|
I ran City of Strangers part 2 last night. I had a party of 3 barbaruans a bard and a fighter. I started them off as 3-4 tier but soon found they mowed the creatures in the 1st encounter so I moveved them up to the high tier w/o telling them. The Party had a real good time and thanked me for chalanging them, Almost killed two PC's in the Giant scorpion encounter. I had to remind them they were just outside of town and could run back to the temple district to get some lesser restoration done to counter act strength loss from scorpion venom.
I felt the boss fight was not even chalanging for my party even at hig tier as they just ganged up on him and beat the snot out of him in 2 rounds he did almost get te bard bard was dwon to 2 hp after a spring attack crit but then the Barbarians raged all over him and he died a swift death after hainvg his head bit off the raging Tengu barbarian.
All in all fun was had by all.
|
|
Kyle I was not making my players play up in order to kill them but to give them a challange. After reading the encounters I dertermined that they were for the most part matial encounters theat the players could handle if the encounters had been caster heavy I would hve kept them at the lower tier. They still dealt with the caster they ecounter by knocking her down and puting a beat down on her when she tred to cast or stand up. I do not try to kill my players ever if the get hit by sword or sell those are the breaks but I don't go gunning for my players I want them to have fun that is why I run games. Killing PC's is not fn for me but challanginging them is I want to push them to the edge then back off a little if nessary.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
but to give them a challange.
Never. Never. Never. As good of a GM as you or anyone thinks they are, there are a hundred other ways to "provide a challenge" or more importantly PROVIDE A FUN EXPERIENCE. All it takes is that one time you mistakenly do this and ruin PFS for a player. Not every scenario is supposed to be "challenging." Every scenario CAN, however, be a fun time regardless of "challenge."
|
|
All it takes is that one time you mistakenly do this and ruin PFS for a player.
That's a big assumption you are making. You are assuming that the players do not trust the GM to provide a good experience within the GM's personal ability to do so. If the players trust their GM, then a lot of good fun can occur, such as through what Lou did. If there is trust, then PFS will not be ruined for a player.
Mergy here is also assuming a situation where he does not trust his GM.
I guess the point is, if Lou's players trust him, and desire what he did, is it really badwrongfun? From the looks of it, Lou's only mistake was mentioning it on the boards.
-Matt
|
|
Your mistake was the part where you didn't tell them. I would be outraged if I were one of the players in question, and I would certainly lose a lot of trust if I were to do that to a player myself.
The mistake is also that you can ONLY play multiple subtiers if your table's APL falls exactly between the two options. Even if they're a bunch of level 2's, they CAN NOT* play subtier 4-5 no matter how "easy" subtier 1-2 is.
*with the exception of season 0-3 with six level 2 characters whose APL is 3. Even then, THEY get to make the choice to play subtier 4-5, NOT THE GM.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I guess the point is, if Lou's players trust him, and desire what he did, is it really badwrongfun?
Did anyone say it was badwrongfun?
No, it's been said (so far) that it's a really dangerous idea, and also illegal within this campaign.
The former being an opinion, the latter being a fact, and neither being an accusation of "badwrongfun".
|
|
All it takes is that one time you mistakenly do this and ruin PFS for a player.That's a big assumption you are making. You are assuming that the players do not trust the GM to provide a good experience within the GM's personal ability to do so. If the players trust their GM, then a lot of good fun can occur, such as through what Lou did. If there is trust, then PFS will not be ruined for a player.
Mergy here is also assuming a situation where he does not trust his GM.
I guess the point is, if Lou's players trust him, and desire what he did, is it really badwrongfun? From the looks of it, Lou's only mistake was mentioning it on the boards.
-Matt
Who's making the assumption Matt? My point is that if you do this thinking you're providing a GoodRightFun experience for your table, something bad happens, and the players find out that you arbitrarily made it harder on them, you've potentially lost a player.
Moving between subtiers can only happen before a scenario. It can only occur if the table's APL allows them to do so. It can only happen with the player's consent. There's no gray area here.
|
|
There's no gray area here.
I know.
if you do this thinking you're providing a GoodRightFun experience for your table, something bad happens, and the players find out that you arbitrarily made it harder on them, you've potentially lost a player.
Here's where trusting the GM comes in. A group of players who trust their GM to provide a good experience don't have that issue. Heck, they're more likely to leave due to the GM being constrained by the constraints-as-written.
