Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8833246" data-attributes="member: 6790260">As a purely personal thing--that is, YMMV--I think "punitive" goes beyond just unknowable dangers. That is, I can think of things I would consider punitive that would remain so even if the exact method by which it could occur were spelled out in explicit detail, which is quite a bit more than is typically done in games like this. The way Paladin alignment was handled in 3e, for example, generally ended up very punitive--and was a big reason why the class had so many problems on both the DM's side (crappy catch-22 guaranteed-failure scenarios) and the player's side (crappy "I'm LG so every single thing I do must be Good and Lawful.")For me, it gets down to the meaning of the terms. "Punitive": punishment. The point is not to create interesting stakes, nor to enrich the experience with obstacles to overcome. Instead, it is to ensure that people understand just how much they've screwed up. To make failure hurt. "Challenge," on the other hand, is about (if you'll pardon a Forge-ism) "Step On Up," about presenting something that is not easily done, and asking whether the player(s) can achieve it.I think a key difference is that punishment tends to be closed-ended, while challenge tends to be open-ended. A challenge welcomes many different solutions and (if possible) degrees of success or failure. A punishment just is, and is usually meant to either stick around forever, or to be sufficiently onerous to remove that it may not be worth the bother.See, this is where we get into another of the faults of the CaW/CaS concept. What does it mean for the DM to be "sporting"? The DM is the referee--that's something 99% of old-school players drill on extremely hard when the topic comes up. Isn't "referee" a sport concept? Wars don't have refs! Further, what is "sporting" conduct in one space may be totally "unsporting" conduct in another; MMA fights permit numerous actions that would be verboten in boxing, for example. If the players come in explicitly expecting things of this nature, might it not be unsporting to take away the experience they signed up for?Whereas if we reframe this into the heroic-vs-pragmatic and strategic-vs-tactical axes, the answer becomes clear. Would it create a more heroic, or a more pragmatic experience, to include a challenge of this nature? As a rule, it would be more pragmatic-leaning, because fleeing from a dangerous opponent leans pragmatic, and likewise having an expectation that the players will find a cunning (and probably brutal) way to overcome a fight they "should" lose leans pragmatic. (Note I say "leans," these are trends, not hard rules.) Likewise: would it create a more strategic or tactical experience? It seems quite obvious to me that it would create a more strategic experience, as the players will need to think long-term, to plan for the whole day and perhaps the whole week. Further, such fights--where the victor is essentially already known in advance, whether it be the PCs or the creatures--are often quite dull tactically, hence why tactics-heavy games like 4e tend to recommend glossing over the "wrap up" phase of a fight (where it's clear the enemies can no longer deal meaningful harm to the party). With an effect that pulls toward strategic and another that pulls away from tactical, I think we can safely say this situation, with what little information you've shared, sounds pretty clearly pragmatic and strategic.By stepping back from the flawed-but-punchy terms, and articulating a more specific, less metaphor-based analysis, we get both a clearer picture and more useful information. I continue to see nothing but upsides for abandoning CaW/CaS and using other terms instead.</blockquote>

Verification