Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8147945" data-attributes="member: 70468">You suggested a perfectly reasonable approach for pricing something that’s not in the standard price list. I don’t think that’s an issue. What I’m taking issue with is the idea that if it causes an adverse impact on the game, then the way to handle it is to destroy it or take it away via the game’s mechanics. It’s a passive-aggressive way of dealing with a problem. It turns what should be a collaborative experience into an adversarial one.Also, framing it as a gift when it’s actually conditioned on certain behavior is gross. It’s not a gift if its use is conditional, and carrying out on the threat (implied or explicit) is definitely punishing the player (pretty much by definition of “threaten” and “punishment”). It’s like giving a child a toy as a gift and then stomping on it when they play with it the wrong way.I’ll reiterate that if the GM introduces something to the game, and it proves disruptive, then the way to address that problem is by discussing it with the player and group. If no one feels like it’s upstaging them, and that’s all that seems wrong, then it’s probably best to let it drop. If it’s more than that, then it’s time for a (possibly hard) conversation about what to do to fix it. That could result in changes to mitigate the problem or getting rid of the source. Whatever happens, since it was negotiated, it’s not just a capricious act by the GM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8147945, member: 70468"] You suggested a perfectly reasonable approach for pricing something that’s not in the standard price list. I don’t think that’s an issue. What I’m taking issue with is the idea that if it causes an adverse impact on the game, then the way to handle it is to destroy it or take it away via the game’s mechanics. It’s a passive-aggressive way of dealing with a problem. It turns what should be a collaborative experience into an adversarial one. Also, framing it as a gift when it’s actually conditioned on certain behavior is gross. It’s not a gift if its use is conditional, and carrying out on the threat (implied or explicit) is definitely punishing the player (pretty much by definition of “threaten” and “punishment”). It’s like giving a child a toy as a gift and then stomping on it when they play with it the wrong way. I’ll reiterate that if the GM introduces something to the game, and it proves disruptive, then the way to address that problem is by discussing it with the player and group. If no one feels like it’s upstaging them, and that’s all that seems wrong, then it’s probably best to let it drop. If it’s more than that, then it’s time for a (possibly hard) conversation about what to do to fix it. That could result in changes to mitigate the problem or getting rid of the source. Whatever happens, since it was negotiated, it’s not just a capricious act by the GM. [/QUOTE]

Verification