And this highlights the problem. You highlight a person calling his GM overall good with a single situation complained about as evidence of a bad GM.
If that’s the criteria there are no good GMs.
I would push back a little here. I think at times for certain groups they certainly can and are, but even in those it’s not okay 100% of the time all the time. Maybe 1% of the time or something.
I think maybe also the question of whether prep can be off piste. I notice sometimes prep is...
Two things.
1) I wasn’t responding to your post.
2) I don’t see a heck of alot of difference in those things. Summing them both up as hitpoints seems to be proper language to me.
I think this ignores the inherent ongoing social convergence and expertise expansion that occurs in a prolonged campaign over multiple sessions with the same individuals who are free to leave at anytime.
I think it depends on what one believes hp represent and/or if the dm has provided some narration that overrides that representation.
Which is one reason hp is such a terrible example. There’s far to many divergent underlying assumptions about it.
Even then, what specifically they find fun is going to form an agenda, unless they find all things equally fun which would be a bit odd.
But at this point we are getting almost exclusively into the domain of psychology.