Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 9622725" data-attributes="member: 6915329">See, here's where you (both you specifically and you generically) are confusing some words. For me, personally, my goal as a GM isn't to defeat the PCs. Even without GM fiat, it's really simple to use even a PC-friendly system like 5e to kill the PCs. Don't let the PCs get a long rest by bombarding them with disruptive monster attacks in the night. Don't let the PCs actually be able to get close to the monsters; give the monsters long-range attacks and have them fight from locations the PCs can't get to, like the air. Or have monsters attack the PCs when they have no ability to move around, like when they're climbing up a cliff. Give monsters class levels and abilities. Tucker's Kobolds showed how deadly even minor monsters could be if run cleverly, and in 5e, bounded accuracy means that those kobolds would still be dangerous at higher levels. Or, as with Mearls' post, give the foe a vorpal sword, a minimum of three attacks in one turn, and have them presumably make three exceptionally good die rolls in that one turn. So my goal as a GM isn't to defeat the PCs, because that's simple, but to provide fun challenges. That's the difference between a defeat and a challenge--defeat means to end, to destroy, to beat. But with a challenge, success is also a possibility. And don't forget, what Mearls said made that con game so good is the terrible setbacks the PCs dealt with, specifically decapitating three PCs in a single turn, with presumably no defense or save against it. In other words, by GM fiat (since he gave the foe the sword in the first place), the thing he said a system should try to replace.My gnolls aren't going to just stand there handing out XP[1]; they're going to act as intelligently as they're capable of, because they want to survive. But that's not the same thing as me wanting to defeat the players because that's the primary or only way to make the game interesting, exciting, or memorable. And me not wanting to defeat the players also opens up other possibilities, such as the players deciding to try negotiating.[2][1] Not that anyone at my table wants XP for killing; we all hate that. We do milestone/story progression for D&D.[2] My table hates gnolls as demonic murder-machines, and we also hate also-evil races, which means if gnolls are attacking, they have a reason. But that's besides the point; I'm including this note to avoid gnoll-related tangents.As a note, I find this whole thing really funny because it started simply because I said that I found removing the constant threat of death (my D&D party has a grave cleric, hence ranged spare the dying) made me more willing to take risks and do cooler things, since I don't have to constantly play conservatively out of fear of perma-death. Whereas Mearls, and some other people on this thread, find that sort of play to be a waste of time. Or as Scribe said--hopefully a joke--a "failure of society."As another note, I shouldn't have to read an entire person's body of works to "interpret" what he's saying. Mearl is an accomplished writer, which means he should know how to write clearly. And I'm not talking about his tweet, which allows for a very limited number of characters. I'm talking about his post in this thread, on page 100.</blockquote>

Verification