Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 4061964" data-attributes="member: 537">Nobody said anything about changing the rules, hasty misinterpretations notwithstanding. Nothing in the list of things I produced has anything to do with the rules as they are written. They are entirely to do with the informal interaction between DM and players, you know, that pretending-to-be-elves stuff that is often called &quot;roleplaying&quot;.Nothing bad will happen to him... once.It is called arithmetic. One shot does 40%, the next does 50%, the next does 60%.... lo and behold, we have 150%. Arranging events so that the character is liable to take three shots in a row is an exercise left for the reader (hint: 3 rounds of combat may be necessary).1. Oh, you mean like how the character in the article didn't die? I guess death is only a state of mind.2. Nothing bad happening to them does not rule out nothing bad happening to other people. They survive everything the dungeon throws at them, but because they were too slow, the evil priest has succeeded in reading the scroll of ULTIMATE DQQM and epic crap hits the fan. They force the evil warlock to flee, but they were sucked in by his cunning plan and while they were distracted, his minions have turned their loved ones into brain-eating zombies. And so on. The THIRD crudest tool for producing a perception of risk is to focus on the characters alone, while ignoring their links to the world around them.No, this should have been a generic food metaphor. Here, I'll add it in for you: you wanted tomato sauce, but instead you got peanut butter.What, so damage that can kill you within the one encounter isn't meaningful now?This is because your perception of risk is faulty.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hong, post: 4061964, member: 537"] Nobody said anything about changing the rules, hasty misinterpretations notwithstanding. Nothing in the list of things I produced has anything to do with the rules as they are written. They are entirely to do with the informal interaction between DM and players, you know, that pretending-to-be-elves stuff that is often called "roleplaying". Nothing bad will happen to him... once. It is called arithmetic. One shot does 40%, the next does 50%, the next does 60%.... lo and behold, we have 150%. Arranging events so that the character is liable to take three shots in a row is an exercise left for the reader (hint: 3 rounds of combat may be necessary). 1. Oh, you mean like how the character in the article didn't die? I guess death is only a state of mind. 2. Nothing bad happening to them does not rule out nothing bad happening to other people. They survive everything the dungeon throws at them, but because they were too slow, the evil priest has succeeded in reading the scroll of ULTIMATE DQQM and epic crap hits the fan. They force the evil warlock to flee, but they were sucked in by his cunning plan and while they were distracted, his minions have turned their loved ones into brain-eating zombies. And so on. The THIRD crudest tool for producing a perception of risk is to focus on the characters alone, while ignoring their links to the world around them. No, this should have been a generic food metaphor. Here, I'll add it in for you: you wanted tomato sauce, but instead you got peanut butter. What, so damage that can kill you within the one encounter isn't meaningful now? This is because your perception of risk is faulty. [/QUOTE]

Verification