## How can I make sure my players’ decisions have consequences?

Last session, my players got into what was meant to be a fairly minor battle. The wizard misjudged the strength of the enemies and used both of his third level spell slots, and the druid acted sub-optimally, but in character, by using several of her healing spells to wake unconscious enemies for interrogation.

The idea was that after this battle they would enter the dungeon and work their way through to the boss encounter, so there would have been resource management consequences for those characters.

In fact, they ignored the dungeon entrance when they found it, and decided to carry on the way they were going and maybe come back and deal with it later if they felt like it. Yes, I know this is something I should have been more prepared for, but I thought I knew my players! (They usually like killing things and collecting treasure…) The town they were heading for was more than a day’s travel away, and I hadn’t intended there to be any more encounters along the route, so in the end I just said they carried on to the town, which meant they got a long rest ‘for free’ and didn’t have any consequences of their decisions. (I’m not trying to punish them, but I think it’s more interesting if they have to think about all these things and can’t just blow all their spells on one battle a day!)

How should I have dealt with this situation on the fly, or when prepping for future sessions? Some ideas I had afterwards:

• Have the next set of enemies emerge from the dungeon and start a fight, thereby trying to force the players to do what I wanted them to. I feel like I don’t want to railroad them this much, and I already feel like I throw too many unavoidable fights at them.
• Just keep talking about the entrance to the dungeon until they decide to go in, telling them that they see things that look interesting inside, or asking whether they’re absolutely sure they want to keep walking. See above – railroading. And I don’t want to get to the point where I’m saying ‘look, can you please just do the thing I planned for.’
• Let them carry on the way they wanted to, but invent another fight that I hadn’t planned in order to force them to run short on spells eventually. See above – I don’t really want to keep forcing them into fights if they don’t want to.
• Do exactly what I did, and let them carry on with what they wanted even though it makes me frustrated.
• Something else, and if so what?

## Consequences of cascade drop on sequences/functions/views

I am migrating some data to another server while dropping all sequences/functions/views. When I try to do simply

`DROP VIEW | SEQUENCE | FUNCTION | AGGREGATE` without `CASCADE`, errors are thrown to indicate dependencies. The goal is that if no data (=tables?) will be affected by using `CASCADE`, then I can use it.

Assumption: if no table is dependent on views/functions/sequences, then no table will be affected by using `CASCADE`.

Then I guess using `CASCADE` for views will be fine since they always depend on some base tables.

For functions and sequences I am not very sure. I haven’t written that many of sql functions myself and I don’t know if the data in a table are generated by some function, whether it means the table depends on the function.

For sequences, it seems that a sequence will be generated automatically by postgres if I use `serial` as column type. My first guess would be that in this case, the table that is using `serial` depends on the sequence. However, by testing on a dummy database on my laptop, I found that the data seems to be unaffected. (I just use `SELECT COUNT(*) FROM TABLE_NAME` after dropping the sequence)

## What are the consequences for an illithid rejecting his brain diet?

So I had this idea about a rogue illithid, fighting against his own race. He will be chaotic evil or chaotic neutral, I have not decided yet. But while he does this it is simply too dangerous, or too tedious, to hunt for brains.

What happens to an illithid if he nolonger eats brains?

You can use any lore available. I ask only about lore, since we use a completely different RPG system and we play in a custom setting and I haven’t introduced mind flayers yet, this one will be the first one my players ever met. And the first one I have ever used.

## House rule: Casting Spider Climb at higher level adding targets. Are there any balance breaking consequences?

I have a broader question that is the root of this question. I thought I’d ask what I would think is a relatively simple question and see if the answers can help me answer the broader question.

As stated in PHB, some spells have additional effects when casting using a higher level slot. What interested me was the question of why certain spells have that functionality while others don’t. I mean some may be obvious or at least seemingly logical as to why or why not, but for some, the reasoning behind the design decision alludes me.

For example, Fly has the ability to be cast on multiple targets using higher slots. Fly to me seems like a powerful mobility/utility spell. However, Spider Climb, another mobility/utility spell, does not have that “additional target per higher level cast” function when, personally, it seems to be a generally a weaker spell than Fly (hence it being a lower level spell).

TL;DR: Are there any balance breaking consequences of house ruling that spider climb can also be cast at higher levels to affect additional creatures?

### Criteria

Some stories of having done this or a similar experience would be helpful, but I prefer more of a logical argument as to why it would not be, or would be, balanced. Almost like a logical proof (induction, contradiction, etc) if you are familiar with what those are.

## Does ZF+AD have any unusual arithmetic consequences?

Motivation:

This question is motivated by wondering to what extent “natural” theories are linearly ordered (or at least ordered in a directed manner) by their (first-order) arithmetic consequences, in analogy to the phenomenon that “natural” theories seem to be linearly ordered by consistency strength.

In an answer to this question, Joel David Hamkins gave several examples illustrating how these two hierarchies — arithmetic consequence versus consistency strength – may differ, and indeed his examples also illustrate that the ordering by arithmetic consequence is not linear, even for arguably “natural” theories.

But it so happens that these examples largely involved playing games with consistency statements, so the departure from linearity feels “small”. One way of making this a bit more precise is that it seems, as far as I can tell, to still be possible that the partial ordering of theories is still directed, at least for “natural” theories. That is, what I know about the matter is consistent with the idea that there really is one “true arithmetic” with which all of our “natural” or “serious” theories (apart from things like $$T + \neg Con(T)$$ for various $$T$$) are consistent.

In order to have a hope of challenging this view, it seems one needs an alternate “coherent” picture of the mathematical universe. The only example that comes to mind for me is $$ZF + AD$$, which is inconsistent with ZFC, but nonetheless its consistency strength is well-calibrated (and nontrivial), and seems to have some sort of “inner logic” to it which could potentially yield a different picture of the world even at the level of arithmetic. AD paints a different picture of the universe at least if we include non-arithmetic statements in our scope. But I’m not sure it does anything unusual at the level of arithmetic.

Questions:

1. Are the arithmetic consequences of $$ZF+AD$$ consistent with standard theories like $$ZFC + L$$ for various large cardinal axioms $$L$$?

2. Are the arithmetic consequences of $$ZF+AD$$ implied by large cardinals?

3. More broadly, is there any good candidate out there for a theory $$T$$ whose arithmetic consequences are inconsistent with (or at least not implied by) ZFC + large cardinals, such that $$T$$ has some kind of “inner coherence” (in analogy to how large cardinals are said to have “inner coherence” by virtue of inner model theory — as opposed to theories of the form $$T + \neg Con(T)$$ and the like)?

## What unforeseen consequences come from allowing corpses to count as creatures?

There have been quite a few questions about corpses and creatures, such as here where it is argued a dead creature is still a creature, here where the opposite is argued, and here where resurrecting an animated corpse is up in the air.

My question however, is if you allow spells, and other features, which target creatures to also target corpses (dead creatures), what are some possibly negative or game-ending/breaking effects that would occur from this houserule?

## What unforeseen consequences come from allowing corpses to count as creatures?

There have been quite a few questions about corpses and creatures, such as here where it is argued a dead creature is still a creature, here where the opposite is argued, and here where resurrecting an animated corpse is up in the air.

My question however, is if you allow spells, and other features, which target creatures to also target corpses (dead creatures), what are some possibly negative or game-ending/breaking effects that would occur from this houserule?

## What are the unintended or dangerous consequences of allowing spells that target and damage creatures to also target and damage objects?

Inspired by my previous question, I’ve begun to feel that life might be easier if I just had every spell be able to target both creatures and objects with attacks, and damage objects as well as creatures in their radius.

This would, for one, force players and enemies to be far more careful about the placements of their areas of effect or risk widespread destruction, but I wonder about the other potential disastrous consequences.