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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Admiral Caine" data-source="post: 4513583" data-attributes="member: 60438">Oh no, that wouldn't suit my style of game. I don't disagree with you in the slightest Philotomy. I do kill PCs in the course of the game, just in case that needs stating. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> But you and I, we weren't there. We don't know. That we don't know the quality of warning and hint that was given. We don't know if the players were actually careless and/or not paying attention. The Original Poster and his Players can only answer that for themselves. Without being there myself I can't say for certain. I am sort of challenging the notion that anybody else could either. All I'm saying, if the warning was downplayed enough, it might have come across as a binary "yes/no", "save or die" choice.  Here's what we have to go on:  The only part of that makes me pause is:  Those two words are what would have made me stop and reconsider. It depends how poker-faced he was in the delivery of that line.  I'd like to have been there and seen how the question posed to the players, because that could go two ways. Any analysis on our part is subjective, which is why I redirect the OP to do some self-reflection. to point, the Original Poster posed a question, and wondered what we might have done differently. I'm not sure I would have done anything different. I've never said the Original Poster did anything wrong, they might have been spot on with their call. However, I have said (and continue to do so), is that the heart of the situation is in how they presented the choice to the players. The OP has to examine that for themselves.  I'm still not fond of the "teach them a lesson" approach. I'm more of a "make them take responsibility for their choices" guy. There is a difference, and that is agenda on the part of the GM. EDIT: I don't want to come across as backing away from what I said. The point I'm getting at is if he proposed a binary choice that is life or death, completely straight faced and without enough cues, there might be cause for concern on the part of the players. From his description, his players had that impression, because he reports them saying the warnings were vague. In a binary "life or death" choice, you want to leave them it open enough for them to make their own decisions and be responsible for them, but if you're too poker-faced about it- you got yourself a Sphere of Annilihation in the Devil's Mouth (from Tomb of Horrors) situation. We can't tell which it is from his text. He needs to self-evaluate that.</blockquote>

Verification