WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

[Zed-F]

As a result of a lab accident / spell gone awry / cosmic string, your character finds him/herself seemingly switched into an alternate universe. (Theoretically it could be a dream or illusion of some sort, but if so, your character can't tell that it is.) The thing is, only your character's mind switched, not his or her body. And in this universe, your character is a member of a team that's analogous to the Fantastic Four -- your character being the Human Torch equivalent. (Think of a standard Fire projector EB; you can lob fireballs, have a fiery force field, and can fly, but are not super strong or anything, and you've lost whatever powers you had previously.)

 

While trying to figure a way to get things back to normal, your new team uncovers an multiple-armed bug-like alien critter that loves to eat humans. This critter is sentient, and clearly knows its prey is sentient, and clearly doesn't intend to stop killing and eating people. It also proves to be surprisingly resistant to your new team's attacks, and a surprisingly capable fighter; when your team engages it in combat, very little seems to slow this thing down. About the only thing that seems to give it pause at all are your fire attacks. The alien has already KO'ed the Invisible Girl-equivalent, the Thing-equivalent has gone toe-to-toe with the alien for several rounds and is about a hair's-breadth away from getting KO'ed himself, and the stretchy guy has yet to really have a measurable impact on the alien, and is hurt himself to boot. Your own character has taken a couple hits and is not feeling too swift. It looks like it's come down to do-or-die time.

 

The alien has just grabbed a couple bystanders with a pair of its many arms when the stretchy guy gets an idea. He uses himself as a sort of slingshot and lobs a truck at the alien critter in such a way that the gas tank breaks open over the alien's head. If your character shoots the alien, it's quite possible that the combination of your fire blast and the exploding truck will finally take the critter down. Of course, the explosion will also probably kill the bystanders it just grabbed. On the other hand, if your character doesn't take the shot, and lets the opportunity pass, it's probable that its next attack will take you out, leaving it free to eat the people it snatched up, take out the rest of your teammates, and continue on its rampage until someone else stops it.

 

WWYCD? If you feel this sort of situation is a violation of genre for your character, feel free not to respond for that character. However, hopefully most characters will be able to respond.

 

-----

 

EDIT: To clarify: There is no predetermined right or wrong answer. Your character doesn't know that taking the shot will take out the alien critter, and your character doesn't know that the next shot the critter takes will knock him out. He or she just knows that's where the odds lie. It is not inconceivable that, for instance, your character could dodge the alien's next attack, giving the brick and the stretcher enough time to free the captives and get them out of the blast zone before your character lights the bad guy up. There's nothing to say your character can't gamble and hope for the best; it just seems unlikely, given how the combat has gone so far. Does your character play the odds, or does he or she try to beat them?

 

Also, if your character does try to beat the odds, and the dice are rolled and they fall in line with the odds rather than in your character's favour, would you expect your character's GM to fudge or ignore the rolls, or let them stand? (Letting the roll stand does not necessarily imply the death of your character, but it likely implies the deaths of at least the two captives and probably others as well.)

[OddHat]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Style - Looks for another choice. Killing the innocent along with the guilty is not a path he'd take.

 

Flesh Gordon - Flesh has killed non-combatants in war time, but he believes he has alternatives now. He isn't going to kill innocent people if there's any possible way to avoid it.

[Zed-F]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

To clarify: There is no predetermined right or wrong answer. Your character doesn't know that taking the shot will take out the alien critter, and your character doesn't know that the next shot the critter takes will knock him out. He or she just knows that's where the odds lie. It is not inconceivable that, for instance, your character could dodge the alien's next attack, giving the brick and the stretcher enough time to free the captives and get them out of the blast zone before your character lights the bad guy up. There's nothing to say your character can't gamble and hope for the best; it just seems unlikely, given how the combat has gone so far.

 

Thus it sounds like both Style and Flesh would opt to gamble, rather than play the odds.

[OddHat]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Thus it sounds like both Style and Flesh would opt to gamble.

