Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8987284" data-attributes="member: 29398">All four are techniques that I'd associate with GM metagaming (yes, GMs can metagame too); and all of them IMO violate the integrity of the game being played.1. A fight that might seem "effectively over" can still pack a surprise or two and thus really ought to be run out to its conclusion.2. Bad-faith GMing, that.  Very poor form, especially if the combat's not challenging because the players/PCs specifically took in-fiction steps to make it that way,3. If-when it gets late enough that people start yawning yet the encounter isn't finished, end the session in mid-encounter and pick up at that same point next session.4. If a character has a nemesis and that nemesis is or could be in the scene it's on the character and its player to find and face the nemesis, not on the GM to present it to them.Convention games and the like are odd ducks, and IMO really aren't a viable template on which to base ongoing home campaigns.  Not familiar with what makes a "living" campaign different from any other.Most typical home campaigns aren't on a hard-coded schedule where x-amount of plot must be played through before y-amount of real-world time goes by.  There's always next session for what doesn't get done in this one.</blockquote>