>>5902579>>5902569>Instant Death / Fail choice from old gamebooksSo on the last qtg thread I mentioned this pic related,
>>5888397from the Fighting Fantasy no 58 Revenge Of The Vampire gamebook,
I want to explain why I feel like this in my opinion is a really well-designed game scenario even though to a player it may seem harsh and random and unfair.
Essentially this situation is a commitment test. It is a test to see how in character or consistent your player actions are, it is a test of your human resolve as a player in a dramatic situation (lol unlike the Blades In The Dark "Resolve" dice roll lol).
The scenario is you are robbing the corpse of an honourable man, who has in his dying moments conferred upon you an onerous OBLIGATION (remember what I was saying about games CREATING RESPONSIBILITY, emotional investment etc?)
>>5902339This is fine, the game will let you rob corpses and get away with it.
But if you commit to this, you should 1/ rush, do it in a hurry 2/ not be bothered by any psychological guilt or consequences as to your actions afterwards. You are a pragmatic or ruthless corpse ransacking stealer of gold. Why would you feel the need to explain yourself to an inqusitive npc afterwards, tell the truth?
If you commit and play consistently according to the MORAL PHYSICS of the game you pass this test and get away with the gold (or literally just realise that turning to page 1 is probably a good idea lol) otherwise you insta fail Your Adventure Ends Here etc (I chose this, first time lol) This is sort of the feel and style I want to emulate in my games. I guess if you were reasonable and realistic, you would relent as a GM roll some meaningless charisma dice check, maybe the inquisitive NPC listens to your version of the truth and nods along sympathetically or even as a reaction roll assists you and calls friendly guards over to investigate the murder on your behalf etc. But I prefer the harsh and real game-ending consequences of this older roleplaying interactions design
