Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8548858" data-attributes="member: 6785785">The replaceability of PCs is totally a preference and a table dependent thing. Some groups will have higher lethality and PC turnover and be totally comfortable with that. Others will treat lethality as a bigger deal and will minimize this to some extent. Many games will be a somewhere between these two ends. It's all preference and it's all fine.What I think the original point was is that very often, the rules of the game don't actually support the concept of the party fleeing in any way that makes it a viable option for players. If there was such a rule, it would at least be available as an option. It would be a decision point for the players to make, and it would have clear mechanics of some sort in order for them to make an informed decision. The game lacks such a rule, and so when the PCs flee, it's entirely up to the GM to have the NPC villains raise their arms and cheer in victory...or to hunt every last one of them down like the dogs that they are. The rules of the game make that latter option very possible, and from comments I've seen in discussions online and at games I've seen played, many GMs will just proceed to have the NPCs act in "optimal" fashion to defeat the PCs and may not even consider the idea of having the NPCs stop their attack and let the PCs flee. Very often, GMs are more bloodthirsty than the villains they're portraying.</blockquote>