Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4579629" data-attributes="member: 42582">So does Cadfan (if I'm understanding him right). The point is that the meaningfulness of this stuff for the players is different to what it is for the PCs. The PCs are trying to weaken the forces. The players are trying to achieve a certain sort of flavour/thematic outcome. Depending on what the PCs achieve in terms of winning at zombie encounters in the lead up to the climax, the players may or may not get their goal. The choice is therefore meaningful for the players.The question of whether or not it is meaningful for the PCs is not itself a very meaningful question - the PCs are fictions! If we ask the ingame counterfactual, "But for the PCs' victories against the zombies in the lead-up encounters, would the climactic battle have been even more difficult?" the answer is yes - Cadfan already told us that above.Asked at the metagame level, the answer of course is no - but then it was not a metagame priority for the players to make the final encounter less challenging, so this doesn't stop them getting the meaning they were after.I think this is right, and that Cadfan is over-emphasising the need for GM secrecy.</blockquote>