Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8698787" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I think that's a muddy spot; except within narrow contexts, its possible for a decision to have potential meaning but because of later events a player (and his character) has no control over, that doesn't end up being true.&nbsp; The only way it can't be a thing at least some of the time is if consequences are a very quick follow-up to the decision.As an example, a set of players can decide they're going to going to choose the road that has less reports of bandits on it, on the hope that they'll manage to avoid them on their way to an objective.&nbsp; That doesn't mean that avoiding bandits is a given from doing that.&nbsp; If the GM has a table that puts lots of bandits on the first, and few on the second, but they still come up, I don't see an intrinsic reason that's inappropriate; the situations was never described as doing more than them putting their thumb on the scale.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8698787, member: 7026617"] I think that's a muddy spot; except within narrow contexts, its possible for a decision to have potential meaning but because of later events a player (and his character) has no control over, that doesn't end up being true. The only way it can't be a thing at least some of the time is if consequences are a very quick follow-up to the decision. As an example, a set of players can decide they're going to going to choose the road that has less reports of bandits on it, on the hope that they'll manage to avoid them on their way to an objective. That doesn't mean that avoiding bandits is a given from doing that. If the GM has a table that puts lots of bandits on the first, and few on the second, but they still come up, I don't see an intrinsic reason that's inappropriate; the situations was never described as doing more than them putting their thumb on the scale. [/QUOTE]

Verification