 

Yup. Both characters have strong codes urging them to protect the innocent. Additionally, both are used to much more flexible power sets, which pre-disposes them to think that there is a way if they can just find it. That may be incorrect in this situation, but it's the way the world has usually worked for them.

[Zed-F]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

it's the way the world has usually worked for them.

It sounds like in this situation, both Style and Flesh would in some sense expect a gamble to work; that is, stepping back to the metagame point of view, you would expect Style's GM and Flesh's GM to arrange a way for the gamble to work, in order to fit the tone of their respective games. Nothing wrong with that, but it does bring up a good question for others to consider when answering this WWYCD. Original post edited accordingly.

[OddHat]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

It sounds like in this situation' date=' both Style and Flesh would in some sense expect a gamble to work; that is, stepping back to the metagame point of view, you would expect Style's GM and Flesh's GM to arrange a way for the gamble to work, in order to fit the tone of their respective games. Nothing wrong with that, but it does bring up a good question for others to consider when answering this WWYCD. Original post edited accordingly.[/quote']

 

Well, actually I was thinking from an in-game perspective.

 

Style is a mage. He's used to having options limited by raw power alone. If one spell doesn't work, another will, and if that one doesn't then there's always been some way to escape and do research. Here his options are very limited, but his tactical sense would probably fail to recognize that. Intellectually he'd know that all he has is flight and a few varieties of fire blast; emotionally he'd still react as if his options are more open.

 

Flesh is even worse off. He's not all that bright, and he relies on massive luck plus raw strength and durability to save the day. That luck may be gone, but he doesn't even think of it as a power. To him, it really is the way the world works.

 

Tone means something as well. Both characters are designed for pretty bronze age universes.

[sinanju]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Hell's Angel, not surprisingly, is not terribly disoriented by finding herself as the equivalent of the Human Torch. That's her schtick in her own universe.

 

As for possibly taking out the innocent victim while trying to take down the bad guy...that's a tough one. She's a pretty tough-minded person on the whole, though. Her whole rationale for going out and fighting bad guys is "Someone has to do it."

 

She also doesn't trust anyone else's judgment or ability as much as her own, so holding back in the hopes that someone else could take out the bad guy just isn't really her style. She'll do her best to avoid getting anyone killed, but when it comes right down to it, she'll take the shot and live with the consequences, whatever happens.

[Metaphysician]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Microman II: *mostly inapplicable, as figuring out what he'd be like in a human body is a royal pain in itself*

 

Hermes: Is a supergenius. Unless he was dropped into the new body in the middle of the fight, would probably have mostly mastered the fire powers already, himself. Which means the bug alien wouldn't have even gotten to the point of holding hostages, as when Hermes figured out that fire worked well on him, he would have already put his powers to the fullest in vaporizing the monster.

[Zed-F]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Hermes: Is a supergenius. Unless he was dropped into the new body in the middle of the fight' date=' would probably have mostly mastered the fire powers already, himself. Which means the bug alien wouldn't have even gotten to the point of holding hostages, as when Hermes figured out that fire worked well on him, he would have already put his powers to the fullest in vaporizing the monster.[/quote']

 

You can't cop out quite that easily. You can assume that his fire powers simply aren't that potent. Yes, fire is about the only thing your team has found so far that can hurt the thing, but that doesn't mean he can just vaporize it, supergenius or no. Now, if you simply would rather not answer the question, that's another matter.

[Metaphysician]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Ah, so you want a more straight answer:

 

This scenario is a railroad, pure and simple, designed to allow the GM in questioned to stroke off his own ego at the expense of his players, by thus forcing them into an unwinnable situation via incredible coincidences and utter incompetence on the part of friendly NPCs. The proper response to it is two-fold:

 

-Use whatever ability or skill is available to your character to destroy as much of the setting world as possible, ranging from killing Stretch-Idiot-Who-Douses-Hostages-In-Gasoline, to offering to help the alien devour as many humans as possible, and indeed, suggesting roasting to make them taste better.

 

-Flipping the game table over, tying up the GM, hanging him by his pinky toes from a ceiling fan, and beating him about the head with the Hero 5ER, hopefully thus either discouraging him from DMing again, or rendering him incapable thereof.

