Baldur's Gate III (2)

[Keltest]

Spoiler

Show

Then either Find Traps is a separate skill and should show up from the start, or Disable Device covers both and a success should disarm the trap as easily as it opens the door.

I mean what is the point of a skill system if a "success" results in a worse state than failure?

You roll 18 on your survival check. You think you can safely identify which mushrooms are safe to eat, and you become overconfident. Make a save vs Poison!

You get a critical success on your swim check. You have so much fun splashing about that you lose track of time and swim so far out to sea that you exhaust yourself and drown before you get back. If only you stuck to a doggie paddle.

Time to negotiate a big contract. You start using all those jargony terms you learned in business school. But that just annoys the ice-cold merchant so he charges you triple the market price! Meanwhile the hopelessly crude antics of the odious comic relief amuse him, so Odie gets it for free.

How are any of those cases any different than the mind flayer? In each case the DM has arbitrarily decided that the tactic used by the expert has exactly the opposite result that was intended. The DM is describing an appropriate explanation for a FAILED skill check and insisting it can now only happen on a success because... reasons.

The whole point of having a random element in the skill system is to adjudicate when that sort of thing happens, yet here the DM is asserting it happens automatically AND penalyzes people for daring to avoid that fate.

It's completely backwards.

-H

Spoiler

Show

What youre missing is that this isnt the result of the skill system, this is the player making a decision and then being unprepared or unequipped to deal with the consequences. Not everything the player does has to have a good outcome, or even a potentially good outcome. Sometimes people just do foolish things.

[Hatu]

Spoiler

Show

What youre missing is that this isnt the result of the skill system, this is the player making a decision and then being unprepared or unequipped to deal with the consequences. Not everything the player does has to have a good outcome, or even a potentially good outcome. Sometimes people just do foolish things.

Spoiler

Show

Two things.

First, the choice isn't a clear one, IMHO. There are plenty of ways in which one could try to use Intelligence against a weakened mind flayer that don't involve using mental powers you don't know anything about to open a two-way telepathic link to it. By the time you find out that is what you have done, it's up to a completely unrelated skill to save you.

Second, why is this task not only foolhardy, but so completely flipping foolhardy that merely *attempting* it could well be lethal... unless you really screw up in the attempt?

I submit that the answer is entirely arbitrary. The mind flayer is normally a powerful psyonicist, true. But it's normally a physical match for a low level party too, and yet here it can be easily vanquished thanks to it's grevous wounds. But not mentally. No, thinking you could get the better of it mentally is not only incorrect, but worthy of a potential Darwin award.

Bleh.

-H

[Keltest]

Spoiler

Show

Two things.

First, the choice isn't a clear one, IMHO. There are plenty of ways in which one could try to use Intelligence against a weakened mind flayer that don't involve using mental powers you don't know anything about to open a two-way telepathic link to it. By the time you find out that is what you have done, it's up to a completely unrelated skill to save you.

Second, why is this task not only foolhardy, but so completely flipping foolhardy that merely *attempting* it could well be lethal... unless you really screw up in the attempt?

I submit that the answer is entirely arbitrary. The mind flayer is normally a powerful psyonicist, true. But it's normally a physical match for a low level party too, and yet here it can be easily vanquished thanks to it's grevous wounds. But not mentally. No, thinking you could get the better of it mentally is not only incorrect, but worthy of a potential Darwin award.

Bleh.

-H

Spoiler

Show

But you do have the capacity to get the better of him, or at least resist his intrusions. I dont think anybody has actually posted what happens if you make the wisdom save. Its not just "oh, you passed an int check, so now you die."

[huttj509]

Meanwhile, after all the spoiler blocks, I actively TRIED to get the

Spoiler

Show

Illithid to eat me

and couldn't manage it. Most I got was Disadvantage on attacks.

Anyway, @Corvus, what you saw with the animation is, well, it's Early Access. I know different companies use EA differently, but literally from the Steam store page for the game (under the 'why early access' blurb):

Will I enjoy Early Access?

You should not buy Baldur’s Gate 3 in Early Access if you want a polished experience.

