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: 5610101" data-attributes="member: 18280">No...I'm addressing the idea that, when the party has pushed past the breaking point, the GM either makes allowances or quickly finds himself out of a job.  I can go back and get the exact quote if you like.It depends upon whether you expect the game to get you out, or if you expect you to get you out.  I expect me to get me out.  Sometimes I succeed; sometimes I fail.  But, even in the worst situation, I don't want the GM to fudge for me.Some days you get the bear; some days the bear gets you.  But, only in the most nonsensical of games is there no sign that the bear exists before it is chewing on your bones!  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />I suppose that depends upon presentation.  However, I have never run into a situation where I decided that I hadn't chosen to pick the lock.....and my making the attempt implies that I have considered the possibility.  Surely, I also know that there is a possibility that my attempt to detect a trap may fail?I will agree that, in some rulesets, there are cases where the granularity of choices could be increased.  Increasing that granularity so much that bad choices and bad luck can both be easily compensated for makes the game lack something essential, IMO.  YMMV.I guess you missed the GM advice about not having the "die" part mean actual death.RC</blockquote>

Verification