 

I think that about covers it.

 

 

P.S.: That isn't the right finger, but they don't have a smiley with the proper one.

[Pendaran]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Can he do anything the Human Torch can? Trap it in cages of fire? Ring it with a hemisphere of flame? Is this anything but a glorified railroad to see who says "kill the hostages" and who doesn't, then hound those who say who doesn't about not making a "realistic" choice and calling it "metagamey"? Because I notice you said not a single thing to the guy who said "kill the hostages", whereas you went on at /length/ on the guy who said he wouldn't.

 

My bad, on both guys who said they wouldn't.

 

I think what galls me is people present these as "What would your character do" and go so far as to say "no one answer is right", but then their responses to anyone not saying the answer they seem to actively /want/ involve things like "getting out of it too easily", and "metagaming".

 

Now, if you simply would rather not answer the question, that's another matter.

 

I realize these threads are mostly about being smug about how you present people with "hard" choices and thinly veiled mock people not giving the appropriate response, but wow, especially with the smiley, that was remarkably patronizing.

[Pyre-Archer]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

If I'm reading it correctly, it sounds like the critter just got smacked in the head by a rather large vehicle. That'll make anyone stagger.

 

That said, Pyre-Archer would tell Stretch and Rocky to grab the civilians while the beast is distracted. Get them clear, first priority.

Then I'd take the shot. And afterwards take Stretch to task for putting innocents at risk.

 

Failing that, I'd aim low, take out the legs, make a Flash attack if I can. Pyre-Archer's already a fire-user, so he'd be at a bit of an advantage here. But his Code vs Killing would probably stop him from making the initial shot as described. Not good for one's rep, and all.

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

None of my characters will risk the bystanders.

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Tao might risk the bystanders, depending on what she understood the "mission" priorities to be. Given that she still seems to be performing the function of Superhero, she'd look for a means to idirectly stop the creature without harming the hostages.

 

Velocity, Ivy, Eve or Valkeyrie wouldn't take the risk

 

Its out of genre for Shidoku.

[Shaft]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

...Pyre-Archer would tell Stretch and Rocky to grab the civilians while the beast is distracted. Get them clear, first priority.

 

Then I'd take the shot. And afterwards take Stretch to task for putting innocents at risk.

 

Agreed. The archers stand united! Priority is to save the bystanders.

 

Not doing everything in your power to save bystanders might result in Stretchy guy working with Power Armour Guy in that other comic to start imprisoning your fellow heroes in a stupid excuse to sell comics when the public starts demanding registration and government sanction of all heroes.

[Zed-F]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Ah, so you want a more straight answer:

 

This scenario is a railroad, pure and simple, designed to allow the GM in questioned to stroke off his own ego at the expense of his players, by thus forcing them into an unwinnable situation via incredible coincidences and utter incompetence on the part of friendly NPCs. The proper response to it is two-fold:

 

-Use whatever ability or skill is available to your character to destroy as much of the setting world as possible, ranging from killing Stretch-Idiot-Who-Douses-Hostages-In-Gasoline, to offering to help the alien devour as many humans as possible, and indeed, suggesting roasting to make them taste better.

 

-Flipping the game table over, tying up the GM, hanging him by his pinky toes from a ceiling fan, and beating him about the head with the Hero 5ER, hopefully thus either discouraging him from DMing again, or rendering him incapable thereof.

 

I think that about covers it.

 

 

P.S.: That isn't the right finger, but they don't have a smiley with the proper one.

 

First off, chill.

 

Second off, if your character thinks it's better not to kill the hostages and gamble, I have NO PROBLEM with that. It's a valid choice.

 

Thirdly, there is absolutely nothing contrived about this scenario. It might not be appropriate for some games with a certain tone, which is fine. On the other hand, pretty much exactly this scenario just happened in a Dark Champions game I'm running, and I had no intention of presenting such a scenario. I put a big bad guy on the table for the PCs to fight, and because of the way the PCs approached the situation, they started faring poorly. Once things started looking grim, one of the players got the idea to go out and grab a car, and smash it over the bad guy's head, dousing it with gasoline. The player of the fire-wielding character got a choice to make.

