Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6572913" data-attributes="member: 177">My admittedly informal discussions indicates to me that the story-telling assumption is not a solid generalization.&nbsp; That better?&nbsp; It is a bit beyond just my own personal thought, but it isn't a real scientific survey.I don't see a major functional difference between telling them they mop up those forces, and making it so those forces are mopped up by a final round of combat.&nbsp; For this kind of case, it is already pretty clear the party will win.&nbsp; The only difference is how that win is presented - by your &quot;wrap up&quot; statement, by having having it play out in full, or having it play out faster with decreased hit points.&nbsp; Note that I already do discuss this with groups ahead of time - it is agreed that I may occasionally fudge, and that they don't actually want to know when I do it.And that's fine.&nbsp; There's nothing wrong with having personal preferences, for your own table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6572913, member: 177"] My admittedly informal discussions indicates to me that the story-telling assumption is not a solid generalization. That better? It is a bit beyond just my own personal thought, but it isn't a real scientific survey. I don't see a major functional difference between telling them they mop up those forces, and making it so those forces are mopped up by a final round of combat. For this kind of case, it is already pretty clear the party will win. The only difference is how that win is presented - by your "wrap up" statement, by having having it play out in full, or having it play out faster with decreased hit points. Note that I already do discuss this with groups ahead of time - it is agreed that I may occasionally fudge, and that they don't actually want to know when I do it. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with having personal preferences, for your own table. [/QUOTE]

Verification