Here's another great quote from Eero Tuovinen (lifted from the discussion
Old School Renaissance: Actual Play - Greysands Campaign). It's good advice if you are making
mistakes like this.
Regarding the hygiene in determining whether things are dangers or
tourist sights, my general advice is to train yourself out of the habit
of teleological deduction and categories associated with it: don't frame
decisions for yourself in terms of what will supposedly happen. As long
as you're thinking of a sea serpent in terms of whether it's a combat
encounter or not, you're not being hygienic. The only things you need to
know are the in-fiction circumstances and such; those you either
intuit, have in your notes, or roll randomly. Once you know that the sea
serpent hates surface shipping, or is hungry, or is angry, you have
something to work with in determining whether it might attack a ship. If
you first decide that it's a color encounter, and then retroactively
justify that by deciding that it's sated, then you're doing it wrong.
"Colour
event", "tourist sighting", "combat encounter", "deadly" and so on are
all terms of unhygienic teleological thinking: they're all about what
you imagine might happen either immediately or later. You do not need to
know the future, you merely need to know the past and the present.
Eero is even sterner regarding another event in that game (a storm that was never meant to be a real threat).
Edit: The DM running the sea voyage has since commented that the storm had been dangerous, but not able to single-handedly sink the ship (unless the party had done nothing to fix the situation).
This is less relevant for my example of poor DMing (which was about laziness, not mercy) but relevant to the overall topic:
The big, fat hygienic issue with not wanting PC death, though, is that a
GM unwilling to face the nihilistic void is a slave to his aesthetic
hopes and dreams. In the worst case this causes him to build invisible
boundaries around the other players, protecting them from an honest
judgement of their choices. Thus the content of play actually transforms
from an even-handed struggle into puppetry. For example: when you
demand players for initiative in a storm that threatens their ship, and
they act upon the matter, but your threat was actually a false
ritualistic declaration - what is that if not puppeteering, demanding
that the players dance to your amusement? Worse yet, such a GM might end
up determining the shape of their ship on nothing more than their own
sense of entitlement: dance not well enough my puppets, show not enough
fear, and I shall sink your ship out of spite. As you choose to not
entertain the possibility of the ship sinking fairly, you have at that
moment removed any storm-combating moves out of the realm of actual
play, and into the realm of color narration. The least courtesy a GM can
make is to make this clear to the players, so they can join in
narrating, rather than dancing desperately in their false understanding
of the interaction in play.