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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7814529" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes it is. The facts of what happened in the game don't seem to be in dispute.This doesn't seem to have anything to do with what happened in the game universe. This is completely focused on issues of scenario design and whether the GM should have allowed this scenario to transpire or set it up, or given more clues. And unlike the facts of what happened in the game universe, the facts of that are entirely subjective and for the most part unknown. We can only speculate. Moreover, whether this is a poor showing depends entirely on what you think the game is about. Moreover, you are wrong. The player in the OP's game knew quite well he had another choice. He could have chosen (for his character) to die. He chose not to.Would I set this situation up on purpose? Probably not. Could a situation like this actually occur in a game quite outside of my control? Absolutely. If it couldn't happen and I'm fully in control of the game, then yeah I really am 100% of the law and determining in some fashion everything that happens in the game and the player's inputs don't matter.What mistake? What freaking mistake? That the game is not following your aesthetics of play? Which aesthetics of play are prioritized in a game are entirely subjective. There is nothing - absofreakinglutely nothing - that is a mistake in challenging the beliefs of a character. While D&D doesn't really call that out as central to play, there is nothing that prevents it being central to play in a game like D&D.More to the point, I'm not suggesting anything that punishes the player. All the things that I'm suggesting happen in the game.Well, that's one possibility. The other is that you aren't learning from this story.But yes, the GM is the law. The GM has as a neutral referee an obligation (juggled with his other duties) to fairly resolve what would likely or certainly happen in the in game universe without regard to what the GM wants to see happen. If some several outcomes are equally likely or plausible, then pick the more interesting one. In this case, you are advising doing neither.And takebacks suck. If a GM tried to do take backs with me in a critical story junction like that, it would be the last game of his I played in. My aesthetics of play don't revolve around me getting treated with kid gloves just because bad things happened. My aesthetics of play revolve around exciting, impactful, and thought provoking stories. They involve stepping up to the challenge. Take backs suck. This isn't a situation like the GM forgot a setting element, forgot to apply a die roll modifier, or badly misremembered a rule. That sort of take back if you can do it quickly is sometimes a necessary evil. This is a take back that negates player agency! This is a take back equivalent to another player telling you in a game of chess, "You really don't want to do that move, as it will lead to me to winning." Oh? Then I forfeit. Let's start another game.Congratulations, it appears you are not allowed to fail! GM does that to me I'm going to find excuses to quit.What part of "I always try to be the GM that I would want to have as a player" do you not get? I mean I can totally get if this doesn't appeal to you, everyone has different tastes, but it's not a 'mistake' for this to happen or for what I suggest as a resolution.   I think I've made very clear what I think would be terrible for the game.</blockquote>

Verification