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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1524757" data-attributes="member: 14140">I work with a basic principle... the characters are good at what they do.the fighter is good at fighting.the mage is good at spelling.etc...as such, when i am about to make a decisions that says "your character was an idiot" I tend to stop and explain it before the action is cast.if we HAD a battlemat, a drawn room and the player said "my guy throws his fireball here" and "here" meant his character would get fried... i would stop and say "your mage knows he will get scorched and is doing it anyway...right?" if we did NOT have a battlemap, and we were just dialoging the combat, i would never assume that between the player's statement and my mental picture the mage was frying himself and the party. If i was absolutely sure there wasn't enough room... in my mental picture, i would point that out.In other words, i don't assume you are incompetent, i make you prove it to me.this is very critical in dialoged conflicts, where most of the setting is just mental and probably not even stated.As such, as long as i have been doing this, i have had no "disagreements" with players ticked that I shortchanged them and have never ever had a plqayer balk at my presumption of competence. its a win-win.I would, in your case, have said either...1 "your guy moves back to a safe range and throws his fireball when everyone is clear."ot 2. "you look it over and there is just no way to get the fireball off safely."</blockquote>

Verification