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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5577415" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I'm going to disagree with part of this in a moment, but I think you did mention it wasn't for everyone. But neither is my style of game (I'd label it as "fringe" as well as what I was discussing earlier).The debate becomes which of the positive outcomes do we want to pursue? I've had PCs that would rather die than budge on their views. What's the benefit, other than being stubborn? It's -in their mind- not corruption of their mind or soul. If they are slain because of this, they may not chalk it up a win, but they'll know that their will was unbreakable, and they will revel in that fact.However, equivalent choices are equal choices, really. Maybe I'm not grasping something, but if choices are always to have equally interesting outcomes, then every choice must mean very little, or it must mean quite a bit. I suppose it might fall somewhere in between, but proposing that all choices must be equivalent is just odd to me.To answer your question, again, it goes back to "which of the positive outcomes do we want to pursue?" I think that expecting negative consequences for attacking several towns unprovoked and ill-equipped and expecting positive consequences for assisting a town while well-equipped isn't a bad thing. I think it speaks to the consistency and believability of the game world. Attacking a town and defending a town can both be interesting, no matter if you succeed or not. However, the expected consequences of those actions and how they affect your character should not necessarily be defined as equivalent in my mind.This does not mean I'm in any way against an interesting result either way. But I think certain actions -even tied to themes- should carry obviously negative consequences. This, to me, is not a railroad situation, as I originally stated.If we're exploring terrorism, I think that walking up to a semi-important paper pusher and shooting him in front of his armed guards and a plethora of cameras carries with it certain negative consequences for your character. And I think it should.Now, if you define yourself as "doing well" even if you get shot and killed, then that's fine. I think individuals can define whether they're doing well on their own terms. However, I think that expecting equivalent consequences for this as you would for, say, taking out a prime minister via a long-range sniper rifle with an escape plan, then I'll disagree.Consequences, as defined: "something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition." To this end, the idea that they must somehow be equivalent when exploring a theme is still something I disagree with.I agree with you. I don't think differing levels of consequences implies that statement whatsoever, however.Yeah, I agree here, too. Although, I don't think "different actions will have different consequences" is near the same as "necromancy is Evil." They are two completely different things.Saying "necromancy is Evil" might kill a game if the theme is exploring whether or not necromancy is inherently Evil. However, saying "different actions will have different consequences" does not kill that game at all. It just says that my methods determine my success within this particular theme. Which, I think, is the standard method of determining things like DCs, and subsequent success or failure.If I am missing or misrepresenting something, let me know. I appreciate a civil discussion on this matter.As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification