I don’t really think there was anything the GM could have done to stop that one. We never once followed her plots as she expected, and the ice caves were certainly no exception. It definitely built a better story than “kill the lizards, save the NPC, clear your names, go on to do something else” could ever have done. After all, we had to go tell the assassin’s family that she was dead, and that in itself was a whole story arc.

We certainly made a lot of bad tactical decisions in that encounter, but we were all playing our characters. The assassin was smart, but lacked common sense, so repeatedly firing a jammed gun full of explosive ammo until it blows up in her face is something she would do. The healer would freak out and be unable to accomplish anything after being covered in pieces of her friend. My character was intensely loyal and didn’t care much for her own life, so she would throw away her only chance of survival to avenge her friend.

I wouldn’t say any of us cheered for it to happen, but that failure made a far better story than our success ever could have. (And the assassin’s family wasn’t as upset about it as one would think.)

Telas: I agree that criticism is necessary– particularly when flowery language leads you to believe play will alter in X way, and it turns out that your players actually react entirely differently. I know that even when I go into a new game with an experimental/try the mechanics mindset, it’s still hard not to fall back on habit: victory good!

Karizma: I’ve always enjoyed seeing where the story goes; that’s one reason that Prestige Classes and other paths that require planning in advance don’t appeal to me as much as a player. I’d rather react organically to the events of the session… and bonding to horses and an air elemental sounds like a great journey for your PC.

I’m not ready to start making large fundamental shifts in my gaming style; after all, it’s working for me and my group. (Caveat: As a new father, I’m not running a game right now.)

But this kind of experimentation is absolutely necessary to the hobby. Mainstream games have picked up on many of the elements that indie/cutting edge games introduced ‘back then’. (Action Points, etc), and will continue to do so. I’ve given The Forge and company a lot of (IMHO, well-earned) grief for over-thinking and over-engineering gaming, and especially for mistaking game theory for actual gaming, but the R&D that they do is very important to the hobby.

R&D is like mining – you’ve got to go through a lot of useless stuff to get to those few diamonds that makes it all worthwhile. And, as with mining, your customers really don’t want to do all that digging with you; they just want the finished product. (As an added bit of self-justification, criticism is also necessary to the process.)