Anyways, just musing. I believe it's worth considering what goes into, say, Lou's decision. This board tends to be very "RAWR! Kneel before RAW!", even though, honestly, PFS scenarios require a lot of GM intervention to generate an immersive, interesting experience. Kyle, you seem to be able to do that within the constraints-as-written, and I know I've gotten better at it myself, but not everyone is able to do that.
The problem really occurs when a RAW-focused environment stifles GM innovation within RAW, because of the psychological barriers created by the environment.
Just something I've been thinking about lately.
-Matt
P.S. Strangely enough, another example of this innovation-stifling environment just came up in another thread, though in a different form. Here, a potentially very-clever use of a spell is slammed immediately, instead of allowing the idea to be pondered and the RAW worked out.
P.P.S. Perhaps this line should stop now. It might get overly-fighty given enough time. Lou, the wisdom behind your decision is visible, but against RAW.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Some thoughts:
.
.
.
.
• Did any of the players come and write a review of the scenario? If so, are they giving accurate and useful feedback, or are they giving feedback thinking that the challenges they faced were from the lower tier?
• Did they get the higher tier rewards? Given that Lou stated (quite adamantly) that he doesn't want to kill PCs, and would even "back off a little if necessary", giving them high-tier rewards basically amounts to handing them free gold.
• Did they get the lower tier rewards? If so, do they know they had to use more resources (for instance, to recover from the near-deaths that were mentioned and to deal with poison) than other PCs who played the same tier?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Only one of those issues has any impact on how anyone else enjoys the game.
• Did any of the players come and write a review of the scenario? If so, are they giving accurate and useful feedback, or are they giving feedback thinking that the challenges they faced were from the lower tier?• Did they get the higher tier rewards? Given that Lou stated (quite adamantly) that he doesn't want to kill PCs, and would even "back off a little if necessary", giving them high-tier rewards basically amounts to handing them free gold.
• Did they get the lower tier rewards? If so, do they know they had to use more resources (for instance, to recover from the near-deaths that were mentioned and to deal with poison) than other PCs who played the same tier?
So when two players meet for the first time, and start swapping happy memories of scenarios they've both played, and then discover that one of them played with increased risk/resource use without increased reward (or vice-versa), it's not going to have any impact on anyone's enjoyment of PFS?
EDIT: I guess what I'm getting at is this:
A good home-game GM is one who successfully separates his table from the rest of the world. It doesn't matter what anyone at another table says is good practice, or what folks on the internet say shouldn't be allowed, or even what's contained in the rulebooks. Whatever fits his group is what he cares about, and nothing else matters. Anything that improves the experience at his table can and should be done.
A good organized play GM, on the other hand, recognizes his place in a larger community. He understands that, despite only GMing for a handful of people at a time, he indirectly contributes to the experiences of people he may never meet. Something which might be fun for his own table in the here and now could be unfair to others in this shared campaign (or even unfair to his own players if they ever travel and play under a different GM). A good PFS GM recognizes that he is not in charge, that it's not strictly "his" campaign, and that he has a responsibility to more than 6 people.
|
So when two players meet for the first time, and start swapping happy memories of scenarios they've both played, and then discover that one of them played with increased risk/resource use without increased reward (or vice-versa), it's not going to have any impact on anyone's enjoyment of PFS?
I get what you're saying, but from my perspective, no. If I enjoyed my experience, I could care less about how someone else enjoyed their's outside of hoping they also had a fun experience. If I heard that their GM did some things different, it doesn't lessen what I experienced. I might be concerned if I found out that one or both of the GM's deviated from the RAW expectations, but that doesn't change the fact that I either did, or did not, have fun playing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I first read Lou's comment, my knee jerk reaction was "Holy %$#@, what is he thinking?" But after thinking for a second, I don't care if deviations are made in a scenario as long as it is fun. While I don't think I have seen this tier swapping happen, I have seen people do fast and loose interpretations to keep a healthy pace. I would take the GM that focuses on fun more than scenario's letter of the law any day.
That being said, I would be kinda pissed if I knew he cranked up the challenge and it caused me to lose a character. Since it didn't, I wouldn't begrudge him. If I was sitting at his table I would probably have walked away happy. The main point that I could sympathize with on the nay-sayer side is that if he had to start pulling punches then giving out a high rewards would have been a bit inequitable.
