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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9750454" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I actually haven't had that many personally super bad experiences. I just have a complete distaste for mechanical expectations being shoved into the zero-communication "social contract" where I will be expected to follow instructions that were never told to me and expected to instantly defer to authority on things I never actually agreed to. I believe in people exercising individual judgment within agreed parameters, and a "social contract" is definitionally unspoken, impossible to review, and only given tacit consent (a concept I very much do not like.)As for the rest...<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">1000000% yes on the session 0 discussion of...well really anything that may cause radical character upheaval. Talk to me, Goose. Don't presume I know what range of things you think would be fun, and definitely don't presume that I'm automatically giving enthusiastic consent. It doesn't have to be in detail (e.g. Micah's example above, even if it isn't how he would actually discuss it, was completely acceptable despite having no concrete details).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I would, in general, agree that I oppose complete character derailment at least for my own self. I'm okay with temporary stuff, meaning, the original patron relationship is restored, or a new patron steps in to provide an alternative. I would be substantially less okay with "yeah you just have a completely different character now", and very much not okay with "yeah you just...permanently lose all benefits and don't get anything else."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Stat penalties isn't something I've thought about but I'm not really sure I'd be that okay with such a thing either. Out of the blue crippling a character is always gonna be a hard sell.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Withered arm is fine, though I would almost surely begin looking for means to heal, replace, or augment said things. It's fine if such solutions have drawbacks of their own. E.g. maybe I get a weak but functional spectral arm, and can spend an invocation to make it actually powerful and interesting in its own right. The weak arm for example can't do somatic components and requires Concentration to hold anything more than a couple of pounds (e.g., no shield on that arm without concentration), but with the invocation it can do various cool things instead. That's paying a resource to replace a lost function, but gaining cool side benefits for said investment.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Environmental effects are.....tricky. I get why folks would aim for that, but like, that also now means I'm in a position where just playing my character is outright harmful, even when I'm not doing anything bad or wrong, which feels like a "how dare you like X" situation, doubly so if nobody else is at risk of dealing with such things. So, maybe put some limits on there? Perhaps plants die only when the character gets angry (something I can partially control, and which the character can try to prevent), or only when casting a spell at its normal casting time (e.g. how Defiling is sometimes portrayed), or only when drawing on active-use invocations or the like.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">None of the above, other than the "communicate, do not rely on so-called 'tacit consent' and unspoken 'social contract' stuff", applies only to me. I don't get to speak for what any other players at the table would desire or are comfortable with. Doesn't matter if I think a thing is the worst crime ever committed by a GM. If the other player is into it, and it isn't clearly harmful to my character too (and no, "we succeed less" doesn't count as "harmful to my character"), then it's none of my business, plain and simple. My thoughts could not possibly be less relevant.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification