thread: 2009-04-16 : GM fiat put to work for the good
On 2009-05-05, David Berg wrote:
If I'm violating etiquette by posting 2 weeks late, someone please admonish me. Just one thought to share:
Your GM's agenda for the game is to make its world seem real, and to create and play interesting monsters, without caring whether the monsters win or lose.
FWIW, my experience doing exactly that tends to lead to the following chain of reasoning:
1) for monsters/adversity, "interesting" often equals "threatening"
2) spells that empower the PCs to the degree that it's hard to make them feel threatened are bad
3) I can't quickly anticipate all the ways the PCs might milk this power they've proposed for all sorts of empowerment
4) I don't feel like puzzling it out in my head or hashing it out aloud
5) I err on the side of nerfing the power
6) players are disappointed, and claim the nerfing is unnecessary, but also don't want to take the time to hash out all the ways the power could play out
I think this poses some very solvable problems. Any thoughts on how you intend to deal with 'em?