Early Access gives you a chance at an early taste of what the gameplay will be like but we still have a lot of work ahead of us. While we did our best to remove the most annoying bugs and optimize the game as much as we could, there are still plenty of issues and it will take us time to fix them. Only buy the game now if you want an early look or if you want to participate in community feedback. Otherwise, you’re probably best off waiting until version 1.0 releases.”

[GloatingSwine]

Spoiler

Show

Ok, the door itself is trapped then. And dont confuse a door that you cant open with a door that isnt there. Opportunity cost is a thing.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah, but the door is trapped with a trap that doesn't exist unless you successfully pick the lock. Fail at picking the lock, no trap.

You have to have specifically invested in the ability to pick locks for the trap to be there at all.

And you only know the door exists because the GM said "there's a locked door here, would you like to try and pick the lock?"

[Keltest]

Spoiler

Show

Yeah, but the door is trapped with a trap that doesn't exist unless you successfully pick the lock. Fail at picking the lock, no trap.

You have to have specifically invested in the ability to pick locks for the trap to be there at all.

And you only know the door exists because the GM said "there's a locked door here, would you like to try and pick the lock?"

Spoiler

Show

... Yes, that is how all table top games work, with both good and bad outcomes. Nothing in the room is accessible unless you pick the lock. That is the point of the lock.

[Seerow]

Spoiler

Show

... Yes, that is how all table top games work, with both good and bad outcomes. Nothing in the room is accessible unless you pick the lock. That is the point of the lock.

Spoiler

Show

Or you could bash the door down with your axe, and somehow not set off the trap because the trap only exists in the lock and not the door.

[GloatingSwine]

Spoiler

Show

... Yes, that is how all table top games work, with both good and bad outcomes. Nothing in the room is accessible unless you pick the lock. That is the point of the lock.

Spoiler

Show

Keep your excuses straight, your current analogy is a trap on the door itself. But the player is not given a chance to look for it or ask about it before they have decided whether to pick the lock or not, and is only actually there if they succeed.

Remember, this is happening in CRPG dialogue, which means "pick the lock on the door y/n?" is being proactively suggested by the GM as a course of action. It's not a consequence of a voluntary interaction, it's a proactive offer with strictly constrained responses.

And it's a trap option, if the consequence of attempting the intelligence check and failing was negative that would be fine, but the negative consequences do not appear until you succeed at something that was proactively offered then fail at something else, using a different attribute, that you had no way to know the GM was going to require before you started and now cannot choose whether to do or not.

It's bad game design, it punishes players for choosing an option that seems to align with the investment they made when creating their character by springing a second, unknowable and unpredictable, test on them only after they succeed. It's the kind of gotcha that belongs in the past in Space Quest and would earn a real life GM the ire of his group if he did it at the table.

[Narkis]

Spoiler

Show

Or you could bash the door down with your axe, and somehow not set off the trap because the trap only exists in the lock and not the door.

Spoiler

Show

I have had a rogue get hid by a poison needle trap after lockpicking a chest. If we'd let the Barbarian bash it open like he wanted I'm pretty sure the trap would have done nothing.

[veti]

Anyway, @Corvus, what you saw with the animation is, well, it's Early Access. I know different companies use EA differently, but literally from the Steam store page for the game (under the 'why early access' blurb):

OK, so it's what we used to call a beta version. Fair enough.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah, but the door is trapped with a trap that doesn't exist unless you successfully pick the lock. Fail at picking the lock, no trap.

You have to have specifically invested in the ability to pick locks for the trap to be there at all.

And you only know the door exists because the GM said "there's a locked door here, would you like to try and pick the lock?"

I have no idea why that's in a spoiler, but I'll humour honour it anyway.

Spoiler

Show

In the first place, the GM just says "there's a door here". That's part of the visual inspection of the room. Trying the door, finding that it's locked, checking for traps, picking the lock, are all proactive steps for you, the player, to take. GMs don't, in my experience, nudge you toward those things.

They don't need to. What rogue character is going to pass up a closed door?

Sure, the trap only triggers if you successfully pick the lock. I can see why the rogue would be disgruntled at that, but it should be in a kicking-themself kind of way. There's no excuse for directing that anger at the GM.

