
>I don't play online games, let alone with random strangers and the fact that you do explains a lot.
I've also DM'd offline for public play events, and DM'd privately for friends. There continues to be a non-0% chance we have played together and have both enjoyed it.
I like the questions you ask. Unfortunately, I intend to play this setting offline, but if someone like you were to apply for it, I'd probably accept you.
What state?
Damn skippy I do. Now pay up, nerd.
>recognize a monster by observing it
>tell a difference between what is an animal and a monster
Why is this even an ability? It's so moronic. Are people in your setting so ignorant of their own world that they can't recognize what would be considered a "monster" and what isn't? This should be something any person living in your setting should be able to do without any need for a "special ability".
Your idea is dumb. Never implement it. Never run any games. Never play in any games. Never post here again and stop writing.
Remember anon, not just ignorant of their own world but so ignorant of their own ability that they don't know it's blocked by cloth.
>I just haven't explained what the bigger picture is, and I don't have an intention to.
Go frick a live lamp socket. That explanation is crucial to judging the impact of players being mislead here, so without it this thread is completely useless for anything but showing the world what a complete turd you are.
>That explanation is crucial to judging the impact of players being mislead here
As someone who is looking at the bigger picture: I don't really think it is. You're understandably curious, as I am fully self aware how bizarre this information could be, but given past (and this) experiences with /tg/, it just leads to pointless arguments and I was just looking for info about this one tidbit.
>so without it this thread is completely useless for anything but showing the world what a complete turd you are.
It's actually been somewhat useful for me, so I'm actually pretty happy with the outcome. It's not really meant to be useful to you guys, but I thank you for the contribution.
>As someone who is looking at the bigger picture
No you're fricking not. This thread has shown with perfect clarity that you're pathologically incapable of ever seeing the grand picture. Like in
>It's not an ability, it's a characteristic of the people in the setting.
where you get so locked in on the RPG system terminology that you forget what the fricking words actually mean.
>I am fully self aware how bizarre this information could be
No you're fricking not, or you wouldn't have posted this thread.
>but given past (and this) experiences with /tg/, it just leads to pointless arguments
Anyone with any capacity for self reflection would have realized in a hurry from this thread that not explaining the bigger picture was absolutely fricking moronic. But not you.
>It's actually...
"I meant to do that", cries complete frickup after fricking up completely, desperately trying to convince himself.
>This thread has shown with perfect clarity that you're pathologically incapable of ever seeing the grand picture.
lol.
>where you get so locked in on the RPG system terminology that you forget what the fricking words actually mean.
Do tell.
>No you're fricking not, or you wouldn't have posted this thread.
>Anyone with any capacity for self reflection would have realized in a hurry from this thread that not explaining the bigger picture was absolutely fricking moronic.
No I was fully aware coming in that I would have at least 50-95% of the posts be brainlets who get hung up on something stupid and/or try to claw out more information to pointlessly attack it. I weighed the pros and cons of explaining everything and explaining only the relevant decision, and I still believe I have made the right choice, as I have the information I sought and I have managed to do it without wasting too much of my time.
Also, bro, you need to calm down man. Like walk away for 30 minutes and come back before posting again.
>This dosen't need to be a "characteristic" because it serves no purpose.
No, it does.
>You absolutely should never get close to anything /tg/ related nor should you ever try to write again.
>There is a non-0% chance that you have played with me in a game and we both enjoyed it.
Also, I quite enjoyed Iruma-kun too.
Iruma-kun is nice and you are certifiably a nogames larper. Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for the keks.
You have a happy Thanksgiving too, and I hope you continue to enjoy my future works when I post here.
Most moronic OP of the week award goes to this dude right here, holy frick.
I laughed so hard reading this argument.
OP is a homosexual
thread is pikachu
this is not a haiku
I've read through this entire thread and still don't understand the point of this characteristic. In this setting, what is the definition of "monster"? Is it an arbitrary classification? Are monsters small fragments of the Demon Lord's soul, shattered in the Great Heavenly War? If I see a really big bear, is that a monster?
>I've read through this entire thread and still don't understand the point
That's because OP very specifically refuses to say what it is. So probably less Dark Souls and more Sonichu fanfic.
It doesn't have one, because OP doesn't really understand game design. It's less than most ribbon features in games, because everything it does is something a person should already be able to do by sight alone in 99% of use cases. It's the kind of thing that would make sense in a novel, but not in a game. OP is very obviously a nogames, because even very clearly defined limitations on abilities are subject for heated debates, and he wants to rug pull his players and expect them to not be pissed about it. To say nothing of how nonsensical that is, given that it's an innate ability and he's deliberately giving as little information as possible to his players for said gotcha, even though they should by all rights know it's limitations, not just in character but for keeping the game running smoothly. OP is refusing to elaborate further because he knows his shit will get picked all to pieces for the poorly thought out steaming pile it is.
But really, all that shit is window dressing for the fact that OP doesn't seem to understand deliberately misleading players only to rug pull them later is a shitty thing to do and would piss off the entire table.
At this point I'm certain there isn't even a setting let alone game system. OP could've clarified this whole affair with details long ago but there nust isn't any substance to it.
Maybe? OP seems weirdly attached to it so I'm guessing there is something, but given he didn't even think of a how it would be used and an anon had to present ideas about it for evaluation purposes, I don't think it's something he's actually given over a lot of time or thought to how it should actually function in a game. You know, besides using it to piss players off.
see this post here
Instead of answering very concrete questions about the setting he deflects.
Acting like a puppet master but I call this bluff. There's nothing behind all this. Maybe a shower thought but that's it. There is be no reason to be so vague, defensive and secretive when asking for advice.
Still waiting for an answer to this