Jiggy, I have read a lot of your posts and normally think your opinion and knowledge is quite solid, but the idea of players getting mad when they share their stories with others sounds a bit reaching to me. If I can even manage to remember what events went with many of the titles, I can't see myself caring if someone played it a bit different. I wouldn't even think it worth the effort to find out who played it "more right".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I played up, without knowing it, I would never play with that GM again. Ever. If we say "this tier" and we play up, the GM does not respect the wishes of the players.
Secondly, if you are going to play up but not kill characters...then its free gold.
Finally, why bother buying scenarios if you up the challenge curve but then softball it for the players to have fun? At that point, run a home game.
Excepting situations where Scenario as Written no longer fits what the party does (assumes walks through door, but instead flies over the wall, for example), then you stick to the script. PFS can't tell how the scenarios are going without reviews. If reviews are not based on the actual published scenarios, they get bad data. If playing up is considered too easy, from softball GMs, then the power curve goes up. If the GM plays up and doesn't tell the party, people will say a tier is too hard, when it may have actually been just right.
When we judge PFS, we promise to run the Scenario according to the Guide, the Rules of the Game, and the Scenario as Written. If you don't do any of the above, its no longer PFS.
|
|
I admit that from time to time, I have offered a "mercy rule" if players get in over their head. If they are playing up a sub-tier (by choice), I may allow them the opportunity to drop back down if they find the encounters too much of a challenge. Of course, I only allow it between encounters, so no switching in mid-initiative. And they get the lower reward for the entire scenario, plus any resources expended to that point are still expended. So it is possible they might use A LOT of healing/scrolls/charges/etc only to get lower rewards in the end. I do not tend to soft-ball encounters, especially when players decide to play up, so it is a minor olive branch to help mitigate tpk's.
|
|
My parties APL was 20 for 5 characters right between tiers. When I said I did not try to kill the PC's I think you misinterpewted what I meant did not fudge any rolls in favor of he PC's nor would I have.
In the Giant Scorpion encounter I rolled each round to see who the scorpion attacked I did not have the scorpion use all of his attacks on one target as scorpoions are mindless. the other encounter that had human NPC's I had them use the listed tatics almost droped one PC with a Vampric touch then theSorc got played bam bam with and did not get another spell off. and the other baddie dropped antother PC to 2 points
which I did not know at the time then the thief met three Barbarbians nad was killed in that round. My Players earned full gold for the High tier. If I flet the PC's were getting the heavy stick because of somthing that I had done I would have asked them if the wanted to drop back to the lower ter for the lower reward. In certain scenarios I would not have done what I did in this scenario for instancce I would have never done this in Rats around the Mountains Part 2 or the Haunts of Hinojai or some of the 4 season scennarios.
|
What tier rewards did the table get? like no matter what that entire thing is technically void.
making the scenario a challenge isn't your job a GM making it FUN is. If you want challenging scenario's, these boards can help you find that experience for your players.
Changing the tier....it's a big no-no. I am, currently, annoyed that they had a different experience then everyone else, and either more or less gold then they should have.
Admittedly I am also annoyed by the existence of optional encounters. For basically the exact same reason. Some people just have one less encounter in their adventures (and there for use fewer resources) because they as a group play slower.
Also, what todd said. I metagame my play ups on season's basically by that chart :)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My parties APL was 20 for 5 characters right between tiers.
Hate to break it to you, but 20/5 makes an APL of 4. There is no scenario in existence in which APL 4 is between tiers. Since it was a 1-7 scenario, they're in tier 3-4.
So unless you erroneously added +1 for table size (which would be incorrect, as that only applies with 6-7 players, not 5), they were *not* between tiers.
So you unilaterally moved them into an illegal tier.
My Players earned full gold for the High tier.
So you gave out gold for a higher tier than they could legally play, and you don't see an issue with that?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...the idea of players getting mad when they share their stories with others sounds a bit reaching to me.
Seen it happen. It also happens when someone gets ready to GM a scenario that they remember playing, and discover what their GM changed.
Have you honestly never had an experience that was pleasant at the time get ruined by something you learn about it later?
If your kid comes home exclaiming about his all-"A" report card, and you take him out for ice cream and have a grand old time celebrating it, then discover afterward that he cheated his way to those grades, do you really think the experience wouldn't be tarnished?
If you go on a first date, and she's totally into you and you have a great time, but then you discover through the grapevine that she was faking her interest the whole time just to spare your feelings, would that not invalidate the fun experience?
