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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6130081" data-attributes="member: 6696971">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".</blockquote>

Verification