Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8697652" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I'm not convinced.&nbsp; It'd be true if all possible encounters were equally easy to detect and equally significant, but they're not.&nbsp; What's easy to spot in advance, the orc patrol marching cross country or the hidden basilisk in its lair?&nbsp; This is particularly an issue of advanced detection methods are a limited resource (like scrying) or are likely to be used more often in some circumstances (a general outdoor travel situation where sending a scout ahead is less likely to be perilous than doing the same thing in specifically enemy territory).&nbsp; In particular, when the detection isn't deterministic, with the GM its easy to parry success with trivial encounters and save the significant ones for failure.Well, in practice, the more control the GM has, the less the players do that isn't, effectively, just granted them by the GM when he feels like it.&nbsp; Its hard to argue that isn't true.It is, but it also changes the difficulty of the encounter, often non-trivially, so often GMs want to know one way or another in advance (if you set up the encounter and assume they'll know about it in advance and they don't, it can be a slaughter; have the opposite occur and its a cakewalk.&nbsp; Barring really hardcore let-the-chips-lay-where-they-land GMs and games, these are non-trivial concerns).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8697652, member: 7026617"] I'm not convinced. It'd be true if all possible encounters were equally easy to detect and equally significant, but they're not. What's easy to spot in advance, the orc patrol marching cross country or the hidden basilisk in its lair? This is particularly an issue of advanced detection methods are a limited resource (like scrying) or are likely to be used more often in some circumstances (a general outdoor travel situation where sending a scout ahead is less likely to be perilous than doing the same thing in specifically enemy territory). In particular, when the detection isn't deterministic, with the GM its easy to parry success with trivial encounters and save the significant ones for failure. Well, in practice, the more control the GM has, the less the players do that isn't, effectively, just granted them by the GM when he feels like it. Its hard to argue that isn't true. It is, but it also changes the difficulty of the encounter, often non-trivially, so often GMs want to know one way or another in advance (if you set up the encounter and assume they'll know about it in advance and they don't, it can be a slaughter; have the opposite occur and its a cakewalk. Barring really hardcore let-the-chips-lay-where-they-land GMs and games, these are non-trivial concerns). [/QUOTE]

Verification