Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 6627774" data-attributes="member: 40177">I disagree, slightly.&nbsp; The idea of having NPCs die on GM fiat is one that doesn't always sit well with me - I kind of prefer a game where I let the story happen, and try to do my best to actually avoid having input into that story... I just run and referee what is put before me, and how the PCs react to those events.&nbsp; So, choosing whether an NPC lives or dies is not something I wanna do too often, because it means another point where my own wants gets in the way of the ongoing story.&nbsp; The original idea (at least, as I see it) for the three dying saves rule was to a) give a player something to do every round and b) give them a fairly good chance of not dying (as dying sucks, since you don't get to play while it's happening!).&nbsp; PCs are designed to not die.&nbsp; And I'm totally okay with this.&nbsp; I think it's a good rule. However, allied NPCs are not beholden to those rules.&nbsp; They're not essential to the story (and if they are, I believe you need to fix that, pronto - only PCs are really ever essential).&nbsp; If they don't do anything, there's no bored player bringing everyone down.&nbsp; And, to be honest, having them die is often kind of fun.&nbsp; NPCs should come issued with red shirts.&nbsp; Hence, my logic behind reducing their number of dying saves.&nbsp; &quot;Two death saves versus three to live&quot; means they're more likely to die than live without PC intervention, and it makes saving them a choice done by players (they'll rush to save other PCs, and maybe NPCs they like, but those they're not a huge fan of - Izban, above, for example - they might take their sweet time to rescue, and if they die, &quot;meh&quot;).&nbsp; I might even reduce it to &quot;one death save, three to live&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 6627774, member: 40177"] I disagree, slightly. The idea of having NPCs die on GM fiat is one that doesn't always sit well with me - I kind of prefer a game where I let the story happen, and try to do my best to actually avoid having input into that story... I just run and referee what is put before me, and how the PCs react to those events. So, choosing whether an NPC lives or dies is not something I wanna do too often, because it means another point where my own wants gets in the way of the ongoing story. The original idea (at least, as I see it) for the three dying saves rule was to a) give a player something to do every round and b) give them a fairly good chance of not dying (as dying sucks, since you don't get to play while it's happening!). PCs are designed to not die. And I'm totally okay with this. I think it's a good rule. However, allied NPCs are not beholden to those rules. They're not essential to the story (and if they are, I believe you need to fix that, pronto - only PCs are really ever essential). If they don't do anything, there's no bored player bringing everyone down. And, to be honest, having them die is often kind of fun. NPCs should come issued with red shirts. Hence, my logic behind reducing their number of dying saves. "Two death saves versus three to live" means they're more likely to die than live without PC intervention, and it makes saving them a choice done by players (they'll rush to save other PCs, and maybe NPCs they like, but those they're not a huge fan of - Izban, above, for example - they might take their sweet time to rescue, and if they die, "meh"). I might even reduce it to "one death save, three to live". [/QUOTE]

Verification