 

For the record, he chose to gamble. The dice did not love him. So now, he gets one set of consequences. If he chose the other way, that would have been equally fine by me, and he would have gotten to deal with a different set of consequences. Action - reaction; life happens.

 

So if the GM pulls this in your own personal campaign, and it's against the tone of that game, then flip the table if it makes you happy. I have nothing against people wanting to play silver-age games, or games where you don't have to make this kind of call. But there's no call for jumping down the throat of someone who isn't playing that sort of game.

[Pendaran]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Thirdly, there is absolutely nothing contrived about this scenario.

 

There's nothing to say your character can't gamble and hope for the best; it just seems unlikely, given how the combat has gone so far.

 

You set up a combat to specifically weigh it as almost overwhelmingly likely that if you don't kill everyone, even worse things are going to happen, and your own life hangs by a thread.

 

Beyond even /that/, you've almost quite literally responded to statements of "well, I'd have some idea of how to use my powers" with "nuh uh!" and talking about "people getting off easy".

 

Beyond even /that/ you decided that Stretchy Guy would /douse hostages in gasoline around a guy with fire powers/.

 

No, that's plenty contrived.

 

Once things started looking grim, one of the players got the idea to go out and grab a car, and smash it over the bad guy's head, dousing it with gasoline. The player of the fire-wielding character got a choice to make.

 

Then aside from that one of your players is something of a raging doofus, no, I'd say plenty can be put on you for setting them into a situation like that, then deciding to basically hose the fire wielding player for the other player's inanity, and talk about how "realistic" this all is, and nothing but actions having consequences.

 

In fact, whoever made it such that any option not to light up innocent people is "an unlikely gamble", is certainly helping how contrived this thing is.

[Zed-F]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Can he do anything the Human Torch can? Trap it in cages of fire? Ring it with a hemisphere of flame? Is this anything but a glorified railroad to see who says "kill the hostages" and who doesn't, then hound those who say who doesn't about not making a "realistic" choice and calling it "metagamey"? Because I notice you said not a single thing to the guy who said "kill the hostages", whereas you went on at /length/ on the guy who said he wouldn't.

 

My bad, on both guys who said they wouldn't.

 

I think what galls me is people present these as "What would your character do" and go so far as to say "no one answer is right", but then their responses to anyone not saying the answer they seem to actively /want/ involve things like "getting out of it too easily", and "metagaming".

 

 

 

I realize these threads are mostly about being smug about how you present people with "hard" choices and thinly veiled mock people not giving the appropriate response, but wow, especially with the smiley, that was remarkably patronizing.

 

First off, chill.

 

Second off, where did I criticize anyone for the choice they made? Did I criticize Style's choice? Flesh's? No. I came up with additional clarifications for my own question based on what Oddhat said, and that's it. I have no problem with them making the choices they made; it's a valid choice. I even explicitly stated:

There is no predetermined right or wrong answer.

Apparently you don't believe me when I say that. I can tell you, however, that I have characters that would sacriice the hostages (and feel bad about it afterwards) and I have characters that would do no such thing. I am honestly not trying to make a value statement out of this; I am trying to get a view of what other people would do in a situation that is NOT railroaded.

 

The only time I had anything to say that could be construed negative was when Meta tried to dodge the question. If you want to take me to task for picking on your pal Meta, fine, but you're really the one getting egg on your face here for overreacting.

 

As for the following:

Can he do anything the Human Torch can? Trap it in cages of fire? Ring it with a hemisphere of flame?

Sure he can. And the critter can try to break out and keep fighting. The thing isn't made of paper; it won't burn up instantly or be too afraid of the fire to try and take out the guy generating it. It's also not made of asbestos and completely immune to the fire. So yes, the fire guy has an effect on the monster, and no, it's not fair to simply wave your hand and say 'I vaporize it.' It is a monster that is tough enough to take on an entire team; give credit where credit is due.

