Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9559626" data-attributes="member: 42582">The impression I got from the post I replied to was that the ostensible reason for not fighting the NPC knight was not that it would be unlawful, or socially inappropriate in some other way, but that it would be too dangerous.I'm glad that you enjoyed the game!To me, the notion of a module with a pre-established "end of campaign enemy" does sound very much like a railroad.Anyway, I agree with you ([USER=6801228]@Chaosmancer[/USER]) that "dangerous" obviously is relative. The PCs being told, in-fiction, that something is dangerous - and nothing more - doesn't tell the players much about what the risk is. I also think that, in a game where the sequence of events, the threats, etc are mostly established by the GM in accordance with notes (their own, a module, etc), then it can be pretty unclear to the players whether an in-fiction "it's dangerous!" from a NPC is a cue to go there and do what the story requires them to do next, or to keep away because that bit of the story isn't due to come on stage yet.In this sort of game, I think it would be better for the GM to be a bit more transparent about what the players are supposed to have their PCs do.</blockquote>