Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9010605" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Didn't at all sound like that to me. Instead, it sounded like, &quot;this could have still been an adventure of harrowing hide-and-seek then flee to return another day,&quot; rather than &quot;and now most/all of you just die.&quot;As noted, this assumption is literally as old as the hobby. So even if you wouldn't, a lot of people would have. If DMs are going to lay claim to such great power, it comes with several responsibilities, and one of those is to not leave important things vague or ambiguous. &quot;Dangerous&quot; is both, and expecting &quot;dangerous&quot; alone to prompt painstakingly meticulous research is silly. As I said before, this isn't to say that the players have no responsibility here, they surely do. But the DM's responsibility is both prior and greater, the way this situation has been presented.I guess I just don't get how this differs from &quot;read the DM's mind.&quot; Nothing is told unless you ask the right questions, so how do you even know what questions to ask or even when to ask them? And if you just constantly ask questions about every tiny detail because you never know what is the one and only vague and cryptic clue you'll get before the hammer falls, how does the game ever go anywhere?It's not really that different if only 1-2 people survived. Doubly so if, after the second or third run, no one of the original crew is still around.You can extol the virtues of the group self as much as you like, but it won't make me feel more invested when everyone I've befriended has died in six months or less and I'm on my third character that probably won't get any more character development than any of the previous ones did.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9010605, member: 6790260"] Didn't at all sound like that to me. Instead, it sounded like, "this could have still been an adventure of harrowing hide-and-seek then flee to return another day," rather than "and now most/all of you just die." As noted, this assumption is literally as old as the hobby. So even if [I]you[/I] wouldn't, a lot of people would have. If DMs are going to lay claim to such great power, it comes with several responsibilities, and one of those is to [I]not[/I] leave important things vague or ambiguous. "Dangerous" is both, and expecting "dangerous" alone to prompt painstakingly meticulous research is silly. As I said before, this isn't to say that the players have [I]no[/I] responsibility here, they surely do. But the DM's responsibility is both [I]prior[/I] and [I]greater,[/I] the way this situation has been presented. I guess I just don't get how this differs from "read the DM's mind." Nothing is told unless you ask the right questions, so how do you even know what questions to ask or even [I]when[/I] to ask them? And if you just constantly ask questions about every tiny detail because you never know what is the one and only vague and cryptic clue you'll get before the hammer falls, how does the game ever [I]go[/I] anywhere? It's not really that different if only 1-2 people survived. Doubly so if, after the second or third run, no one of the original crew is still around. You can extol the virtues of the group self as much as you like, but it won't make me feel more invested when everyone I've befriended has died in six months or less and I'm on my third character that probably won't get any more character development than any of the previous ones did. [/QUOTE]

Verification