Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="maddman75" data-source="post: 3489275" data-attributes="member: 2673">If you use metagame mechanics players can do that too.Do you remember the fight with the orcs and the Cave Troll in the Lord of the Rings movie?&nbsp; Did you have a map handy?&nbsp; Can you tell me how many feet Legolas was from the door when he started firing?&nbsp; Or where Gimli was relative to Sam when he started beating orcs with his frying pan?&nbsp; Unless you were working on the set, I'm guessing the answers to all these questions is no.&nbsp; Yet, most of us are perfectly capable of understanding the fight, because the above questions aren't important.&nbsp; They are only important if you were replaying it in a tactical game, and there is no requirement to do so.Bad on the DM.&nbsp; He seems very confrontational and wanting to put one over on his players.&nbsp; This style of GM is much better suited for tactical games.You are also making the assumption that 'where the monsters are' or 'what the terrain is exactly like' is a) important and b) impossible to give to the players.&nbsp; Neither of these assumptions is accurate for all games.If you're running without minis, you have to be willing to admit when you make a mistake.&nbsp; As a corollary that just occurred to me, in the games where I don't use any kind of physical representation the PCs have explicit (or nearly so) plot immunity.&nbsp; So the players aren't going to lose a character just because of a bad call on my part.These GMs sound best suited to tactical games, and are probably better off using minis than not.&nbsp; That doesn't mean that all games are like that.&nbsp; I love it when my players surprise me, and generally let them get away with their clever schemes (with unintented consequences usually)&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="maddman75, post: 3489275, member: 2673"] If you use metagame mechanics players can do that too. Do you remember the fight with the orcs and the Cave Troll in the Lord of the Rings movie? Did you have a map handy? Can you tell me how many feet Legolas was from the door when he started firing? Or where Gimli was relative to Sam when he started beating orcs with his frying pan? Unless you were working on the set, I'm guessing the answers to all these questions is no. Yet, most of us are perfectly capable of understanding the fight, because the above questions aren't important. They are only important if you were replaying it in a tactical game, and there is no requirement to do so. Bad on the DM. He seems very confrontational and wanting to put one over on his players. This style of GM is much better suited for tactical games. You are also making the assumption that 'where the monsters are' or 'what the terrain is exactly like' is a) important and b) impossible to give to the players. Neither of these assumptions is accurate for all games. If you're running without minis, you have to be willing to admit when you make a mistake. As a corollary that just occurred to me, in the games where I don't use any kind of physical representation the PCs have explicit (or nearly so) plot immunity. So the players aren't going to lose a character just because of a bad call on my part. These GMs sound best suited to tactical games, and are probably better off using minis than not. That doesn't mean that all games are like that. I love it when my players surprise me, and generally let them get away with their clever schemes (with unintented consequences usually) :) [/QUOTE]

Verification