Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8711354" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Who said "shenanigans"? Who said I "made" them? You keep projecting all these nasty things onto my position. Please stop. I don't do that. Everything I do as an adjudicator of the rules is above-board. I play with my cards face up. I do preserve in-world information as mysteries (e.g. NPCs can deceive the players, players can draw mistaken conclusions and I won't correct them, etc.)And, as I said, players can still succeed or fail. Failure or success just doesn't consider "will you be able to keep playing the game as this specific character?"How so? Calling the analogy bad doesn't tell me anything. You have to say why it's fails to be an analogy in the relevant way. I have demonstrated that it has relevant similarities.But that's not what happens when someone loses a character, is it? People don't leave the campaign entirely. Folks in this thread have been adamant that a dead character doesn't mean you're booted out, never to return. It means you write up a new character. Which is exactly what I was sayingAgain: your analogy fails because you, yourself, have said that players are NOT booted from the campaign if their character dies. Thus, clearly, we cannot analogize losing a character to losing a game of chess in a chess tournament, nor to losing all of your betting money in a poker tournament, because losing your character doesn't force you to stop playing. Instead, it forces you to wait until the next hand is drawn, doesn't it? Which is exactly what I said. You have to wait until you can draw again, and then you continue participating.Hence why I said above, you have to actually show why the analogy is bad, if the person giving the analogy has already shown that it has relevant characteristics. Which I have.Okay, Helldritch, I'm going to say something very, very clearly here. I hope that this tells you what I'm trying to say as succinctly and explicitly as possible.Stop insulting me by saying I hand my players their victories. It is extremely rude, and is exactly the opposite of what I'm doing.I do not--EVER--"hand" victories to my players. I do not--EVER--make it so that, if my players suffer a loss, that loss is somehow wished away. I would not--EVER--manipulate the dice, fudge rolls, rewrite the story, railroad, or any of those other tricks, because I consider them completely inappropriate (to an extent that others, some in this thread, have found problematic, e.g. I consider these techniques to be lying and cheating.)Absolutely none of that, not one single thing, means that "loss" MUST EQUAL DEATH. You keep doing this! You and almost everyone else here! You keep mocking me and what I do by straight-up telling me that my players must win at everything forever simply because their characters cannot permanently, irrevocably, randomly die. That is WRONG. My players suffer setbacks FREQUENTLY. They have usually had the wit and wherewithal to fix their mistakes and recover from those problems, but it absolutely could and has gone the other way in tense moments. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT the case that I just "hand" them victories.I just don't permanently kill their characters, with no chance of resurrection or restoration, unless the player is okay with that. That is the one and only thing I will guarantee won't happen. EVERYTHING else is on the table. Everything. And I absolutely WILL exploit that if they screw up badly enough. They've taken some massive gambles in the past, and gotten through by the skin of their teeth sometimes. They've also absolutely done things that, without realizing it, have empowered or assisted their enemies. Whether they discover those errors of judgment is an open question, and they won't be happy about it when they find out....particularly because it will have permanent consequences they won't be able to undo.</blockquote>

Verification