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: 6240434" data-attributes="member: 6696971">As a GM, this is the aspect of balance that is most important to me.  To wit, an analogy that likely won't work for some folks (while I find instructive):A forensic engineer investigates a site to discern the cause and origin of a currently unknown event.  Going in, he will (i) have a considerable breadth of knowledge of physical phenomenon (a forensic knowledge base) to call upon, (ii) robust experience and training in the component parts of the applied sciences that are relevant to what he is investigating, and (iii) enough detailed information on the present event to propose a few initial surmises (hypotheses) as to what the cause and origin of the event was.  He will then look for (iv) independent lines of evidence to support or render null his various surmises.  Finally, through this process and these resources (v) he will reach a conclusion and submit his report/findings for peer review (formal playing of the encounter challenge).A GM has a key role as a forensic engineer at the table.  He is deconstructing challenges from a thematic idea into their component mechanical parts.  He is then reconstructing those component mechanical parts into a machine (the encounter challenge) such that he should have a robust understanding of precisely what it is that he has created and precisely how it will work.  The more functional and transparent the process is, the more precise his understanding will be (much like the forensic engineer investigating for cause and origin).  The more precise his understanding will be, the more likely his forensic undertaking will be robust.  Obviously the opposite also stands.  The more dysfunctional and opaque the process, the less precise his understanding will be, and the more sensitive the final product will be to any unforeseen/un(mis)qualified variable of input...leading to variance/aberration in the final product more often than he would like.Any deep variance (imbalance), especially of the unquantified or inappropriately quantified variety, will lead to "GM as poor forensic engineer" which will lead to a proportionate number of anticlimactic challenges for the PCs.  BBEGs may turn into walkovers and sentry ganking may turn deadly.  As a 25 + year GM, I've dealt with both of those scenarios and I think I can speak for most GMs in saying we aren't a fan of either of those outcomes.Players won't have a forensic level of understanding of what they are undertaking.  It will be well-informed by the fiction and by their own understanding of the mechanical processes at work coupled with their PC resources (and their allies').  However, GMs most certainly should have a forensic-level understanding of their encounters and the encounter building process and component parts (of which accurate PC<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />C and Monster<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />C quantification is imperative) should support that forensic-level understanding.</blockquote>

Verification