At the core of this core is a very simple rule: if the outcome of the action resolution mechanics is such that an NPC or monster's hit point pool is reduced to 0 (in all editions but 3E) or below 0 (in 3E), then the GM is precluded from declaring actions for that antagonist. And this is the rule that, ultimately, players rely on to have their PCs achieve things via combat: a game-mechnically determined guarantee of finality to the resolution of conflict.
When we turn to the other domains, there are two notable features: first, with the exception of the skill challenge mechanic in 4e, there has never been a mechanic that players can leverage to achieve finality in conflict resolution: in exploration, for example, the GM has always been free to narrate that the weather changes, or that the door swings shut; and in social conflict, the GM has always been free to narrate that the NPC/monster changes its mind.
Is this different than the GM having reinforcements show up after the last of the first batch finally fell to zero in combat? Or, can monsters fake being dropped to zero (can PCs)? What if monsters have the same death and healing rules as the PCs and one feeds the other a healing potion? And does a door swinging shut or a weather change alter what the characters have discovered or how far they've made it in their travels?
I find this really interesting, because I don't think I've ever experienced a group passing on exploration or social situations to get to combat and the security of die rolling in over 30 years of playing with dozens of players and at least a dozen DMs. (Of course they have wanted their games to have combat... just like they've wanted them to have the social and the exploration.) Maybe it didn't bother us that something akin to a proto-skill challenge existed in the head of the DM, and not on the paper in front of him. And even if the skill challenge is written down, it is only visible to the GM... and there is nothing preventing a GM in any game from changing things on the fly if they think it benefits the game (well, except for doing it badly and losing ones players).The combination of these two features is that players who want to be confident about the fates of their avatars typically have little reason not to bypass or escalate exploratory and social situations into combat ones. Because combat is the "pillar" in which the mechanics impose clear limits on the GM's power to stipulate the content of the fiction, and clearly confer on them a corresponding power (mediated via their action declarations for their PCs, and subsequent action resolution).
I'll ponder this last one from an earlier post a bit more though. I'm trying to think about what rules we've thought our DMs were under (or acted like they were under if we didn't think about it). Is this the answer to my two sets of questions and musings above?So I don't agree that the GM always has authority to break the rules - because I don't agree that the GM always has overriding authority to stipulate what is happening in the fiction.
Last edited: