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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6587296" data-attributes="member: 82106">But there are stakes. Stakes are what you put down in a wager. Lets imagine the characters go into a dungeon, the stakes they're wagering are probably their lives mainly. Perhaps if there's a good chance to get raised then they're mostly wagering several 1000gp, either way against the chance to gain a fortune, magic, etc.The stakes could be something else, like if the PCs are defending their hometown against orcs then the stakes are everything they know and love. Maybe on a smaller scale a characters leaps across a chasm to attack an orc, he's wagering his chance of falling into the chasm (whatever that entails) against the chance of killing the orc. Maybe he could stay on the other side and plink with his bow that he's not so good with. He instead chooses to RAISE THE STAKES, to bet more by pulling a stunt. He's looking for greater reward for his greater risk.There's nothing really meta-game about stakes. Its the same as in the real world. Maybe you enter the Indy 500 and stake your chance of crashing against winning a big prize. People do it all the time, they take risks. Maybe you decide to go demand a raise from your supervisor, risking your current salary against a chance to get ahead. Life is filled with trade offs and every one of them has stakes.Why would they NOT know. Its a game of heroes doing heroic things. If they risk their lives, their souls, the future of their world against a chance to attain some great thing then its a pretty crap DM that just turns around afterwards and says "Yeah, haha, well, Vecna got what he wanted anyway suckers!" What was the DM gaining out of that except some cheap thrill? It cannot possibly be good DMing.Ayup! Its NOT FUN when the DM stomps on your accomplishments. What if you had your character spend years building a castle and spending all his cash and a week later the DM has some unstoppable army sack it and raze it? Its just a <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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /> thing to do. Now, maybe its fine if the PCs built the castle to stop the unstoppable army and they fought the good fight and they LOST, that's one thing. But if the DM just says "haha, you had no chance, I let you think you could win but I don't even have to roll dice" its <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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /> DMing indeed.The PCs don't have to win total victories all the time, they can lose, they can win partially, or at great cost, but yes, the players should know when they get into a situation like that if there's a chance or not. Its bad DMing practice to take away the player's candy just for what, the satisfaction of saying the players couldn't 'beat you'? Sure, but isn't it MORE FUN if they at least CAN find out about the lieutenant and decide whether to take him out first or not? Maybe there's trade-offs to doing so, that's fine. Maybe they kill the big bad and the lieutenant picks up some of the pieces and becomes some other new big bad, but they should have accomplished SOMETHING. The same stakes should not still be at play. Whatever they risked they should get to at least stack the winnings up on their side of the table and grin, even if the world goes on and its still got evil in it. What shouldn't happen is that the new big bad shouldn't be just basically the same as the old one like they never accomplished anything at all. No, nobody is mandating that the PCs should have to be handed every possible plot hook and piece of information. Its perfectly fine if they are surprised or in the dark on some things, but when it comes time to decide what they're risking and what conflict they are engaging in, what interests are involved, they should get a 'fair' wager. Maybe the guy they didn't uncover the identity of backstabs them somehow later, that's fine, they can roll with that.Its not much of a choice, no. Again, its a matter of what is better and worse. The choice "You can go left and gather evidence that you may want later, but the bad guy will have time to prepare for your assault" is an interesting choice. "you see an intersection, go left or right?" is an uninteresting choice, and any consequences that follow from it are arbitrary since left or right is just a guess by the players. I don't think anyone is advocating that PCs need perfect knowledge, just that you're leaving a lot of fun on the table when you make significant choices arbitrary. Now, I can see a way to have the arbitrary choice itself be a choice. Say the PCs can go back to the library and research the left and right choices, but they risk being ambushed by wandering monsters each time they go back and forth, maybe they just pick a way to go. Its fine to make a choice in a vacuum when you have to. Major stakes that the players have already wagered just shouldn't hing on that arbitrary left/right choice.</blockquote>

Verification