Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5814687" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, and I've definitely done the same thing. It can be fun for the players once or twice, but they'll get fairly tired of it if an enemy mercilessly hounds them and uses the sort of tactics PCs are likely to use if the situation is reversed. Even with the PCs attacking NPCs/Monsters there's a limit. Supposing the situation is dynamic, the NPCs still aren't likely to be drawn in enough detail that we know where they go to do their daily functions or if they have cousins somewhere that we can kidnap, etc. There's of course the other type of monsters using CaW, the "Tucker's Kobolds" scenario where the DM actually pull all the stops on the monsters and has them fight like their lives depended on it and not like they're an obstacle for the players to overcome. This is really a range though, in some sense all monsters defend themselves (most anyway). IME though going all-out is still a pretty limited thing. If you do any of this stuff too much the problem is it focuses more and more light on the fact that the setting is never even close to a complete world. It is a stage on which certain acts can be played out. The less holds are barred the more the illusion will begin to fray.Thus IMHO there's no real dichotomy between 'Cas' and 'CaW', there is only some ideal mix of elements that let the game proceed in an interesting and fun way. Exactly where the lines are drawn is really a matter of taste and playing style at any given table.</blockquote>

Verification