Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9397373" data-attributes="member: 6801845">While I don't remember the last time I fudged a roll (I do sometimes roll when it's an unnecessary contested roll as explained above), I am still making decisions all the time as a DM based on what I think the party will enjoy.  I don't send a tarrasque to fight a level 1 party, I don't expect people playing 20th level PCs to go through a fight with a lone goblin.  Every single time an enemy's turn comes around, I'm deciding for that monster what they are going to do.I know any explanation will likely be torn apart because I'm not using the precisely correct technical terms, but here goes.  I just don't accept this idea that a GM can be kept from making decisions based on what makes sense for the scenario they've set up without restricting their options in ways I don't care for.  Yes, you can have limits on what either side of the GM screen that can be done.  But as a player I'm not immersed in a simulation, I'm playing a game where I know the rules restrict the GM to certain options.  I'm playing a pawn in a game where I know all the possible counter moves.  The specific counters may surprise me but they come with restrictions and rules that must be followed. For me it becomes a different kind of experience of tactical counters on both sides; it's akin to a game of chess in too many ways.Obviously the freedom the DM has can be abused, but it rarely is.  At least not if the DM wants to continue DMing.</blockquote>

Verification