Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2525870" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>No, unless that would be appropriate in character. However, as stars of the show, the PCs appear in every scene.The GMs characters are in their position by his, the Gms, choices. The PCs may or may not be in the situation by their choices. Thats why i said "necessarily". Sometimes it might be of their own devising, Other times, it wont be.For the GM, it will always be.You seem confused. The quotes you are responding to are about the PLAYERS and the GMs, not the characters feelings in world.you seem to be confusing those. If so, thats a whole 'nuther problem but not one we can probably make much headwya on.Wow, Ok, well, not really wanting to dredge up that old discussion, lets just say that I did not refer to the GM killing/losing his campaign or killing/losing his CAMPAIGN or ALL THE WORK he put into the campaign, just to him losing AN NPC as compared to the player losing A PC.I might argue that if losing a single NPC is sufficient to the Gm to put the entire campaign en prise, he may well be too invested in his NPC. Me, i would tend to consider that when "what makes sense" is apparently at conflict with "what accomodates anyone" that I have a problem. I would be. I have been running NPCs as such for quite a while and the fact that I, the GM, don't have an emotional stake or investment in my NPCs DOES NOT equate to somehow my players or their characters not having investment in theirs or to treating the NPCs IN CHARACTER as "non-people."Really, those two while they might make for a cool looking sound-byte, don't go hand in hand much in my experience.Which is a far cry from what we are discussing. There is a huge range between "holding their hands" and the things and options we are discussing here.If somehow you want to turn this into a discussion between "kill PCs whenever possible" and "never allow PCs to die" then thats cool but its not really the discussion i thought was going on. Its also a much less interesting one, IMO of course, since neither extreme is all that common.While i would actually say "thats incorrect" given that their are many levels of "stacking the deck" (The normal CR encounter system for instance stacks the deck in their favor, as an even CR encounter, most encounters, are expected to be won by PCs) I get the context that you seem to be considering only the "more extreme" case of deck stacking.And to the most extreme cases of deck stacking, the "wont allow death" I can only say that IMO IMX most cases do not get to that point. Even if death is not on the table, much can still be EARNED by hard work, by clever thinking, and by sacrifice in CHARACTER none of which have to involve death.At least, IMX.I think you and i differ in what we would call a GOOD GM. I consider it quite possible for a good GM to run a game where the risk of PC death were not an issue. In general, i find much more story potential and in some cases much more "to risk" from a live PC.Ok, but thats not all that related to the discussion here. forgive me for saying but, if these are the factors that most dictate the creatures actions, it reaolly sounds a whole lot more like a low int animalistic creature, not an INT 13 Wis 14 guy?Is that part of the thing going on here? Do people more see ghouls are "beasts" as opposed to intelligent thinking creatures as their stats suggest?I tend to run ghouls as intelligent guys, above average int in some cases. Thy are the flesh eating undead: still possessing human intellect and with a desire for eating flesh as opposed to the vampire's desire for blood and so forth.a difference between us. My INTELLIGENT undead also take a different take on self-preservation. being immortal, it is MORE important to them, not less. Now my unintelligent (or less intelligent) undead, thats another story entirely. They tend to fit your description of a much more instinctive unreasoned approach to things and will often "think with their stomach."and likely, given your game and your players knowing what to expect, had such occured they would not have been asking "would it rally do that?" unlike the case here.cool. not sure about the relevence but sounds cool.Again, i really think there is a lot of room between whats being discussed here and the seemingly extreme level of GM intervention  you seem focused on.Specifically, there is a HUGE RANGOE of options,  where many games are pleyed every day, between "treating PC death and NPC death the same" and "intervening at any cost to save PCs."Ok, uh, cool!goodie for you?[/QUOTE]

Verification