[Pendaran]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Sure he can. And the critter can try to break out and keep fighting. The thing isn't made of paper; it won't burn up instantly or be too afraid of the fire to try and take out the guy generating it. It's also not made of asbestos and completely immune to the fire. So yes, the fire guy has an effect on the monster, and no, it's not fair to simply wave your hand and say 'I vaporize it.' It is a monster that is tough enough to take on an entire team; give credit where credit is due.

 

But basically either he was not allowed to think to do this before any of this happened, or if he did, none of it would be effective. If your players handled a situation badly, then everyone in this situation must be forced to make the exact same choice even if they say things like "if i'm superintelligent at using my powers, wouldn't I have figured out some kind of other strategy for attack that would have let things not get to this point?" "of course you wouldn't have, now answer the question."

 

Second off, where did I criticize anyone for the choice they made? Did I criticize Style's choice? Flesh's? No. I came up with additional clarifications for my own question based on what Oddhat said, and that's it. I have no problem with them making the choices they made; it's a valid choice. I even explicitly stated:

 

A valid choice you made clear to go on and on and on about how unlikely it would be to work. Your posts I guess thusly don't have much internal consistency for how you would like them to appear.

 

You have literal comments like

 

that is, stepping back to the metagame point of view, you would expect Style's GM and Flesh's GM to arrange a way for the gamble to work

 

That read like nothing but "well, that should fail, but I guess your GM might be nice to you."

 

The only time I had anything to say that could be construed negative was when Meta tried to dodge the question. If you want to take me to task for picking on your pal Meta, fine, but you're really the one getting egg on your face here for overreacting.

 

Yes, that's what it is, the scenario itself is not gapingly flawed or anything.

 

And your edits certainly don't read like "would you expect your GM to deny reality for you so you can escape the consequences of not taking a sure bet?"

 

And hey, your initial presentation certainly says "now, my players apparently handled this badly, so my assumption is you should have screwed up to the point of reaching these events too. Even if you might not have." Definitely it doesn't instead just underscore how what looks like /nothing/ has been working, which it itself part of the essence of contrivance.

[Zed-F]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

You set up a combat to specifically weigh it as almost overwhelmingly likely that if you don't kill everyone' date=' even worse things are going to happen, and your own life hangs by a thread.[/quote']

Sure, in this WWYCD I am doing that, because that is the situation my players got themselves into. I would like to clarify that I did not railroad the players in my game into that situation, however. They got there on their own accord. For the record, none of them had a problem with it, and they could reasonably be certain that their PCs would not die on account of having gotten themselves in that situation.

 

Beyond even /that/, you've almost quite literally responded to statements of "well, I'd have some idea of how to use my powers" with "nuh uh!" and talking about "people getting off easy".

You're stretching what Meta said quite a ways there. Yes, Meta's character would know how to use his new fire powers. No, that does not equate to being able to wave his hand and say 'I incinerate it.' In the real game scenario I was running, the PC had blasted the thing a couple times for good damage, but it wasn't down yet. The same could reasonably be said to apply in most situations where you have a boss monster capable of fighting an entire team.

 

Beyond even /that/ you decided that Stretchy Guy would /douse hostages in gasoline around a guy with fire powers/.

Precisely because that's what the player decided to do.

 

No, that's plenty contrived.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Then aside from that one of your players is something of a raging doofus, no, I'd say plenty can be put on you for setting them into a situation like that, then deciding to basically hose the fire wielding player for the other player's inanity, and talk about how "realistic" this all is, and nothing but actions having consequences.

 

In fact, whoever made it such that any option not to light up innocent people is "an unlikely gamble", is certainly helping how contrived this thing is.

An action taken in haste, that he might later regret? Certainly. A raging doofus? Hardly. I am running a Dark Champions game, as I said; a scenario where the PCs have to fight a battle with hostages present is perfectly viable for that genre. The character's actions are not out of genre for a Dark Champions game either. If they are out of genre for your game, fine. I ask people questions inviting them to tell me what genre they are running for a reason, after all.

