Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 3025963" data-attributes="member: 20239">You keep bringing up real world situations that don't have any relation to the situation described by the OP.  If my character saw a gold piece laying in the middle of the street in a village, there would be no more reason to be paranoid than your example.  Finding a lever in a dungeon in a room with a secret door and relying on a single character (the Rogue) to determine whether it is safe is not in any way related to either of those two situations.If you want a game where the "hero" never has to second guess his environment then more power to you.  On the other hand, I can think of a number of heroes from literature, cinema and television who would be quite paranoid about the setup in the OP without being "out of character" so (while your preference is valid) you're working from a fairly narrow definition of "hero" IMO.BTW - I don't think you answered this when I asked before.  Some of your earlier comments led me to believe you simply don't like traps in the game period.  Is this true?I agree that the style of play I and my group enjoys is in the minority.  My vote in the other, related poll reflects that.  That has been the case since around 1983.  That doesn't really prove that the situation is objectively unfair.  I think the main thing this thread and poll reveal is that someone's perception of fairness is entirely colored by their expectations about the types of challenges that their characters will face in the game.In this context, I don't think "rash" is an insult, if anyone has taken it as such I apologize.  When I say the player/character acted "rashly" I simply mean to indicate they took the most direct route and failed to explore less direct options first.  The phrase "stupid thinking" was directed at a hypothetical situation constructed by another poster involving imaginary players.  I do believe the imaginary players in that specific situation were acting stupidly, it's not my intent that anyone posting to this thread should take that as a personal slam against them.  As for hypocritical, I completely stand behind the use of that particular word because it's accurate.  It is not intended as an insult.  It is merely an accurate description of at least one poster's comments about the issue at hand.  If you are condemning the "fair" position for relying on metagame thinking you're being hypocritical because the "unfair" position relies on metagame thinking to the same extent, if not moreso (at least, IMO).  If you've not asserted that metagame thinking is a reason to eschew the "pro-fair" position, then this comment doesn't apply to you.</blockquote>

Verification