Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1510179" data-attributes="member: 177">I disagree with you, in a couple of senses...Sense 1:&nbsp; In the situation of confirming criticals, in general what is happening is not &quot;just using a mechanic to say the character's dead&quot;.&nbsp; That choice to confirm doesn't exist in isolation.&nbsp; There's a combat - it has to evolve so that the PC in question ends up fighting the NPC.&nbsp; And a hit is rolled, and the critical confirmed, and then the damage dice have to come up with enough damage to kill.&nbsp; While there is one act of will in the mix, there are still also a number of random factors.&nbsp; If the NPC is going to fight, well darned tootin' he's going to confirm a critical on occasion.&nbsp; So, the choice to confirm the critical is no more adversarial than the choice to engage the players in combat at all.A GM always has the ability to slay PCs at his disposal, so long as the game mechanic allows for death at all.&nbsp; If the GM wanted to be adversarial, he or she would not need this particular mechanic to do it.Sense 2: Irrational responses to character death or injury are not based upon the game mechanic!&nbsp; The player knows the rules, and therefore knows that character death is a possibility.&nbsp; Therefore, absent other strong evidence of personal persecution, taking a confirmed critical as an adversarial act by the GM is not rational.&nbsp; A player who is not rational will not see much difference between confirming the critical and the choice to engage in the PC in combat with an NPC that might kill them.&nbsp; If the player wants to take it adversarially, they will find a justification, no matter the mechanic involved.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 1510179, member: 177"] I disagree with you, in a couple of senses... Sense 1: In the situation of confirming criticals, in general what is happening is not "just using a mechanic to say the character's dead". That choice to confirm doesn't exist in isolation. There's a combat - it has to evolve so that the PC in question ends up fighting the NPC. And a hit is rolled, and the critical confirmed, and then the damage dice have to come up with enough damage to kill. While there is one act of will in the mix, there are still also a number of random factors. If the NPC is going to fight, well darned tootin' he's going to confirm a critical on occasion. So, the choice to confirm the critical is no more adversarial than the choice to engage the players in combat at all. A GM always has the ability to slay PCs at his disposal, so long as the game mechanic allows for death at all. If the GM wanted to be adversarial, he or she would not need this particular mechanic to do it. Sense 2: Irrational responses to character death or injury are not based upon the game mechanic! The player knows the rules, and therefore knows that character death is a possibility. Therefore, absent other strong evidence of personal persecution, taking a confirmed critical as an adversarial act by the GM is not rational. A player who is not rational will not see much difference between confirming the critical and the choice to engage in the PC in combat with an NPC that might kill them. If the player wants to take it adversarially, they will find a justification, no matter the mechanic involved. [/QUOTE]

Verification