Can the GM cheat?

[Manbearcat]

EDIT: I've just read @S'mon 's and @Manbearcat 's replies. I'm guessing that I'm a bit more "forceful" in my tactical metagaming than those two.

I may not have conveyed precisely what I was meaning because:

EDIT to the edit: For clarity, generally when I'm metagaming NPC/monster tactics I'm not doing it to softball things, but to hardball them. In 4e I find the game tends to work better when you push the players hard.

is exactly what I meant. I don't "save the wizards from the archers" or "softball" encounters or "massage enemy tactics" to prevent Bobwizard001 turning into Bobwizard002 every other session. I make it as difficult as I can, comply with the the rules, stridently regard fortune resolution, and keep the genre-relevant tension on the PCs in any encounter I do (remember the burning inn encounter from some time ago?). I don't worry about my players' HPs, surges, defenses. I generally go for the kill and try to do things that make sense, are fun, and cause the situation to change. Obviously, you're having to make catch-22 decisions all the time in 4e and I'll mix those up to keep it fresh. I don't want to just violate marks or control effects (triggering damage) all the time as I want to allow those PCs to flex their control muscles as well as their damage by proxy of control violation. However, I violate them aplenty and get intentionally whacked for it (because its sensible in the situation or it would just be fun for my players!). In other words, this:

When choosing what enemies do, I keep in mind ingame/fictional considerations (like the sort that S'mon emphasises) and "story" metagame concerns (like what would be fun/dramatic) and "tactical" metaagme concerns (how can I put more pressure on the players).

These aren't mutually exclusive, of course - often (i) and (ii) overlap, for instance, if a sworm enemy confronts a PC, because there is both an ingame reason for that enemy to attack that NPC, and it makes for good drama too; and often (i) and (iii) overlap, because intelligent enemies will try to maximise their tactical abilities. But I have a tendency to let the metagame considerations do a fair bit of the leading here - I can retcon in the fiction if I fell like I have to!

 

[timASW]

While I don't agree that its mechanically "fudging", what you're describing is indeed a certain subset of "GM metagaming", which interposes the agenda element of "dramatic need or general fun where the rules fail to address one or both" between pure gamist play and in-world causal logic/process simulation. That reasoning lies at the heart of the GM-wrought NPC tactic resolution that you've addressed here in the same way "fudging" does for NPC fortune resolution. They are both generally in the same "GM force" toolbox.

This is one of the reasons that 4e is my edition-of-choice as below by S'mon:



The robust control, forced movement, and mobility elements of 4e allows the players the mechanical tools and opportunities to utterly dictate target acquisition, move enemies around the battlefield, and move around the battlefield themselves to acquire their own targets. This creates a dynamic where a GM can feel free to go full bore and have those Archers focus fire the Wizard if they wish...and deal with the catch-22 of one or more Defenders' control elements (be it mark punishment or Defender intercession), a Striker's or Leader's immediate interrupt that protects the Wizard or punishes the Artillery unit (or both) for attacking the Wizard. Or perhaps the Wizard has put a Slow Zone and a Damage Zone such that if those assembled Archers don't spend their full round just getting (slowly) out of there then they will pay for it dearly. Etc, etc.

As a GM, there is no "dramatic need or general fun where the rules fail to address one or both". The rules don't fail to address the situation (the players are empowered with the control, forced movement, and mobility elements of the tactical interface) and the dramatic need and fun work themselves out without your intervention or massaging of the outcome (GM force)! I can just spend my mental overhead on providing good color, good mechanical elements to interact with, and challenging situations for the players to deal with and put the onus on the players to properly dictate their own tactical outcomes (whatever they may be).

The less empowered players are to affect their own outcomes and the more squishy they are, the higher the temptation will be for "dice fudging" and "tactical massaging" lest you end up with a game of disposable PCs or PCs who don't act particularly heroic because "boldly facing danger" too many times equals "Bobfighter002".

Rules forcing the archers to be punished for targeting the back line are even worse. Thats just hardcoding the GM fudging element into the game.

 

[Manbearcat]

Rules forcing the archers to be punished for targeting the back line are even worse. Thats just hardcoding the GM fudging element into the game.

Its not "rules that force GM to do something." Its PC build tools and mechanics that create a catch-22 for the GM; do what you want to do and you suffer a penalty and/or something bad may happen...or do what the player is imposing upon you and not suffer any penalty beyond "not doing what you want to do". That is just the definition of "control" tactically and then eventually can yield operative conditioning. It happens in sports, martial combat, child-rearing, and the process of societal restraint all the time.