[GloatingSwine]

OK, so it's what we used to call a beta version. Fair enough.



I have no idea why that's in a spoiler, but I'll humour honour it anyway.

Spoiler

Show

In the first place, the GM just says "there's a door here". That's part of the visual inspection of the room. Trying the door, finding that it's locked, checking for traps, picking the lock, are all proactive steps for you, the player, to take. GMs don't, in my experience, nudge you toward those things.

They don't need to. What rogue character is going to pass up a closed door?

Sure, the trap only triggers if you successfully pick the lock. I can see why the rogue would be disgruntled at that, but it should be in a kicking-themself kind of way. There's no excuse for directing that anger at the GM.

Because it's spun off of discussing a specific event in the game.

The context is that you are told that you can attempt to do something, de novo, which you have no way outside of the specific prompt to know is possible because it isn't possible at any other time in any other way. You are told that it will require an Intelligence check. If you pass the Intelligence check it then requires a harder Wisdom check to not die instantly. (If you fail there are no consequences) You are not told that this would be required before taking the Intelligence check, and you can no longer back out. Because this is happening de novo in the dialogue engine and is not emergent from the other systems, you also had no way to intuit that a second test would be required on a different stat (in the way that you might intuit that locked doors go hand in hand with traps).

This is not "you are told that there is a door" and have free choice of your possible interactions with the door, it's happening in the dialogue engine where the only options are the ones specifically presented, and the option to "pick the lock" is presented in the only one which mentions the existence of the door at all, the door cannot be interacted with in any other way, the only other interaction is to blow the building up.

You're not taking a free action, you're picking from a list of actions preselected by the GM, only those actions are available. (There was nothing behind the door, the outcome is not different if you open the door and "avoid the trap" to if you blow the building up)

[Keltest]

Because it's spun off of discussing a specific event in the game.

The context is that you are told that you can attempt to do something, de novo, which you have no way outside of the specific prompt to know is possible because it isn't possible at any other time in any other way. You are told that it will require an Intelligence check. If you pass the Intelligence check it then requires a harder Wisdom check to not die instantly. (If you fail there are no consequences) You are not told that this would be required before taking the Intelligence check, and you can no longer back out. Because this is happening de novo in the dialogue engine and is not emergent from the other systems, you also had no way to intuit that a second test would be required on a different stat (in the way that you might intuit that locked doors go hand in hand with traps).

This is not "you are told that there is a door" and have free choice of your possible interactions with the door, it's happening in the dialogue engine where the only options are the ones specifically presented, and the option to "pick the lock" is presented in the only one which mentions the existence of the door at all, the door cannot be interacted with in any other way, the only other interaction is to blow the building up.

You're not taking a free action, you're picking from a list of actions preselected by the GM, only those actions are available. (There was nothing behind the door, the outcome is not different if you open the door and "avoid the trap" to if you blow the building up)

Spoiler

Show

Thats not at all true. For starters, plenty of alternatives to that int check are given, such as just killing the darn thing (equivalent to breaking down the door in the analogy) or just ignoring it. Secondly, it is absolutely possible to intuit what will happen, because you just saw a bunch of peasants who had that exact same thing happen to them which you had to deal with before you could interact with the mind flayer. The game describes what youre attempting to do here, it isnt just "make an int check to see what happens." Thirdly, you keep talking about "the door doesnt exist unless you try and pick it" as if that remotely makes sense. Of course the door continues to exist if you choose not to interact with it. The door is the illithid in the analogy. It doesnt really care what you choose to do to it or why, it continues to exist regardless of how you deal with it. A door does not become a wall because you choose not to open it.

[GloatingSwine]

Spoiler

Show

Thats not at all true. For starters, plenty of alternatives to that int check are given, such as just killing the darn thing (equivalent to breaking down the door in the analogy) or just ignoring it. Secondly, it is absolutely possible to intuit what will happen, because you just saw a bunch of peasants who had that exact same thing happen to them which you had to deal with before you could interact with the mind flayer. The game describes what youre attempting to do here, it isnt just "make an int check to see what happens." Thirdly, you keep talking about "the door doesnt exist unless you try and pick it" as if that remotely makes sense. Of course the door continues to exist if you choose not to interact with it. The door is the illithid in the analogy. It doesnt really care what you choose to do to it or why, it continues to exist regardless of how you deal with it. A door does not become a wall because you choose not to open it.

