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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herpes Cineplex" data-source="post: 1512001" data-attributes="member: 16936">I get where you're coming from, I just disagree with the method.I'm all for giving a warning when a character is about to do something they will suffer for, and giving them a chance to reconsider.  I just don't see the point in being vague about it.  I mean, I want to warn them and give them a chance to reconsider their action, or I wouldn't say anything at all.  I'd like to think that if the gameworld is consistent, their character will already understand the potential consequences of what they're about to do; so why should I, as the GM, go out of my way to hide those consequences from the player, when we're not talking about a puzzle or some deeply hidden plot?  If it had been me and I was dead set on revoking paladinhood for opening a tomb that way, I would've nudged the paladin's player with something like "It might seem very disrespectful to smash open this saint's final resting place like that, particularly if there are other methods which look less like desecrating a grave.  I won't tell you that you can't just whack it open with a crowbar, I just wanted to make sure you understood that you had other options which might better fit the tenets of your faith."It's the same this-is-your-last-chance message that "Are you sure?" conveys, only it actually tells the player why they should re-evaluate their decision, and puts it all firmly in the context of the game setting instead of making it a "devious GM versus stupid player" thing.  Instead of the player thinking "Okay, how is the GM going to screw me if I do this?" he gets to think "Okay, how would a paladin go about opening this tomb?", and that seems better to me.Just a thought.--as a player, i never much liked playing guessing games with the gm about his setting</blockquote>

Verification