Expedition: general discussions.

Uff... I don't know how else to explain this... My impression was formed "bit by bit." From "every nook and cranny," so to speak. Is that clear enough? And some people even "manured" this very "impression of mine" with malicious trolling (I don't mean you, Heroist, for the record).

So basically, all NPCs and player characters should be genderless angel-like beings so that nothing accumulates "in every nook and cranny" (as far as I know, even Ment's expansions didn't have that). And no one should joke about your character being an incel.

Here... Not everything is there.

Ok, I have no questions regarding those points. But what if this happens: your character annoys an NPC with their persistence to such a degree that the NPC kills them. Purely in terms of game mechanics, in combat, the NPC is simply stronger. You can't punish him because your character is dead. Is this GM tyranny? Such cases have simply happened. When a player character intentionally pushes buttons, and then the player gets offended that they were killed.

Well, if you want a "specific example," look at the "final" moment in the obelisks, after which I quit. Specifically, point 4 was "violated." I specifically asked "what was that" and if there was any possibility of punishing Jingo (I agreed to "any consequences," even being exiled to the desert). Your specific answer: "Typical GM character," and from everyone's comments, I realized that dealing with Jingo would be impossible in any way. From which I logically conclude that for you, this is normal. For me, it is "not normal." That is, "individualism," since it turns out I am the only one "on this issue"...

I specifically looked up that situation. In general, here is what I think:
1. A "Typical GM character," aka an unkillable (or killable with a 0.00001% chance) scripted NPC—is not a problem for me personally, as long as he isn't aggressive and won't kill or maim player characters for "bad" words spoken about him.

2. If you're interested, I dropped expansions only because my characters' stats were being lowered. I dropped them even when my characters ended up fine despite such NPCs. Revan dropped my expansion right toward the end because of a similar NPC. Even though he didn't intend to harm his character. Heroist dropped my expansion because, as he saw it, an NPC deceived him. Not the GM, but an NPC. And this is only what I remembered quickly; if you dig deeper, you can find more examples. So don't talk to me about "norms" here.

(meanwhile, "irl problems" didn't stop you from mocking me once again, and quite "timely" at that).

A photoshopped image takes 15 minutes. Reading ten pages of text and getting into it takes 2 hours. I saw a funny comment from Heroist—I made the image. There are no particular contradictions here. I don't always read other people's grey text, and I don't read other people's battles at all, only the result.

That means "likes." And one can say whatever they want. I judge "by behavior"...

I don't like it. And most likely no one likes it. But such situations aren't 99% of the expansion. Now tell me, do you see a queue of people willing to run an expansion for free 10-12 hours a day for a couple of months just so they can choose a GM who won't have such NPCs? I don't see one. That's why my approach is simple; I already wrote to you about it once. If my character ends up in such a situation, I simply quit the game or make a new character. That's it. Because for me, not playing an expansion at all is more boring than playing and then quitting. And if I don't play at all, I might miss a game where this doesn't happen. Like Alex's, for example, even though his expansions aren't finished.