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: 2525923" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>A creature which is "simply hungry and not concerned about their own survival" would not, IMC. be one i statted as INt 13 Wis 14 and then went to making hay about how smart they are supposed to be and the calculated reasons behind their actions.I read the question as "Was I incorrect to deliver a CDG in this situation? "to that my response is an unqualified "yes". There were not just OTHER options, but there were BETTER options... BETTER as in ones that would have produced more dramatic a scene, that would have given the PCs more opportunities to act heroically saving their friend's life, and ones that would not have plopped the PLAYERs into questioning the GM's choice of NPC actions and would have left them looking at the CHARACTER's reasonable actions.Choosing a worse option, especially one that turns the focus to "players and GM" and not "PCs and NPCs" is incorrect, in my book.but, when looking for correct/incorrect, the quality of those options is up for consideration.No argument there. I don't see this as such a case however.Whether the PCs do this or not is pretty much ireelevent to whether the NPCs will do this, IMO. Clearly, the PCs were not CDGing the ghouls, since ghouls are immune to CDG, so this isn't a case of "the ghoul just saw you CDg his buddy so he gets some payback." The ghouls don't, presumably, know the PCs have been going 'round CDGing others, right, so that shouldn't affect their decisions.On the other hand, if you mean that "since the PCs in other encounters use the CDG, then in future encounters its right that other enemies do it to them?" then i think personally thats going the other side of what you are worrying about. The Gm is not actively intervening to save his PCs but is instead chosing actions for NPCs based on info those NPCs don't have. He told us that right off, by chosing to emphasize the ghouls intelligence and go on about the reasonable, calculated justification for their choices... not once bringing in "hunger driven" in his initial justification.I would argue that "if thats how ghouls are in the world" it would be correct Gming for the PCs to get this info or have it available to them BEFORE the lesson is taught at a PCs expense. Star TREK would have been a fairly lousy series if each time someone died to reveal the new threat it was a star instead of a redshirt.and for me, for creatures i see as intelligent, its a certain option i don't take away from them, especially if the "alternative" is a surprising, unheroic, silly PC death. I get the benefit to a campaign of "you do stupid things, you die" and the  benefit of "think before you go after some things cuz there are things you ought not to be messing with" as well.What i don't get is the benefit to a campaign of "bad roll, you die" or "bad roll, you are at risk, now that means my NPC will commit suicide or do whatever it takes to bring you down".or to be more clear, when PCs have died in my games, the PLAYERS reactions have not been to question my choices, but rather to usually go "yep, saw that coming" as the reasons and actions drivien by them were consistent and understandable before the act, not ones that needed "justifying" later.[/QUOTE]

Verification