Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 5840191" data-attributes="member: 6688858">Good. I was going to say, it might have been just a subtle thing.Your instincts to inform the player about potential conflicts resulting from their plan (gate's locked, the town will probably hate you) were good.But it depends how you say that. My thought is you said it in a way that made the player a bit embarrassed and then they lashed out a little bit.By my standards your scenario here was pretty intense. Not bad or wrong. Just risky.I think of the standard D&D challenge as not directly penalizing doing nothing. "You can see through the door that the walls are covered with cobwebs. What do you do?" The players get pretty much as long as they want to talk it over. That's when you can be a hardass when it comes to enforcing logical consequences.In this situation you've got a player by themselves, and you're telling them that guards are 50 feet away and closing in whatdoyoudo??5432...That's a whole different level of tension. In that kind of situation I would go with pretty much whatever plan they came up with, as long as it was in good faith and not obviously stupid.By "go with" I mean go into improv action scene mode, where you're giving the benefit of the doubt to the PC, and just trying to beat them up a little bit on their way out of there.</blockquote>