Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7290860" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Edit to correct odd quote results and add some clarity....Thats cool, but as a GM my main question to myself would be &quot;why did i want character death to be the way the player realizes he is &quot;misplaying&quot; the character knowledge?&quot; (referencing the part of the discussion earlier which characterizes the second character knowing it as &quot;the first was mis-roleplayed&quot;If a player running a rogue decides to try to jump a chasm to grab a wet slick wall over a fall to death, when i say &quot;you will need a 25 athletics roll to make the jump, then a 20 to catch the wall and hang on plus more for every 15' climb&quot; etc etc etc... That player can look at his sheet and go &quot;whoa.... Thats a bad idea&quot; Now of course some may use more narrative ways to describe it, but few are likely to just let the character do the almost certain death move without a nudge of &quot;are you sure.&quot;But a first level barbie get double goblined and decides &quot;save rage for later&quot; - if that is *actually* a bad idea likely to result in death and something as GM seen as &quot;not roleplaying the character knowledge&quot; as someone references above... Why did the GM choose to not say &quot;just so you know... Your character knows goblins like this kill individuals almost as good as your best all the time so holding back is a real risk...&quot; Combat is a series of events and rolls, not as easily expressed by a high DC, but if character knowledge says &quot;this is a deadly encounter&quot; why for combat wait until after death to let the player know that and make decisions armed with that knowledge?Just seems odd for the decision of &quot;that was knowledge the character has to draw on&quot; to be hinged on some other one stranger's demise.Sent from my VS995 using <a href="http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93205" target="_blank">EN World mobile app</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7290860, member: 6919838"] Edit to correct odd quote results and add some clarity. ... Thats cool, but as a GM my main question to [B]myself [/B]would be "why did i want character death to be the way the player realizes he is "misplaying" the character knowledge?" (referencing the part of the discussion earlier which characterizes the second character knowing it as "the first was mis-roleplayed" If a player running a rogue decides to try to jump a chasm to grab a wet slick wall over a fall to death, when i say "you will need a 25 athletics roll to make the jump, then a 20 to catch the wall and hang on plus more for every 15' climb" etc etc etc... That player can look at his sheet and go "whoa.... Thats a bad idea" Now of course some may use more narrative ways to describe it, but few are likely to just let the character do the almost certain death move without a nudge of "are you sure." But a first level barbie get double goblined and decides "save rage for later" - if that is *actually* a [I]bad idea likely to result in death[/I] and something as GM seen as [I]"not roleplaying the character knowledge"[/I] as someone references above... Why did the GM choose to not say "just so you know... Your character knows goblins like this kill individuals almost as good as your best all the time so holding back is a real risk..." Combat is a series of events and rolls, not as easily expressed by a high DC, but if character knowledge says "this is a deadly encounter" why for combat wait until after death to let the player know that and make decisions armed with that knowledge? Just seems odd for the decision of "that was knowledge the character has to draw on" to be hinged on some other one stranger's demise. Sent from my VS995 using [URL="http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93205"]EN World mobile app[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification