The Dungeonmaster:
Not necessarily, and who said there wouldn�t be repercussions?
If this statement is true, then it invalidates your previous statement about killing things treating it like a video game. If repercussions are a thing, then killing everything prevents the repercussions. We don't know what the repercussions will be, but it could very well include pain or death for the innocent villagers we left behind.
Yeah, we're in a bad spot, but ignoring the potential harm to innocents for the sake of our of hit point pools and resources is more video gamey than accepting the fact that we're in a shit situation and yet we're about to go face a dragon. That's a question the players have to ask about their characters. Are the characters heroes, or do the numbers on your character sheet scare you enough to influence your character's decisions.
Jason knows about hit points and spell slots.
Grog came to kill a dragon who has already harmed the people in the village where he just performed funeral services for children, and we know he will harm them again if we don't put an end to it.
The video game comment makes me a little upset. Not quite insulting, but kind of on the edge. It insults a character/story-driven decision by calling it video gamy, when it's actually the opposite. I'm not saying that carrying on the fight is the only option here, but yeah, I am slightly insulted by that comment, actually.
By pointing one out as being video gamey, you're implying that the other is not. Put in perspective, I think the opposite is true. I may be applying more negative context to "video game" than you intended, but as I read it, those are my thoughts.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:28, Sun 26 June 2022.