Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6787274" data-attributes="member: 6701872">Absolutely.I would let the player know that there is no confirming evidence of infection until the late stages of gestation. That information is necessary for the player to make an informed decision how to play their character's behavior regarding the situation.To address the rest all at once: It doesn't matter how the player has their character act so long as they are informed in their choice of behavior, since the character doesn't actually need to know that they are infected, or that infection is an actual possibility, in order to be concerned about infection - or even act as though they are completely certain of infection and that it will kill them if not treated.Just like real people can worry of catching some disease or another and take prophylactic measures, or how real-world superstitions include various examples of similar situation - the wounds inflicted by slaadi needing treated as a curse and/or disease to prevent later death filling in for taking a different path because a black cat crossed ahead of you to prevent later bad luck to illustrate to which I refer.As for the player trying to get rid of it before it has an effect, that's a non-issue in it's entirety: The disease or curse is included in the game-play because it makes sense from a story standpoint, not because I am actually trying to make someone's character suffer the effects, so it doesn't matter what the outcome of the disease/curse ends up being since "...and we got treated just to be safe," and "...and three months later, we died," are equal in terms of being evidence that the answer to "did including that element have an effect upon the story?" is "Yes."</blockquote>

Verification