Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8156275">I think combat rules don't really add or take away agency. I would have to think about it some more. But I suspect different types of players will feel differently about how much having combat rules enhances or detracts from agency. What I will say is I think combat is one area where it is really necessary to place constraints on the GM, while I think it isn't in other parts of the game. As a GM I wouldn't want to have to decide if Hector's gladius stabs the minotaur or not, I would want dice to determine that for me. However I have no problem having to decide if Hector's clever insult infuriates the minotaur. Keep in mind though, in D&D, traditionally, the GM still has final say. The 1E DMG, I am pretty sure, specifically allows for fudging of results behind the screen. Fudging is a dirty word because it gets abused, but there are places with any mechanics for the GM to step in if the result is just boneheaded for some reason (it is the human element to correct the machine). Personally, I take a slightly different approach to fudging (I let the players know why and when I am fudging and I almost never do it----and it is almost always because the mechanics have gone off the rails in some significant way).</blockquote>