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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6209172" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I'm not seeing it happening in these Indie Play examples set for me.So "success means success with no future downside" means "future complications can arise from your success".  I take it that black is white and vice versa in Indie games as well.Then success on the check to bluff the Drake is not, in fact, "success - full stop". Might we accept that the question has been answered, then, and "success is succes - full stop" is not a tenet of Indie play?So the players set the stakes, but do not know what a successful outcome is.  That makes for a somewhat bizarre picture from where I sit.So the Paladin says "gosh, I don't think we'd really bring the prisoner back as a horrible unead creature" but then continues working with the fellow who not only made the threat but clearly has gone out of his way to gain the skills and expertise to do so.  Meanwhile, the Frustrated Dwarf ensures he is conveniently outside the room when threats contrary to his own moral code might be made, then expresses his displeasure with the actions of his colleagues, but carries on working with them all the while. Yes, they bhave certainly faced the challenges to their beliefs in a thematic and dramatic moment which will resonate throughout role playing history!  Seems like the Paladin had a choice between honour and mechanical effectiveness.  He chose to make a mild protest, then stand back and let the necromancer continue.  What a full blown gonzo whopper of a moral dilemma that was!I suggest that gamers typically perceive victory once combat is engaged as an aspect of "winning".I thought the player decided whether the target was killed or merely rendered unconscious.  In any case, there would be situations where combat is not the answer, but with combat joined, why would the rogue ever fail to use that Sneak Attack?  And why not convert challenges from non-combat to combat so that sneak attack may be used - isn't the thrust of dinner with the Baron that we can always change the nature of the underlying challenge?I find the "moral dilemma" expressed in your Paladin/Cleric thread didn't carry much depth.  Does that help?  If following his principals is always easy, then the Paladin's principals really don't mean much.Many gaming groups prefer to avoid inter-party conflict and/or moral dilemmas, and that's fine.  However, if we are truly exploring the belief systems of the characters in some depth, I would expect either limited differences between the characters' moral outlooks or inter-party conflict.</blockquote>

Verification