If you acquire some cool collector's item, and have tons of fun impressing your friends with it, then discover afterwards that the item you acquired was a fake/forgery after all, wouldn't that kill the experience for you?
And if you have an enjoyable afternoon playing PFS, then discover afterwards that the GM had materially changed things, you don't think that might color the experience you had?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
With respect, Jiggy, I don't think those are analogous situations.
The PFS situation that I would use would be "you barely escaped by the skin of your teeth, and then you found out that the GM was continually cheating in your favor / gimping the bad guys." Because that falsifies the experience, the same as a cheating kid, a forgery, a duplicitous date.
I have had someone change sub-tiers on me: we were playing a tier 1-7 adventure at the 1-2 subtier. We defeated an encounter, so the GM threw it at us again (it had the feel of a "wandering encounter", something that we could expect to bump up against several times in that environment). We wiped it again. And then the 3-4 level encounter, which we dispatched. And another. And finally the 6-7 encounter, which took us a while. (We received treasure for the 1-2 subtier, by the way.) In retrospect, I don't feel cheated, and the experience doesn't seem falsified.
If I'm running a table and the party falls in the gap, I try to avoid giving advice: it's not my PC's life at risk. But I do know GMs who do give advice, informed by things the players don't know. I think Lou made the wrong call -- even if the party was legitimately in the gap, it should be their decision whether to play up or not, based on things the GM may not know (one PC may still have a negative level, another may still be training her animal companion, and a third may be very low on prestige points and gold) -- but I regularly encounter GMs strongly advising (we might say urging or badgering) players up or down, and I see that as a difference in degree rather than kind.
|
|
If I'm running a table and the party falls in the gap, I try to avoid giving advice: it's not my PC's life at risk. But I do know GMs who do give advice, informed by things the players don't know. I think Lou made the wrong call -- even if the party was legitimately in the gap, it should be their decision whether to play up or not, based on things the GM may not know (one PC may still have a negative level, another may still be training her animal companion, and a third may be very low on prestige points and gold) -- but I regularly encounter GMs strongly advising (we might say urging or badgering) players up or down, and I see that as a difference in degree rather than kind.
If (and only if) I know the characters involved pretty well (this is usually true, since I'm the liaison for my store event and the main GM of my home group), then I'll definitely advise on subtier if the group is uncertain. It's my job as GM to provide a fun experience, so if I know that the group is going to curbstomp even the 4-5 (and sleep through the 1-2) and they're a bit timid, perhaps having encountered something scary in a Season 4 scenario the week before, I'll always tell them I recommend the 4-5. There's no reason to badger--regular players generally trust my judgment on which tier is appropriate for them based on party mix and the relative optimization of characters.
With players and characters I've never met before (like when I ran at Gencon), I would probably only make a recommendation (in the form of a warning) if I knew I was running a particularly hard scenario and the group wanted to play up. As it turns out, con organizers have done a good job at getting me tables solidly within their subtiers, so it hasn't come up, even though there's usually a decision about subtier in over half our non-Season-4 tables at the store and the home group (due to 6 players before Season 4, it's pretty unlikely to have a table that can only play the lower subtier, so it's mostly only the tables that have to play the higher that have no choice).
|
|
So when two players meet for the first time, and start swapping happy memories of scenarios they've both played, and then discover that one of them played with increased risk/resource use without increased reward (or vice-versa), it's not going to have any impact on anyone's enjoyment of PFS?
Let's not single Lou out on this--while I don't necessarily agree with his choice (he should have told them at the time and it would have been fine, in my opinion), he's honest enough to come out and tell us about it. Through stories as well as traveling players, pretty soon you'll come to be aware that what Lou did is nothing compared to some of the variation from the rules you can see, sometimes even endemic to a whole venue (vastly changing the DCs for basic skill checks, giving extra actions to characters, etc). If players do swap war stories, they'll likely run into one of those before they discover something relatively rare like Lou's subtier swap (if the players even have a good enough memory to be absolutely certain which subtier of a 1-7 they played).
|
|
So when two players meet for the first time, and start swapping happy memories of scenarios they've both played, and then discover that one of them played with increased risk/resource use without increased reward (or vice-versa), it's not going to have any impact on anyone's enjoyment of PFS?Let's not single Lou out on this--while I don't necessarily agree with his choice (he should have told them at the time and it would have been fine, in my opinion), he's honest enough to come out and tell us about it. Through stories as well as traveling players, pretty soon you'll come to be aware that what Lou did is nothing compared to some of the variation from the rules you can see, sometimes even endemic to a whole venue (vastly changing the DCs for basic skill checks, giving extra actions to characters, etc). If players do swap war stories, they'll likely run into one of those before they discover something relatively rare like Lou's subtier swap (if the players even have a good enough memory to be absolutely certain which subtier of a 1-7 they played)."wait - you guys had 3 of the blasted things? HA! I'm glad I didn't have your judge. We only hand to fight one! Good thing you had that 750gp potion on you!... wait, you sure you were at 3-4? check your cert."
