Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9708068" data-attributes="member: 7025577">Ok, I think you are here talking about a very different phenomenon than most defending GM freedom from rules does. The whirlwind attack + great cleave + an object producing a swarm of nearby creatures could easily be a unfortunate combo in a TCG, LCG or modular board game as well. These kind of exploits happen regularly in those domains, and are typically reasonably well community handled after the first period of disruption. The GM position might make resolving these kind of issues a bit smoother than without, but I am not aware of anyone arguing it is essential for this purpose.The freedom from rules argument typically point out that there are limitations on the outcomes prescribed by the more "narrative rules". While they are allowing for some flexibility in interpretation/implementation, they still typically produces stronger restriction on narration than what the "unbound by rules (but not unwritten social conventions)" GM would face. So the claim is that such a GM could in some cases have produce a "better" experience for the group than what the narrative rules allow. A popular example of this, that has been a major focus of this thread, is the freedom of the GM to allow the players to keep initiative and control over the overall situation on a bad roll. ("Nothing happens", as opposed to being required to introduce something that moves things along)</blockquote>