Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9183462" data-attributes="member: 7025508">[USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] simple answer to why the GM doing this is not cheating, is that the game is designed so they are allowed to do this. GM can change any rule, any part of the fiction if they so choose. It is not cheating. However, there are a lot of ways to do this which will lead to dysfunctional and unsatisfying game, but being a bad GM is not cheating.And we can talk about good and bad GMing practices, but generally I feel people tend to have a reason to do things the way they do. It might not be the way I'd do it, or the way I'd like as a player, but I'm not at their table, and it might be what that works for that group. Now of course some things might genuinely just sound like bad ideas, and one might question them, but accusing people of cheating when they de jure are not is not helpful to conversation.And when it comes to GMing practices, I have found it is better to treat them as the pirate code, general guidelines and not hard and fast rules. It might be generally good idea to do things in certain ways, but it is possible, even likely, that some unlikely situations will crop up where it will be better to abandon the guideline.Like I agree with you that the GM should not alter the encounter parameters after the encounter has started. Yet I have done so. Super rarely, but I have. Why? Because I overlooked something and made a mistake when designing the encounter. For example I often use reskinned monsters with slightly altered statblocks to represent something they originally weren't meant for. But sometimes during the encounter I have realised that in my hurry I had forgot to take account some aspect of the original monster mechanics (such as immunity or resistance or lack of such) that did not make sense for the reskin. So I change that there and then.</blockquote>

Verification