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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 3047707" data-attributes="member: 12037">Fine, add those both in, I was going for brevity.Suffice to say that it could include all those things and still be unfair.So basically, your oppinion on what is or is not fair is correct and they are wrong? Why can it not be that you are wrong and they are correct, and your definition has failed to take into consideration something?You keep seeing DMs as the good guys and the Players as the bad guys in these scenarios. You need to provide some kind of reason for convincing me that there exists an objective fair, but I warn you it might be about as easy as convincing me that there is an objective fun.This is important for you to realize:For me to accept that there is an objective "fair" you will have to convince me that it is fair for a DM to use an encounter that he knows will have a 100% chance of killing one of the PCs. Because, in the example provided in the OP, one of the PCs in my game would die. I can almost gurantee you that I would die in that trap. Not a strawman at all. You said:If you're saying fairness/unfairness is like innocence/guilt, and we are operating with an understanding of fairness until proven unfair, then in fact, you would consider that fair. Now, you're free to retract your previous statements, since as far as I can see they make no sense, but you might find it difficult to condemn others for wanting information to determine fairness or unfairness.Thus, no default actually exists, because if it did, you would find the blank statement fair.</blockquote>

Verification