Spoiler

Show

No, the door is the ability to engage it in a battle of wills, the de novo option which you have no way to intuit the mechanical operation of because that's just whatever the GM decides because it isn't part of the game systems otherwise, so what you do not know is that this is going to require a harder check on a different attribute.

The illithid is the building.

Blowing up the building is the same as opening the door but it has no risk for the same outcome.

In the analogy of the door, this is the only door that you have ever seen in this campaign, you didn't even know the campaign had doors, only buildings to blow up.

[Keltest]

Spoiler

Show

No, the door is the ability to engage it in a battle of wills, the de novo option which you have no way to intuit the mechanical operation of because that's just whatever the GM decides because it isn't part of the game systems otherwise, so what you do not know is that this is going to require a harder check on a different attribute.

The illithid is the building.

Blowing up the building is the same as opening the door but it has no risk for the same outcome.

In the analogy of the door, this is the only door that you have ever seen in this campaign, you didn't even know the campaign had doors, only buildings to blow up.

Spoiler

Show

Im sorry, are you dictating what my own analogy is to me now? The door is the illithid. Attempting to mentally make contact is choosing to pick the lock. Engaging in the battle of wills is dealing with the trap in the lock. If you cant pick the lock, you dont access the trap in the first place and so dont have to deal with it. The building does not exist in the analogy at all, or if it does, then its the literal building in both cases. The door blocks a side room not necessary for progression, the Mind Flayer can be interacted with or ignored at your leisure. You arent required to engage with either of them, and if you do you have several options as to how you can proceed, not all of which result in the same outcome.

[GloatingSwine]

Spoiler

Show

Im sorry, are you dictating what my own analogy is to me now? The door is the illithid. Attempting to mentally make contact is choosing to pick the lock. Engaging in the battle of wills is dealing with the trap in the lock. If you cant pick the lock, you dont access the trap in the first place and so dont have to deal with it. The building does not exist in the analogy at all, or if it does, then its the literal building in both cases. The door blocks a side room not necessary for progression, the Mind Flayer can be interacted with or ignored at your leisure. You arent required to engage with either of them, and if you do you have several options as to how you can proceed, not all of which result in the same outcome.

Spoiler

Show

If it doesn't accurately describe the situation, yes.

The Illithid is the situation to be resolved, it is the whole building.

One of the ways you can resolve it is trying to open the door (engage in a battle of wills). This is the only time a building has had a door, you've had buildings before, situations that needed to be resolved, but this option was never on the table, this is a new way to resolve situations never presented before and so you have no way to know how it works until you've tried it.

You can try to pick the lock, but you can't even try to find out if there was a trap until it is too late, because your options are constrained by the dialogue system not what you can think of.

[Keltest]

Spoiler

Show

If it doesn't accurately describe the situation, yes.

The Illithid is the situation to be resolved, it is the whole building.

One of the ways you can resolve it is trying to open the door (engage in a battle of wills). This is the only time a building has had a door, you've had buildings before, situations that needed to be resolved, but this option was never on the table, this is a new way to resolve situations never presented before and so you have no way to know how it works until you've tried it.

You can try to pick the lock, but you can't even try to find out if there was a trap until it is too late, because your options are constrained by the dialogue system not what you can think of.

Spoiler

Show

The illithid is a side encounter. It is not the entirety of the dungeon, it is not necessary to interact with at all. Your analogy fails to describe the situation in the first place, let alone accurately. Using your own words, a locked door is the situation to be resolved. The building is not a situation, needing resolution or otherwise.

Besides the obvious issues with comparing an optional encounter to a whole non-optional dungeon, your analogy is STILL wrong because you have seen checks like this in the past (for example, the intellect devourer Us you can meet while in Avernus) and, if you stop and think about what youre doing for a quarter of a second, can probably realize the potential consequences for telepathically linking with a creature that is known for and is explicitly still capable of controlling people it telepathically links with, in the same way that you can think that a door might be trapped when you consider whether to unlock and open it.

