Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8007229" data-attributes="member: 7016699">When you talk about &quot;not placing&quot; auto-lose encounters in front of the PCs, it can sound as though you are customizing the encounters to suitably challenge the PCs (which I'd guess you're doing), which is at least near the other end of an axis with how some people describe sandboxes, where there are things around the PCs that can and will kill them more-or-less automatically. Someone who prefers that sandbox style of play (note: I don't, exactly) might describe &quot;suitably challenging the PCs&quot; as &quot;placing obstacles in front of the PCs they're built to handle.&quot;I kinda agree with [USER=53980]@Fanaelialae[/USER] above that putting the &quot;insults everyone&quot; character in a position where that is at least not a winning move isn't Bad GMing. With some warning, I don't even think it's Bad GMing if insulting the Mad Tyrant leads to his ordering Mr. Insulty's execution (though if I'm placing this in front of a party with Mr. Insulty in it, it probably takes more than one insult to do it, and the holding facility is likely to be at least somewhat porous, and the Mad Tyrant is not likely to be vital to the PCs' plans).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="prabe, post: 8007229, member: 7016699"] When you talk about "not placing" auto-lose encounters in front of the PCs, it can sound as though you are customizing the encounters to suitably challenge the PCs (which I'd guess you're doing), which is at least near the other end of an axis with how some people describe sandboxes, where there are things around the PCs that can and will kill them more-or-less automatically. Someone who prefers that sandbox style of play (note: I don't, exactly) might describe "suitably challenging the PCs" as "placing obstacles in front of the PCs they're built to handle." I kinda agree with [USER=53980]@Fanaelialae[/USER] above that putting the "insults everyone" character in a position where that is at least not a winning move isn't Bad GMing. [B]With some warning,[/B] I don't even think it's Bad GMing if insulting the Mad Tyrant leads to his ordering Mr. Insulty's execution (though if I'm placing this in front of a party with Mr. Insulty in it, it probably takes more than one insult to do it, and the holding facility is likely to be at least somewhat porous, and the Mad Tyrant is not likely to be vital to the PCs' plans). [/QUOTE]

Verification