Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4472650" data-attributes="member: 18280">GivenThe only action that Bob took was not to run like hell at the first whiff of conflict. Everything after that was random dice and out of Bob's hands. Exactly what should Bob have done differently?I have to assume that Bob took no other action.  If you intentionally avoid including anything that could look like a decision from your example, it isn't nitpicky at all to say either (1) Bob did make meaningful decisions that got him to that point, or (2) Bob wasn't allowed to make meaningful decisions because the DM sucks.Pick one.If (1), then Bob should suck it up.  If (2) then Bob should have picked a better DM.  Or run the game himself.Sometimes bad things can happen to good characters, simply because it's in the nature of the game.  You can go to jail in Monopoly, too, through no fault of your own.  If the Monopoly player starts whining about how unfair it is that he drew a Community Chest card that makes him pay the banker, I'd have no sympathy for him, either -- and I doubt I would want to play Monopoly with him again.  As the man said, "You knew the risks when you sat at the table."Yes, there can be consequences other than death.  Yes, you can enjoy other playstyles.  But if you go back to the  post, to which I was responding, what you see is some whining about having to sit out due to in-game consequences which, generally speaking (at the very least), are the results of the players' choices.  IOW, "I took a risk, it didn't work out, and now I want my fighter to be able to go stop that ritual with you!  Why should I have to sit out?"  Contingent on that attitude is the idea that, having chosen to take a risk, you shouldn't have to accept the consequences of taking that risk...which you knew or reasonably should have known before taking it.Exploring old ruins is dangerous.  Hunting orcs is dangerous.  Or at least these things can be dangerous, and players should have reasonable means to access that danger beforehand (rumours, gather information, divination spells, scouting, clues left by the DM).  Crying about it afterwards is simply childish.And, yes, my nine-year-old daughter understands that consequences make for a better game, and understands why.  This isn't to "prove" that any particular set of consequences is the "bestest" or that there is only one way in which consequences appear.  However, the game where your decisions have no consequences strips your decisions of meaning, and I would say that game would not only be unpalatable, but I question whether it would be a "game" at all.If you don't want death as a consequence, set up a game where you can't die.  House rule it.  But don't tell your players that they face death, while fudging all the dice behind your screen.  Players have a right, IMHO, to expect that their decisions are meaningful.Set up the game that is satisfying to you by all means (and satisfying is not co-equal to fun), but once you've set up that game, and once you are playing in it, you really shouldn't expect everyone to simply accept your whining about how unfair it is that you don't win at everything, all the time.If you want to win at everything, all the time, Candyland is designed that way.  You can dress it up however you like, but it's still Candyland.(And, of course, it should go without saying that if you prefer Candyland, hey, that's cool too.  Whatever your gaming preference happens to be is what it is, and that's okay.  Just don't try to turn my game into your game.)RC</blockquote>

Verification