[GloatingSwine]

Spoiler

Show

The illithid is a side encounter. It is not the entirety of the dungeon, it is not necessary to interact with at all. Your analogy fails to describe the situation in the first place, let alone accurately. Using your own words, a locked door is the situation to be resolved. The building is not a situation, needing resolution or otherwise.

Besides the obvious issues with comparing an optional encounter to a whole non-optional dungeon, your analogy is STILL wrong because you have seen checks like this in the past (for example, the intellect devourer Us you can meet while in Avernus) and, if you stop and think about what youre doing for a quarter of a second, can probably realize the potential consequences for telepathically linking with a creature that is known for and is explicitly still capable of controlling people it telepathically links with, in the same way that you can think that a door might be trapped when you consider whether to unlock and open it.

Spoiler

Show

When the alternative is "remove the thing from existence entirely" a locked door does not adequately describe the situation, because removing the door only removes the door, removing the building (the illithid) removes anything that could be accessed by opening the door.

The illithid is the context in which you find the door (the ability to attempt a battle of wills is only a subset of the whole encounter with the illithid), the analogy needs to capture that context in order to accurately describe the situation.

Also, still note, if you think a door might be trapped you can check before you try to pick the lock, in this situation you cannot because the GM decided not to let you.

And no, the intellect devourer is not the same because you aren't offered the ability to engage it in a psychic duel so you wouldn't know which checks were required and the negative consequences come from a failed check or choosing not to make the check and are not instant death.

[Keltest]

Spoiler

Show

When the alternative is "remove the thing from existence entirely" a locked door does not adequately describe the situation, because removing the door only removes the door, removing the building (the illithid) removes anything that could be accessed by opening the door.

The illithid is the context in which you find the door (the ability to attempt a battle of wills is only a subset of the whole encounter with the illithid), the analogy needs to capture that context in order to accurately describe the situation.

Also, still note, if you think a door might be trapped you can check before you try to pick the lock, in this situation you cannot because the GM decided not to let you.

And no, the intellect devourer is not the same because you aren't offered the ability to engage it in a psychic duel so you wouldn't know which checks were required and the negative consequences come from a failed check or choosing not to make the check and are not instant death.

Spoiler

Show

Breaking down the door changes the conditions upon which you find the room. Maybe monsters ran off with some of the loot when you started chopping at the door, if you like. But the encounter is still resolved.

And if you need something to specifically tell you "hey, failing this check will kill you" in a game based in no small part on exploration, then i think you shouldnt be playing this game in the first place, because it doesnt seem to be your speed.

[LaZodiac]

I think you're both arguing two different points.

"Success should not be punished" vs "not all ideas are GOOD even if they succeed"

The former is typical to games where you have dialogue options and stuff. Typically, when you succeed, you get a reward.

The later is typical to DND. Sometimes your plan is bad, so succeeding is irrelevant.

BG3 wants to emulate the experience of playing DND, so it will at times dip into the latter. Sometimes you succeed and it is bad because oops, that was a terrible idea.

[GloatingSwine]

Spoiler

Show

Breaking down the door changes the conditions upon which you find the room. Maybe monsters ran off with some of the loot when you started chopping at the door, if you like. But the encounter is still resolved.

And if you need something to specifically tell you "hey, failing this check will kill you" in a game based in no small part on exploration, then i think you shouldnt be playing this game in the first place, because it doesnt seem to be your speed.

Spoiler

Show

But in this situation the equivalent of "breaking down the door" removes the room from existence, there is no room because the building it was in is gone.

And if the consequences of a single die roll are going to be that far out of the normal scope of play experience, you're damn right you needed to be up front about them.

There's a reason Disintegrate isn't a level 1 spell.

[GloatingSwine]

BG3 wants to emulate the experience of playing DND, so it will at times dip into the latter. Sometimes you succeed and it is bad because oops, that was a terrible idea.

If it happens in the context of a dialogue tree though, it wasn't your idea.

There's room for bad plans when you get to make plans, not when you're picking from a curated list of menu items.

[Keltest]

Spoiler

Show

But in this situation the equivalent of "breaking down the door" removes the room from existence, there is no room because the building it was in is gone.

