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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6130095" data-attributes="member: 42582">I personally see these as different things.Deciding which PC the enemy engages - in a system that makes that distinction (Tunnels & Trolls doesn't, for instance, and 1st ed AD&D doesn't fully either) - is part of framing and adjudicating the scene. And it's transparent to the players. (And in 4e also partly under their control, eg via marking mechanics.)Whereas fudging, to me, implies secrecy.EDIT: I've just read  [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s and  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s replies. I'm guessing that I'm a bit more "forceful" in my tactical metagaming than those two. 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!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.</blockquote>

Verification