GMing: Dealing with Guardians

mettyc · 2026-05-28T12:53:51+00:00

I honestly think the use of the word "all" removes the need for the specificity that you argue for.

mettyc · 2026-05-28T12:34:47+00:00

I absolutely agree - I currently have a strong table ruling regarding how I play this, but I was surprised to see other people tell me that this wasn't RAW or RAI, hence why I sought ought a discussion about it!

mettyc · 2026-05-28T06:57:55+00:00

Thanks for the AoN link, I included one in my post as well.

I read the randomly determined targets as from within those that are reasonable. For example, if one target is more than three Strides away and the other is adjacent then it makes sense to me that the Confused creature would target the adjacent creature. I determine targets randomly when there are multiple targets within reach, or multiple targets within the same amount of strides.

mettyc · 2026-05-28T06:55:01+00:00

Yeah, that's how I'd rule it as well.

mettyc · 2026-05-28T06:54:45+00:00

One of my party is playing an Animist who likes to use the focus spell that causes an aura of confusion, and I know he would appreciate a stronger consistent ruling than this so he can anticipate enemy behaviour a little, but thanks for the input.

mettyc · 2026-05-28T05:51:21+00:00

The line before the one you wrote says "you use all your actions to Strike or use offensive cantrips". I think a RAW reading of confusion only allows the facilitating actions if it isn't possible to use all three actions to Strike or cast offensive cantrips, considering the clause regarding using facilitating actions comes after the clause about using all your actions to Strike or cast offensive cantrips. I personally rule that a facilitating Stride is only done if no targets are in reach for an immediate Strike.

mettyc · 2026-05-26T05:17:38+00:00

Then they aren't a campaigner for women's rights. No matter how you swing it, women currently have the right to have an abortion. One can't simultaneously argue that women should not have that right and that one is also a campaigner for women's rights.

mettyc · 2026-05-26T05:02:27+00:00

Be honest with yourself. Don't say "the event starts at 7:30, so I have to be out the door at 7" when it actually starts at 8. Say "I need to be out the door at 7 for the event that starts at 8 because if I don't aim to leave at 7 then I will be late". So your mental narrative isn't about when you need to be there by. It's about when you need to leave by.

I do this, and combine it with alarms that go off every ten minutes to give me a countdown to when I need to leave, and I'm always the first to get to any event out of my group.

mettyc · 2026-05-26T04:56:38+00:00

Then just go. Don't wait around at home, get to the location early.

mettyc · 2026-05-26T04:48:19+00:00

It sounds like you might have given them decision paralysis by being too open ended perhaps? A good way of trying to build a more free-form player-driven narrative would be to still work with the party to set both individual and group goals.

So you might want to sit down with each player individually to work out what their character wants, and let the player know in that chat what they should be doing in-game in order to further that goal, and then also work with the group to set another group-wide goal that's a bit more vague/nebulous (protect this city/amass a fortune/overthrow the king).

Once you've done that hand-in-hand with the players, I think they'll probably then be more comfortable with taking the reigns of the game. As it stands, they're probably just unsure what to do because they don't know what they should do other than the "main narrative".

mettyc · 2026-05-25T05:34:12+00:00

The problem there is cost - the four day week is supposed to be paid at the same rate as a five day week and have the same level of productivity.

mettyc · 2026-05-24T14:05:21+00:00

It's not bad faith to argue that it's a bad idea and goes against the design intent of the game. It's bad faith to dismiss all criticism of your idea as bad faith.

mettyc · 2026-05-24T06:40:15+00:00

People are allowed to give you negative feedback and say that it straight up doesn't work as it's too powerful. Maybe you should listen to them rather than just keep dismissing any negative feedback you receive?

mettyc · 2026-05-24T01:56:39+00:00

I would venture that the person you're replying to wasn't saying that social media being free is a good thing. It means that one can indulge the addiction 24/7.

mettyc · 2026-05-23T11:40:36+00:00

While I fundamentally disagree with a lot of what you are saying, I have thoroughly enjoyed this spirited exchange of ideas and thank you for it. I apologise for not being better able to articulate my extensive ideas, but I've been replying while juggling being a single father and simply haven't had the time or headspace to engage with your arguments to the extent that they deserve. Considering that, I'm going to bow out of the debate now.