Further, its the same sorts of things we've had for melee control since 1e, just extended for a wider breadth of tactical options for PCs to affect all zones of combat; eg, a Ranger firing an interposing arrow, splitting an enemy archer's arrow in half, triggered upon the enemy archer loosing an arrow/bolt at a companion...or a druid summoning a fiery hawk that hounds an enemy archer, attacking him if he fires off another arrow. Pathfinder has a few of these things built into feats like Combat Patrol.

 

[timASW]

Its not "rules that force GM to do something." Its PC build tools and mechanics that create a catch-22 for the GM; do what you want to do and you suffer a penalty and/or something bad may happen...or do what the player is imposing upon you and not suffer any penalty beyond "not doing what you want to do". That is just the definition of "control" tactically and then eventually can yield operative conditioning. It happens in sports, martial combat, child-rearing, and the process of societal restraint all the time.

Those are rules, sorry but they are rules, and they are forcing the DM's action.

Of course I personally think the entire marking concept needs to die in a fire, slowly and painfully. And not just in D&D, in MMO's where they originated as well.

 

[S'mon]

EDIT to the edit: For clarity, generally when I'm metagaming NPC/monster tactics I'm not doing it to softball things, but to hardball them. In 4e I find the game tends to work better when you push the players hard.

I think that varies by level - Mike Shea said "Be Kind to them in Heroic. Be even-handed in Paragon. Be a bastard in Epic" - or words to that effect. And I definitely see the difference now my Loudwater PCs are 12th level; stuff that would have threatened them before (even accounting for level-ups) in Heroic, just gets slaughtered in Paragon. They are very robust and have tons of tricks to pull on me.
We recently had a fight where they killed 39 enemies -http://frloudwater.blogspot.co.uk/ - the XP value put it at EL 17, taking account of there being 7 PCs - and they just slaughtered those poor Zhents.

 

[Kingreaper]

Those are rules, sorry but they are rules, and they are forcing the DM's action.

I take it, then, that you disagree with the following things that prevent DM's focusing on the wizard:

Opportunity Attacks
Limited Range (eg. Orcs with swords only being able to hit things next to them)
Protective spells (eg. invisibility, flight, etc.)
Warriors being able to stand in the way.


Marking is just another way of representing the ability of a combatant to keep another pinned down. It is not the same thing as "aggro" in MMOs.

Indeed, in D&D 4e, if you don't bypass the defender occasionally as the GM you're probably not playing your monster's intelligently.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=83870]Kingreaper[/MENTION], nice reply, can't XP sorry.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Kingreaper , nice reply, can't XP sorry.

I can. Covered. The bold/italicized part "Its not rules that force the GM to do something" was the operative part of the sentence. Not that they are rules/mechanics. That is a given. Its the implications of the presence (or lackthereof) on play.

 

[timASW]

I take it, then, that you disagree with the following things that prevent DM's focusing on the wizard:

Opportunity Attacks
Limited Range (eg. Orcs with swords only being able to hit things next to them)
Protective spells (eg. invisibility, flight, etc.)
Warriors being able to stand in the way.


Marking is just another way of representing the ability of a combatant to keep another pinned down. It is not the same thing as "aggro" in MMOs.

Indeed, in D&D 4e, if you don't bypass the defender occasionally as the GM you're probably not playing your monster's intelligently.

thats a ludicrous comparison barely worth responding too.

Being able to physically interpose yourself between a squishy and an enemy is nothing at all like a ranger or something similar being able to magically take an instantaneous shot outside of his turn when an opponent attacks that can only be targeted at that opponents arrow.

its stretches credulity that you would be capable of actually confusing the two as being somehow similar. Fortunately the little thought experiment that led to these sorts of things has been left in the dustbin of gaming history and we're moving on to good ideas.

 

[Kingreaper]

thats a ludicrous comparison barely worth responding too.

No, it's really not.
The problem is, you don't have a clue what marking is, as you've just demonstrated.

Being able to physically interpose yourself between a squishy and an enemy is nothing at all like a ranger or something similar

1) Rangers aren't defenders. They don't mark.
2) In fact, there are no ranged defenders whatsoever.

being able to magically take an instantaneous shot outside of his turn

3) OMG! Opportunity attacks are MAGIC!

Opportunity attacks are exactly like mark attacks, they're an extra attack gained due to your opponent provoking it by improperly defending themself.

when an opponent attacks that can only be targeted at that opponents arrow.

4) There is no such power.

The closest power the ranger has is the ability to shoot an opponent while that opponent is aiming; thus taking advantage of the distraction.


Your description isn't a parody of the content of 4th ed, it's a parody of a parody.