 

The reason it was an unlikely gamble was because the PCs were already losing they fight, primarily due to choices they had made. Do the good guys always win in your fights? If so, that says a lot about your opinion on what is realistic to begin with.

 

Could they have turned it around with sheer luck? Yes, they could have. However, the PCs got themselves in that situation. I arranged things so their characters wouldn't die because of it... but I draw the line at fudging things so that there are no consequences at all when the PCs fail.

[Pendaran]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Sure, in this WWYCD I am doing that, because that is the situation my players got themselves into. I would like to clarify that I did not railroad the players in my game into that situation, however. They got there on their own accord. For the record, none of them had a problem with it, and they could reasonably be certain that their PCs would not die on account of having gotten themselves in that situation.

 

And that's certainly nice for them. You on the other hand have basically turned around and said "and so, failing in their exact ways, and doing everything they do, you will /have/ to make this choice"

 

Which as far as this?

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

No, I think I'm doing great for uses of contrived.

 

It's at that a Dark Champions game, but you regardless disingenuously go on at length about how "anyone should be able to answer that", and respond to answers not like what you clearly expect with on and on about how "you expect the GM to act unrealistically then" as you go to great length to stress how unlikely it is that anything but fragging innocent people will work.

 

Precisely because that's what the player decided to do.

 

For which you punished the other players, yes, I know, you established this. "now that he's screwed up, you must act, or basically take ridiculously small odds that everyone won't die! aw, darn, you gambled in a way skewed for you to lose and lost. Well, clearly your fault for having principles instead of taking your chance to kill a bunch of innocent people."

 

An action taken in haste, that he might later regret? Certainly. A raging doofus? Hardly. I am running a Dark Champions game, as I said; a scenario where the PCs have to fight a battle with hostages present is perfectly viable for that genre. The character's actions are not out of genre for a Dark Champions game either. If they are out of genre for your game, fine. I ask people questions inviting them to tell me what genre they are running for a reason, after all.

 

You keep going on and on about this, but say the scenario and how you present it, and how you say what options should basically fail, are yet somehow "valid"

 

I'm pretty sure that word doesn't mean what you think it means either.

 

Or again, the guy who says he'd kill the hostages, you say /nothing/ to. The responses otherwise to that point, those were the ones you went on at length about how that would involve perspectives taken into the metagame, and tossing in implications of maybe then they'd expect their gm to "fudge consequences" for them.

 

Could they have turned it around with sheer luck? Yes, they could have. However, the PCs got themselves in that situation. I arranged things so their characters wouldn't die because of it... but I draw the line at fudging things so that there are no consequences at all when the PCs fail.

 

Goodness, that last part sounds like a value judgement, as though not all ways to run or react to this situation, are, shall we say.. valid.

[Zed-F]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

But basically either he was not allowed to think to do this before any of this happened' date=' or if he did, none of it would be effective. If your players handled a situation badly, then everyone in this situation must be forced to make the exact same choice even if they say things like "if i'm superintelligent at using my powers, wouldn't I have figured out some kind of other strategy for attack that would have let things not get to this point?" "of course you wouldn't have, now answer the question."[/quote']

That amounts to an 'I win' button. If you're going to push that, then you might as well not bother answering the question in the first place. Especially when you put it as baldfacedly as that. The player in the real game situation did his best to fight the thing prior to things devolving to this point. Why is it so hard to believe that your character could find himself in a similar situation?

 

A valid choice you made clear to go on and on and on about how unlikely it would be to work. Your posts I guess thusly don't have much internal consistency for how you would like them to appear.

 

That read like nothing but "well, that should fail, but I guess your GM might be nice to you."

The reason why choosing not to kill the hostages is a valid choice has absolutely nothing to do with how likely it is to work. It has to do with standing up for certain moral principles. I should have though that you, being a proponent of not killing the hostages, would realize this. Given that, I am not, in fact, being inconsistent.

 

Yes, that's what it is, the scenario itself is not gapingly flawed or anything.

 

And your edits certainly don't read like "would you expect your GM to deny reality for you so you can escape the consequences of not taking a sure bet?"

