Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6787624" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Firstly: I might be reading something into this, but your post sounds a bit hostile. Have I offended you? If so, I apologize.Second: I never made that claim. Not once have I ever said that luck only affects such encounters. I was only considering such encounters, because that's what Imaculata wanted to talk about--the requirement was placed by Imaculata's (theoretical) example and nothing else. Luck happens in all encounters. And you are correct that, if the DM is intentionally throwing high-risk, steep-difficulty encounters, then the danger is going to increase and the margin of error will reduce. That wasn't what Imaculata spoke of, in the post I quoted, so that wasn't a situation I was considering. That I didn't consider it doesn't mean it never happens--it was merely outside the scope.I had thought, on the basis of joining the conversation specifically to back up Imaculata's assessment, without saying anything different (other than providing the frequency of your sessions), that you were agreeing with the restrictions placed on the type of situation under consideration. Hence why I quoted Imaculata's statement. Since I now know that you had always meant to refer to a very different situation--the DM intentionally and consistently pushing the upper bounds of the system--it makes a good deal more sense that you would have the situations you do. Of course, purely as my own opinion, I think it's a little silly to push the difficulty so high, only to then rein it in later--whether or not it happens frequently, it gives a sense of working at cross-purposes with yourself. I, personally, prefer a situation where the players consistently fear for their safety (at least in the first round or two), but where the margin of error was always known (by the DM) to be well in hand; that way, the outcomes are (almost always) precisely what the DM intended, in terms of success or failure rates (though not necessarily what the nature of that success or failure is--no plan survives contact with the players), but the players still feel like they overcame daunting odds and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.In that sense, perhaps we are coming at it from a perspective of which area we want to make an illusion, when it is necessary to resort to them to maintain the "flow" of the game. Because the nature and validity of player choice is of paramount concern for me, I never, under any circumstances, wish to create a situation where the player only has an illusion of making an informed decision, when the results have nothing to do with how they have decided to act + whatever randomness comes from the dice (which is something I believe players need to learn to manage). So instead, I am comfortable making the danger be an illusion--not much of one, mind, since death or at least severe hurt is still possible, but still, I'm okay with making players feel greater fear than is warranted by the enemy/ies in question. I don't mean to speak on your behalf, since I'm not you and it's pretty obvious now that we express ourselves in very different ways. However, it sounds like you prefer to allow the action-resolution system (the "consequences" in a very, VERY rough gloss) to be illusory, in the uncommon-but-unavoidable situations where the action-resolution system produces a result you don't wish to see happen (for any of a number of reasons).</blockquote>

Verification