Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9007919" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I gave it as an example of unfairness specifically because the person who tried to find any other solution was told "nope, and because you didn't roll for initiative, your character is now dead." Because that's exactly what is unfair about it. The idea that there just is a dragon, like, around? Sure, that's fine. Useful as "previews of coming attractions," so to speak. The unfairness is specifically in the "you get no choice, it's attacking you, and trying to reason with it is like trying to reason with a pyroclastic flow. You die." Perfectly supported by the fiction, no rules (as far as I'm aware!) that would in any way limit the 5e DM from doing it.Again, I don't really understand what "alignment" there can be here. The rational conclusion of "we specifically eliminated the skeleton army for the purpose of taking forces away from the necromancer" is that the necromancer won't have skeletons to draw upon. Arguing that she raided the dead from a recent fire is, pretty clearly, a fig-leaf excuse to simply ignore the party's efforts. Hence: unfair. The necromancer will have whatever forces she needs, whenever she needs them. It's worse than quantum ogres; it's Reinforcements As The Plot Demands.Which rules are those? Because I'm not familiar with anything that would even imply this, let alone actually do it. Note that the fig-leaf excuse, here, is that the player didn't immediately roll for initiative, so it "resulted" from their "choice" as a player. Even though that choice was literally just to ask if something was possible. (See: comments in this very thread about how, if you say it with your human voice, your character says it.)I was using the example provided, which involved a player being caught by surprise. That the assassin guild thing happened (but not, strictly speaking, that it killed the character) was something totally unknown to the player, and from context not exactly a welcome surprise.No such contract was mentioned in the example given.No, I don't think that's even remotely compatible with PbtA in this form, because it specifically relies on off-screen prep that the players did not, and effectively could not, know about. If, on the other hand, it were known that Jareth had ties to an assassin guild, then perhaps--especially if the game's tone is more Game of Thrones-y, gritty nihilistic action. But having the assassin just show up out of nowhere without warning because the DM's prep said stuff the players didn't (and couldn't) know? Nope."Meta-moves" are not a thing in PbtA. That's explicitly against one of the principles: "Start and end with the fiction." E.g., the example of the "the party doesn't know there's a demon two levels down that just got alerted"? It only happens because a player flubbed a move. A "meta-move" doesn't start (and, often, doesn't end) with the fiction--and is therefore not acceptable. It also, in the example situation given, doesn't permit playing to find out what happens.</blockquote>

Verification