Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7790470" data-attributes="member: 7006">I never worry about the whole slippery slope idea, because it requires you to assume that you are going to make the exact same ruling every single time over countless campaigns, and that your players are going to know about these &quot;now established&quot; rulings to the point that they are going to then try and exploit them.In my experience that NEVER happens.If I make a specific ruling for a specific character in a specific campaign because it is just a cool idea... once that character and campaign are over, so is the ruling.&nbsp; And I never need worry about it ever again.&nbsp; Because at least with my pool of players, none of them would ever be watching their fellow player so closely (who got this special ruling due to their character concept) that they would be able to ask for the same specific ruling again in the next campaign... let alone ask for more functionality on top of it and thus bring about the &quot;slippery&quot; part of this slope metaphor.I mean really... if one single PC makes a character concept whose background and history result in them making a pact with some extra-dimensional entity which is channeled through their shield... why in the world would another player ever want or try to duplicate that concept in a future campaign?&nbsp; Who is so uncreative that that's the best idea they can come up with?&nbsp; And if I was the DM, I'd call them out on it.&nbsp; Especially considering that the ruling doesn't even produce an overpowered mechanical situation, so we couldn't even think or worry that the powergamers amongst us would try and exploit it in the future.It's a cool slice of characterization, it doesn't imbalance anything, and its not nearly so good as to warrant other players trying to mooch the characterization in the future (thus warranting the &quot;slippery slope&quot; trope.)&nbsp; I vote go for it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7790470, member: 7006"] I never worry about the whole [I]slippery slope[/I] idea, because it requires you to assume that you are going to make the exact same ruling every single time over countless campaigns, and that your players are going to know about these "now established" rulings to the point that they are going to then try and exploit them. In my experience that NEVER happens. If I make a [I]specific [/I]ruling for a [I]specific[/I] character in a [I]specific[/I] campaign because it is just a cool idea... once that character and campaign are over, so is the ruling. And I never need worry about it ever again. Because at least with my pool of players, [B]none[/B] of them would ever be watching their fellow player so closely (who got this special ruling due to their character concept) that they would be able to ask for the same specific ruling [I]again[/I] in the next campaign... let alone ask for [B]more[/B] functionality on top of it and thus bring about the "slippery" part of this slope metaphor. I mean really... if one single PC makes a character concept whose background and history result in them making a pact with some extra-dimensional entity which is channeled through their shield... why in the world would another player ever want or try to duplicate that concept in a future campaign? Who is so uncreative that that's the best idea they can come up with? And if I was the DM, I'd call them out on it. [I]Especially[/I] considering that the ruling doesn't even produce an overpowered mechanical situation, so we couldn't even think or worry that the powergamers amongst us would try and exploit it in the future. It's a cool slice of characterization, it doesn't imbalance anything, and its not nearly so good as to warrant other players trying to mooch the characterization in the future (thus warranting the "slippery slope" trope.) I vote go for it. [/QUOTE]

Verification