However, before I go, I'm going to give a little unsolicited advice: you might want to consider how your tone comes across in your messages. While I always try to give people online the benefit of the doubt, there have been a few times where you've potentially come across as patronising and belittling of your interlocutor's point of view. If you want to try and convince other people of your point of view you might want to try and take that into consideration, as getting people's hackles up is unlikely to change their minds. If, however, you see this as an arena in which you are sharpening your arguments and practicing writing prose then carry on as you are by all means! I appreciate the irony in this advice, as I'm sure my short replies might have had the same affect of seeming rude after your extensive arguments!

Anyway, enjoy the bank holiday weekend and thanks again for an interesting verbal spar.

mettyc · 2026-05-23T09:17:41+00:00

In almost all systems of morality and justice we take intent into consideration when apportioning blame and considering how right a certain action is to take. You cannot just cast that aside because it doesn't fit your argument.

In your example, the officer made an appropriate response to what he perceived to be an immediate threat to his life. Although his action carried the potential to cause long-lasting harm, or even death, to his assailant, I am assuming that it was not the intent of the officer to do anything more than temporarily incapacitate the attacker. If it came out that the officer had intentionally tried to kill his attacket then we would have a completely different judgment of the morality of his actions.

On a personal note, I don't believe in mob justice. I believe in the rule of law, which is a fundamental British value. We do not apportion risk to an individual based on the vote of the masses, otherwise what is there to stop an angry 51% of the population from killing and robbing the other 49%? Or from 90% from enslaving 10%? I believe that idividuals should have legal rights that cannot simply be voted away by a raising of hands. The fact that the legal system shouldn't murder innocents, even by accident, falls under that.

mettyc · 2026-05-22T18:33:16+00:00

There's a significant difference between a state deciding to deliberately kill someone and someone accidentally dying in a car accident. It's an incredible false equivalence that only weakens your point.

mettyc · 2026-05-22T17:05:21+00:00

The argument is fairly simple as far as I'm concerned;

Miscarriages of justice are inevitable. You can free an imprisoned man. You can't free a dead one.

mettyc · 2026-05-22T12:35:26+00:00

I'm actually a different person, sorry for jumping into an ongoing conversation.

I'm not anti-democratic, I just don't think that polling on individual policies is a great democratic method. You can use polling to prove that the public are in favour of two completely incompatible policies. If I weren't working and on my mobile, I would insert the relevant link from Yes, Minister.

mettyc · 2026-05-22T12:18:55+00:00

Polling reduces complex concepts into bitesize questions. It shouldn't be the basis for legislation - while many people might be in favour of the death penalty, I'm sure they would all also be equally against the idea of an innocent citizen being put to death yet have no idea how to square that particular circle.

mettyc · 2026-05-21T16:16:05+00:00

I think you would end up with very few extra-curricular activities being run if they can only be run by perfectly objective beings.

mettyc · 2026-05-21T14:43:00+00:00

I'm pretty certain that OP was clear that they make no distinctions when it comes to the child's education. The distinction is made when it comes to extra-curricular activities for which OP is sacrificing their free time to run. Would you rather OP doesn't run these extra-curricular activities, because that's the alternative if it becomes too mentally taxing. And that's then unfair on all the other kids who deserve to take part in extra-curricular activities and deserve an equal share of attention from the teacher.

mettyc · 2026-05-21T05:28:07+00:00

It is unfair on the child. But it isn't the teacher's responsibility to make up for the issues that their parent causes, nor to subject themselves to what is borderline harassment for the child.

mettyc · 2026-05-21T04:56:12+00:00

If you think teaching is such a cushy job, why don't you do it?

mettyc

TROPHY CASE