And if the consequences of a single die roll are going to be that far out of the normal scope of play experience, you're damn right you needed to be up front about them.

There's a reason Disintegrate isn't a level 1 spell.

Spoiler

Show

At first level, a lucky hit with a rapier can one shot a wizard. Low level D&D is notoriously lethal. Have you actually played any of the previous games in the series, or actual D&D? because "haha, you did something dumb, now youre dead" gotchas were all over the place, and in BG1 a lot of them werent even skippable, because they were encounters just standing in chokepoints waiting to kill you unexpectedly. Enemy wizard at the Friendly Arm Inn casts a max power magic missile spell. If they target your main character, its an instant game over, theres basically no way to be able to survive it at that level. This is, quite possibly, the first combat encounter you have had outside the tutorial.

Baldur's Gate has never pulled its punches. D&D has never pulled punches. Why would they suddenly start now?

[Narkis]

If it happens in the context of a dialogue tree though, it wasn't your idea.

There's room for bad plans when you get to make plans, not when you're picking from a curated list of menu items.

So, should no choice at all be punished in a game like Baldur's Gate? Because you're always picking from a menu, and so you never make the plans.

[GloatingSwine]

Spoiler

Show

At first level, a lucky hit with a rapier can one shot a wizard. Low level D&D is notoriously lethal. Have you actually played any of the previous games in the series, or actual D&D? because "haha, you did something dumb, now youre dead" gotchas were all over the place, and in BG1 a lot of them werent even skippable, because they were encounters just standing in chokepoints waiting to kill you unexpectedly. Enemy wizard at the Friendly Arm Inn casts a max power magic missile spell. If they target your main character, its an instant game over, theres basically no way to be able to survive it at that level. This is, quite possibly, the first combat encounter you have had outside the tutorial.

Baldur's Gate has never pulled its punches. D&D has never pulled punches. Why would they suddenly start now?

Spoiler

Show

A difficult combat encounter where the player has all of their gameplay options available is in no way comparable to a dialogue tree with instant death as a result.

D&D pulls or follows through with its punches as much as the GM cares to, and actually it is generally regarded that Tomb of Horrors style "lol u ded" is not actually a good way to design modules for the game any more.

[Keltest]

Spoiler

Show

A difficult combat encounter where the player has all of their gameplay options available is in no way comparable to a dialogue tree with instant death as a result.

D&D pulls or follows through with its punches as much as the GM cares to, and actually it is generally regarded that Tomb of Horrors style "lol u ded" is not actually a good way to design modules for the game any more.

Spoiler

Show

Then maybe it behooves you to actually consider what it is youre doing before just poking around a telepathic predator's brain telepathically. Youre still making a choice, youre still picking an option you should be able to figure out is risky. The game telegraphs it well enough by that point.

[GloatingSwine]

Spoiler

Show

Then maybe it behooves you to actually consider what it is youre doing before just poking around a telepathic predator's brain telepathically. Youre still making a choice, youre still picking an option you should be able to figure out is risky. The game telegraphs it well enough by that point.

Spoiler

Show

And it behooves the designer to at least put up front that a wisdom check will also be required before you take the intelligence check. And then put a reasonable consequence that allows play to continue on the end, like a level appropriate amount of damage, or a persistent negative status and not instant death.

Seriously, if you did this at a real table with real players in the way that the game does it, you'd have less players than you started with by the end of the evening and you'd deserve it.

[Keltest]

Spoiler

Show

And it behooves the designer to at least put up front that a wisdom check will also be required before you take the intelligence check. And then put a reasonable consequence that allows play to continue on the end, like a level appropriate amount of damage, or a persistent negative status and not instant death.

Seriously, if you did this at a real table with real players in the way that the game does it, you'd have less players than you started with by the end of the evening and you'd deserve it.

Spoiler

Show

I HAVE done stuff like that with real players. Specifically one player. He keeps poking things and then getting surprised when bad stuff happens. And each time, he admits that he doesnt really know what else he expected, and that its his own fault for doing something dumb. And then he goes and does it again. He's blown up team mates, treasure, himself, allies, enemies, boats and once an entire building. And he never, ever bothers to ask "well what will actually happen if this works?" And not once has he blamed me for not coming out and explicitly telling him that messing with the glyph of warding he knows is enchanted with explosive runes will blow up if he messes with it.