"Chronicle dude, it's called a Chronicle now... Yeah, I was playing my 3rd level - and our high guy was 5, we didn't have any 6 or 7s at the table."
"let me see...." pulls out tablet. "Dude - you got ripped. That's the high tier encounter."
Ah, but the chronicle is going to say 6-7, won't it, since Lou said they received full gold for the higher tier? Not all players are going to have the scenario on their tablets. What I've learned from my players. One friend created a piece of advice that he called 'Arkhipov's Law' on this topic) is that the vast majority of players will never notice things that the most engaged players and GMs think are blatantly obvious unless they are ten times more obvious. It's usually for mysteries or foreshadowing in the game, but it applies here too. He's proven to be correct more than I would have imagined.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some things to add to the discussion:
.
.
.
.
Mike Brock (campaign coordinator): "The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area."
Mike Brock (campaign coordinator): "If you don't want to follow the rules we have established for Organized Play, then don't play our campaign. ... If you feel this is what you need to do, then leave the campaign. Encouraging people to intentionally break the rules is the same as encouraging cheating, especially playing outside of their tier, and it is not welcome and will stop."
Mike Brock (campaign coordinator): "And when you guess wrong and the party TPKs, it is me who receives the emails from 6 pissed off players wanting me to reverse the decision of the local GM..."
---------------------------------
Did Lou's table turn out well? Sounds like it. But just because a particular incident turns out okay in the end doesn't mean the actions taken were appropriate. What about the next time? What about when a less-skilled GM uses your (generic "you") adjustments as an example? What about when someone takes your selective rejection of rules as standard practice and ignores whatever rules he feels aren't for him?
This isn't the first time the topic has come up. And every time it comes up, the answer is the same: either play PFS according to PFS rules, or play a different campaign according to rules you find more suitable to your tastes (which is totally okay). But do not participate in a campaign whose rules you intend to ignore. Playing in PFS without following campaign rules is no better than showing up to a western-European all-human campaign with an elf monk.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Seen it happen. It also happens when someone gets ready to GM a scenario that they remember playing, and discover what their GM changed.
+1 to this.
While some of the changes I've seen can be considered mistakes, that's by no means true of all of them. I've seen things ruled to be impossible (or the DC set ridiculously high) that are explicitly called out in the scenario as one of the expected ways of solving a problem.
Even an apparently innocuous change during the pre-mission briefing can lead to a TPK; I've played in a session where we were (apparently) rushed directly from the VC's office to the first encounter of the scenario, with no time to stock up on appropriate supplies. When I came to GM that scenario I found there were supposed to be several intervening hours of free time. While we narrowly avoided a TPK it was a very real possibility, because we were missing some items we would have purchased to handle specific threats we (correctly) anticipated.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did Lou's table turn out well? Sounds like it. But just because a particular incident turns out okay in the end doesn't mean the actions taken were appropriate. What about the next time? What about when a less-skilled GM uses your (generic "you") adjustments as an example? What about when someone takes your selective rejection of rules as standard practice and ignores whatever rules he feels aren't for him?This isn't the first time the topic has come up. And every time it comes up, the answer is the same: either play PFS according to PFS rules, or play a different campaign according to rules you find more suitable to your tastes (which is totally okay). But do not participate in a campaign whose rules you intend to ignore. Playing in PFS without following campaign rules is no better than...
I don't disagree. I'm just saying, we're being naive if we think everyone is following this except the few who are willing to admit it on the messageboards. Our local Lodge (and I'm sure yours as well) is strong on following all the rules in play, but other places are doing things differently, and we're not going to convince them to come to us and listen unless we show more understanding to those like Lou who are willing to tell us about it.
