Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4705946" data-attributes="member: 40961">Do you guys really not see what you're doing?&nbsp;You're constantly justifying things by explaining that they're what's &quot;realistic,&quot; and saying that what's &quot;realistic&quot; should happen even if its not pleasant from the perspective of the players.When people point out that this could lead to unfair results, you come up with all kinds of reasons why the players could have avoided the unfun results if they'd tried harder.When people point out that not every realistic and unfun thing is actually avoidable, you attack the hypothetical and argue that it really IS avoidable, or if you can't win that fight, you argue that its the allegedly realistic and unfun thing is actually unrealistic.&nbsp;That's why Mallus shouldn't give you an explanation for why his dragon is killing the low level PCs.&nbsp; It doesn't matter why.&nbsp; Giving you an actual explanation is just giving you a crack to wiggle through on an unrelated objection.&nbsp;As long as one hypothetical realistic explanation exists for why low level PCs might be killed by a high level dragon, you guys are stuck.&nbsp; Because when your only justification for why things are the way they are in your game world is &quot;because that's how they really are&quot; or &quot;because that's realistic,&quot; then you can't explain how you choose between multiple realistic possibilities.&nbsp;Personally, I suspect you do it exactly the same way everyone else does, you just say you don't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4705946, member: 40961"] Do you guys really not see what you're doing? You're constantly justifying things by explaining that they're what's "realistic," and saying that what's "realistic" should happen even if its not pleasant from the perspective of the players. When people point out that this could lead to unfair results, you come up with all kinds of reasons why the players could have avoided the unfun results if they'd tried harder. When people point out that not every realistic and unfun thing is actually avoidable, you attack the hypothetical and argue that it really IS avoidable, or if you can't win that fight, you argue that its the allegedly realistic and unfun thing is actually unrealistic. That's why Mallus shouldn't give you an explanation for why his dragon is killing the low level PCs. It doesn't matter why. Giving you an actual explanation is just giving you a crack to wiggle through on an unrelated objection. As long as one hypothetical realistic explanation exists for why low level PCs might be killed by a high level dragon, you guys are stuck. Because when your only justification for why things are the way they are in your game world is "because that's how they really are" or "because that's realistic," then you can't explain how you choose between multiple realistic possibilities. Personally, I suspect you do it exactly the same way everyone else does, you just say you don't. [/QUOTE]

Verification