The game isnt obligated to tell you the full outcome of every action you take before you take it, thats the whole freaking point of exploring the world. The game gives you plenty of indication that what youre attempting to do is super dumb, and its entirely your own fault if you dont pay attention to the voice in the back of your head asking you "are you sure?" If you punch a tree, and the DM tells you that you scrape your knuckles doing so, is that the DM's fault for not telling you there may be a bad outcome, or your own fault for being a git and punching a tree?

[Dienekes]

If it happens in the context of a dialogue tree though, it wasn't your idea.

There's room for bad plans when you get to make plans, not when you're picking from a curated list of menu items.

Eh. I don’t know about that one. I can think of a few rpg games where in dialogue you are given a list of options some result in good situations, and some catastrophically bad. I’m reminded on accidentally killing off an entire clan of elves in DA2 because I picked the option to browbeat them.

In that situation, I chose the trap. But it made sense for my character and the end result was one that could theoretically be predicted.

Which I would go back to for this situation. I’m perfectly fine with bad options or successes that lead to failures. So long as the player had a reasonable understanding of what they’re getting themselves into.

[GloatingSwine]

Spoiler

Show

I HAVE done stuff like that with real players. Specifically one player. He keeps poking things and then getting surprised when bad stuff happens. And each time, he admits that he doesnt really know what else he expected, and that its his own fault for doing something dumb. And then he goes and does it again. He's blown up team mates, treasure, himself, allies, enemies, boats and once an entire building. And he never, ever bothers to ask "well what will actually happen if this works?" And not once has he blamed me for not coming out and explicitly telling him that messing with the glyph of warding he knows is enchanted with explosive runes will blow up if he messes with it.

The game isnt obligated to tell you the full outcome of every action you take before you take it, thats the whole freaking point of exploring the world. The game gives you plenty of indication that what youre attempting to do is super dumb, and its entirely your own fault if you dont pay attention to the voice in the back of your head asking you "are you sure?" If you punch a tree, and the DM tells you that you scrape your knuckles doing so, is that the DM's fault for not telling you there may be a bad outcome, or your own fault for being a git and punching a tree?

Spoiler

Show

And how many times have you told him "you died roll a new character" for it?

The game isn't obligated to tell you the outcome, but it should tell you the process by which it expects you to succeed or fail, if there are multiple steps and the first step is irrevocable if successful and only then engages any jeopardy, the process should be upfront. As I said, this would not have been as bad if the first option was clear that a wisdom check would also be involved, because then the player is making an informed decision not flying blind until the DM says "gotcha".

It is also obligated to have reasonable consequences which allow play to continue. If you punch a tree and the DM tells you you scrape your knuckles that's fine, if you punch a tree and the DM tells you the tree falls on you and you die, it's not. The DM is just a pillock.

[Keltest]

Spoiler

Show

And how many times have you told him "you died roll a new character" for it?

The game isn't obligated to tell you the outcome, but it should tell you the process by which it expects you to succeed or fail, if there are multiple steps and the first step is irrevocable if successful and only then engages any jeopardy, the process should be upfront. As I said, this would not have been as bad if the first option was clear that a wisdom check would also be involved, because then the player is making an informed decision not flying blind until the DM says "gotcha".

It is also obligated to have reasonable consequences which allow play to continue. If you punch a tree and the DM tells you you scrape your knuckles that's fine, if you punch a tree and the DM tells you the tree falls on you and you die, it's not. The DM is just a pillock.

Spoiler

Show

None, but only because he keeps forking over the gold for his medical bills.

Also, for the umpteenth time, the game DOES tell you there will be danger. Before you can even interact with this illithid, literally as a prerequisite for doing so, you need to deal with a trio of peasants he has mentally enslaved. The game explicitly tells you that if it connects to your brain, it can do bad things to you. So if you then go and try and connect it to your brain, you have been warned of the potential for danger. It may not tell you the specific sequence of dice rolls, but you know there is potential badness if you get what you want.