In other words, imagine you're playing in a group that doesn't read the forum much and you know you might be doing things wrong, so you start reading the forums a bit more (or maybe you never knew you might be doing things wrong but started reading the forums and now begin to suspect it)--I think you'd be more likely to reach out for help if the responses to others in a similar situation were more understanding.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In other words, imagine you're playing in a group that doesn't read the forum much and you know you might be doing things wrong, so you start reading the forums a bit more (or maybe you never knew you might be doing things wrong but started reading the forums and now begin to suspect it)--I think you'd be more likely to reach out for help if the responses to others in a similar situation were more understanding.
Well, I did start out by simply pointing out why making adjustments can cause problems. Then when people dismissed those concerns, I offered more. Then when people dismissed those, I brought out the quotes from past discussions.
I didn't respond to Lou's first mention of tier-shifting by telling him to get lost or calling him a bad GM. But after multiple people expressed the sentiment that breaking certain rules was completely acceptable (or even preferable), only then did I bring up the "play by the rules or play elsewhere" quotes.
How would you rather I'd have responded after a couple of iterations of people advocating that GMs disregard the tier system when they see fit? What do you feel would have been more appropriate?
|
|
How would you rather I'd have responded after a couple of iterations of people advocating that GMs disregard the tier system when they see fit? What do you feel would have been more appropriate?
When I said 'we', I meant all of us (including myself--I've sometimes come down stronger than I did today on things like this and just now realized what I posted above) and not specifically you, Jiggy. In fact, while your post was the one I replied to in particular because it contained the particular sentiment in question, I think you took a fair and measured response to the initial posts, so sorry if I made you feel it was directed at you particularly.
(EDIT: Although I have to admit, I'm not really reading the posts above as advocating that GMs disregard the tier system)
|
|
...the idea of players getting mad when they share their stories with others sounds a bit reaching to me.-snip-
If you go on a first date, and she's totally into you and you have a great time, but then you discover through the grapevine that she was faking her interest the whole time just to spare your feelings, would that not invalidate the fun experience?
-snip-
I guess it depends how far she was willing to go to fake it.
Seriously though, I do see your point. I wouldn't care, but I can see why others might.
|
|
Just as a point of interest, even if Lou was right to up-tier them, which is not somethign I have done myself, in my opinion, he still gacve out the incorrect final gold for the scenario.
At best, he should have given out the high tier gold, but only for the encounters that were done at high tier. For the first encounter, done at low tier, he should have given out only the gold for the low tier version of the encounter.
Overall, though, I don't think changing tiers in mid-game is a good thing to do. If the players decided to play the wrong direction, they will have to live (or die) with that decision. It is still up to the GM to do everything, within the rules, to make the game enjoyable for the players. If the combats are too easy, ramp up the role play, for example.
|
|
I do want to reply to one of Bobs statements. I may be taking this out of context, but "If I heard that their GM did some things different, it doesn't lessen what I experienced." I am not sure about this. If I got a reward for doing something well, for playing the best that I could, for having spent hours of my hobby life investing in building a PC up to be "just great" - I think it would spoil it a bit for me if I found that this other GM just gave out the same reward for no effort to his entire table.
Not sure how I missed this when it was posted, but...
My position is similar to you being invited to a friend's house for some burgers on the grill. You know him to be a good grillmaster and the food is excellent as usual. However, afterwards, he notifies you the meat was not beef as you assumed, it was an all-vegetable, meat-like substitute. Perhaps you had even poked fun at such a food product in the past.
Now, the fact that you enjoyed the meal should not be lessened by the revelation that he had deviated from the "script," that being beef burgers. Prior to the knowledge, you enjoyed it just the same, so what's the problem? Of course, this is a hypothetical so all things must be equal, meaning no food allergies or other unrelated, outside issues that would make the "deception" a health hazard.
|
Sir are you aware that you aren't drinking regular coffee but Colombian Decaffeinated crystals?
What?
I said you are drinking Colombian Decaffeinated Crystals.
*looks down in horror and anger*
Why you son of a &*(*&! You no good son of a &&#&$!
*begins rampage*
You lied to me! You lied to me!
*throws pies at elderly couple*
*begins breaking plates*
As God as my witness I'll get you!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, the fact that you enjoyed the meal should not be lessened by the revelation that he had deviated from the "script," that being beef burgers. Prior to the knowledge, you enjoyed it just the same, so what's the problem?
Should not, but often is. The situation of a person enjoying a meal only to be sick when he is told what it is is a story trope for a reason.