NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 6110445" data-attributes="member: 23935">Sure, it s a play style.  But it's not simulation: it's the GM responding to player cues and the GM not undercutting player choices with force.  Negating a consequence that is entirely within control of the player does a couple of detrimental things in my view:1) It negates player choice.  If one or more of the players likes this type of struggle and has chosen appropriately for those desires, the application of GM force negates their choice to engage the game this way. This is particularly problematic when only a single player is asking for the pass.  Table dynamics being what they are, someone who wants to do something will often remain silent if someone else is vocal about how he doesn't want to do it.2) It skews choice value.  If the players know that X can and will be hand waved away then there is (almost) no reason for the player to choose resources that handle that situation rather than taking the wave.  This ends up making non-hand waved choice relatively more valuable and makes the PCs more rich in resources in other aspects of the game.  This in turn makes the PCs more capable in situations the table doesn't advance pass and in more extreme cases make the PCs breeze through situations designed to challenge more balanced designs.3) It negates previous player choices.  This was stated above.  The party is facing the consequence of previous choice.  I expect the advantages from their choices have appeared; here is a visible indicator of what they surrendered to get those other resources.4) It rewards poor planning.  If X is a known consequence and the players decide to do it without mitigation, they should live with those results.</blockquote>

Verification