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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3051165" data-attributes="member: 18280">Well, then, that is fair.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> In fact, the only difference between the above statements and my opinion is that I make a presumption of fairness where you do not.  I view fair/unfair as an either/or state.  Something is either fair or it is not.  When one adds components to form a complex system, all of those components must be fair for the situation to be fair, but even fair components can be compounded to create an unfair whole.I suppose, in a way, you are applying a Schrödinger's cat-type logic to the problem of ethics:  for you, the thing is neither fair nor unfair until it is "observed" in the context of a game.  (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat)  Of course, while ethics are not physics, I would argue (paraphrasing from the Wikpedia article) that the rules of ethics are no different for an act of observation than for other situations.Celtavian's post, above, seems to suggest that he neither views the trap as fair, nor as part of any fair playstyle.  I could be wrong, of course, about what he means, but if this is what he is implying, then I would say that this is a fairly objective statement.  In fact, if this is what he is implying, then where we differ would be on our ideas as to what constitutes a reasonable standard regarding what is, and is not, a fair playstyle.It is what seems to me to be wishy-washy about your statements that I disagree with.  When you say "This Trap + My Playstyle = Unfair" I do not object.  But you apparently also mean to claim that "This Trap + Other Playstyle X = Fair".  Yet, how can this be if the trap itself is not fair?I imagine that this might be because I see "unfairness" as an additive quality.  A situation or thing is fair until enough circumstances are added to make it unfair.  If you were somehow able to express circumstancial elements mathematically, adding up those elements would give you a threshold number over which the entire complex would cease to be fair.  As a result of this viewpoint, anything which, in and of itself, exceeds this threshold is unfair and would not normally be part of a "fair" complex...no matter who was the DM or what playstyle is involved.Of course, there are circumstances in real life, such as self defence in the case of killing or harming another person, or even a handicap in a sport, where a circumstance might have a "subtractive" value that renders a thing which would be intrinsicaly unfair part of a fair complex.  I would agree that such a "subtractive" circumstance might occur in the context of a D&D game/playstyle, especially if you were catering to the lowest common denominator (i.e., handicapping one or more players in the same way that one might have a golf handicap).  OTOH, I cannot think of any way in which such a consideration would apply to make the trap in the OP part of a fair complex/playstyle were it not already below the "fair" threshold.RC</blockquote>

Verification