NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9701379" data-attributes="member: 6690965">That isn't a simple question. Let me try an allegory; would you houserule a board game in the middle of play if a player wasn't enjoying the experience? Generally speaking, I would answer no. I might not play that game again with them or at all, I might be open to a proposed change after enough plays that I really felt like I understood the design intent if I find some other merit there, and in some cases I'd be open to stopping play altogether (though not all, I routinely play games with player elimination or losing board states that expect all players to continue until the end point). Experiencing the game as-is is the point of the activity, and everyone came to do that; everyone there has chosen to risk their having a bad time to have this specific time.You're trying to set up a hierarchy of things that are important to play, and arguing the player's attachment to this character item or beat is necessarily more important than whatever consistency might put it at stake, and that just isn't a universal value. Ideally everyone signing up a game in the first place shares the same set of values and is willing to make some sacrifices to achieve whatever verisimilitude is at stake if that's necessary. I really don't see a problem with setting that request outside of negotiation; that feels much like how I don't really like hidden movement games and generally opt not to play them, and if I do decide to play one, I don't feel entitled to complain about the structure.There's no moral imperative to compromise here, if both parties aren't interested. We could just do something else.</blockquote>

Verification