 

And hey, your initial presentation certainly says "now, my players apparently handled this badly, so my assumption is you should have screwed up to the point of reaching these events too. Even if you might not have." Definitely it doesn't instead just underscore how what looks like /nothing/ has been working, which it itself part of the essence of contrivance.

Nobody is perfect; anyone can screw up. So, why assume your character couldn't have? Why couldn't your character be in a position similar to this?

 

Just because you don't want him to be?

 

That's a genre decision. If it's not in genre for your characters, then say so. Don't wave your magic wand and say 'I vaporize the problem.'

[Zed-F]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Ok, I'm done talking with you about this, Pendaran. You've clearly made up your mind and no amount of discourse is going to change your opinion. Good night.

[Pendaran]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Ok, I'm done talking with you about this, Pendaran. You've clearly made up your mind and no amount of discourse is going to change your opinion. Good night.

 

Statements like these always carry a spectacular amount of high minded moral weight when they come right after first going on at length to put forth the ol college try into point by point dismissal of things said against your viewpoint here.

 

That amounts to an 'I win' button. If you're going to push that, then you might as well not bother answering the question in the first place. Especially when you put it as baldfacedly as that. The player in the real game situation did his best to fight the thing prior to things devolving to this point. Why is it so hard to believe that your character could find himself in a similar situation?

 

As opposed to the "you lose" button of you going on and on at length to establish that being principled means "realistically" nothing but dead innocent people?

 

What situation? One you initially present as blatantly contrived and say nothing about "screwing up" or even hinting it, only saying things like "nothing is working", and the writing doing its level best to present how near hopeless things are? That you only modify it later in the face of notations of railroading to say "well, no, what I /really/ meant is that people screwed up a lot to get here". It's my fault you have thusly two different versions of this scenario of yours?

 

But let's forget that for a moment, is it so hard to believe most people wouldn't be dumb enough /to douse both creature and hostages in gasoline/ around a guy with fire powers? Really?

 

The reason why choosing not to kill the hostages is a valid choice has absolutely nothing to do with how likely it is to work. It has to do with standing up for certain moral principles. I should have though that you, being a proponent of not killing the hostages, would realize this. Given that, I am not, in fact, being inconsistent.

 

which are then immediately demonstrated as basically pointless, because doing so makes it your fault that everyone died, yes, I understand. And with all the statements of how people are then just expecting their GMs to shield them, and how "/my/ players had no problems with it" sure you are, and epically so. You've been judgy since the get go.

 

And congrats on deciding you're going to take your curtain bows without still explaining why in the initial set of posts, the guy who agreed the innocent must die was basically left alone, and the two people disagreeing, had indepth hounding down to "so, you think your GM lets you deny reality?"

 

Certainly doesn't make it look like he selected your correct option.

 

 

Nobody is perfect; anyone can screw up. So, why assume your character couldn't have? Why couldn't your character be in a position similar to this?

 

Again, forgetting that your initial scenario is nothing but "you've been doing your best, not especially incompetently, but nothing works, and this is the only shot you're ever likely to get, do it! do it! do it!"

 

There's, say, screwing up

 

Then there's "gasoline+hostages+monster+fire=win!" they're on different levels.

 

Just because you don't want him to be?

 

And this is entire thread hasn't been from you a thinly veiled attempt to raise the "interesting" point that people who take the option specifically, and frankly, since you as a GM gave it what you say are abominably low odds, /intentionally/ designed to fail are clearly people who expect GM coddling, to ignore consequences of their actions..

 

Still seems like that word valid isn't exactly being used here all that well.

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD: Fuel for the fire

 

Pyre-Archer's already a fire-user' date=' so he'd be at a bit of an advantage here. But his Code vs Killing would probably stop him from making the initial shot as described. Not good for one's rep, and all.[/quote']

 

Wait, is his CvK motivated by not wanting to have "murderer" reflect poorly on him?

 

Because, you know, if you were in the body of someone else, you might be able to get away with murder - literally - and pin it on someone else