Search results

That is not even in the sane galaxy ti what fudging is. What your analogy describes is more akin to looking up a rule in the middle of a game. If you feel it is a poor showing of a DM to not know every rule that’s another conversation. Personally, I wouldn’t be concerned if my doctor had to...

I think there are better ways of handling this kind of situation. If players are making decisions based on an OCC misunderstanding, then its a communication issue from the DM to the players. Its possible the DM didn't accurately explain the situation or they did but the players didn't...

The dice are just a tool. Something the DM can use to drive game play. Many times dice are needed... it would be impossible to game out a combat with fantastic creatures without them ( at a certain point the capabilities of magical creatures would exceed our ability to contextualize and we would...

Interesting question. In my homebrew, it would be a wash. The ancient past of my world was an advanced magic-tech society. A time of great wonders and advancements (transhumanism, post-scarcity, even travel amongst the stars and interactions with alien entities... or demons as they are called...

The supposition was in the context of having strict and formal cases where a DM will fudge a result. The example given was monster crits and multi-attack, but there may be better examples. In my opinion, If one has a strict policy to always fudge the results of a rule when a certain outcome...

Yeah you are getting into house rules territory which I think is a different situation. Sometimes you have to make an on the fly ruling and sometimes you have to come up with a house rule if the rules create an undesirable outcome for the group. Fudging to me is different. To me it is changing...

Well that is fair. i still think It should be explicit. A DM should explicitly state they will fudge for the purposes of obtaining the game play they desire. If players explicitly state they are ok with fudging but they don’t want to know about when it happens, then they are ok with the act...

Fudging to me is more about player expectation and experience than anything else. If you designed an encounter as above and realized your mistake; it is not fudging to fix it. You’ll probably catch it the first time it takes damage, change it immediately, and players would never know. But in...

I think this makes a good point. I generally do not like fudging as a player and try very hard to not do it as a DM. But if a DM is going to fudge, why not just tell players that they will do it and when they do it? Why the need to keep it a secret? For me, a DM fudging and hiding it feels...

The PF2 Gamemaster guide has guidelines on removing the level scaling aspect and just use proficiency levels. It a little janky in that you would have to strip out the level from every monster attack and defense and skill. But it looks like it can be done, and it might create a more wider...

I’m pretty sure xp for treasure was explicitly detailed in ‘83 Mentzer Basic set. If i remember correctly, it went out of its way to explain how much more xp you get from treasure over defeating monsters. But I’m done with distracting. My point was only that non-violent solutions were always...

Which is my point. Not running the game the way it was intended caused unforeseen and undesirable outcomes. The game, itself, was fine when played in the manner of its emergent game play. If people didn’t catch on or did not want to play it that way, that was their personal choice and not a...

Sounds like more of an experience / emergent game play thing. In Od&d and basic, emergent game play leads to avoiding combat and finding non-violent solutions to problems. Players will learn that If they fight all the time, their characters die frequently due to having so little hit points...

Well people play in whatever style they wanted to. Doesn’t change that the rules actively discouraged it.

Not really my style of adventures, though. But good for those who would find it interesting.

Older editions, going back to the original edition and revisions in the 80s (basic sets) actively discouraged violence, by rules as written. The primary source of experience rewards came from acquiring treasure (an order of magnitude more than violence). Many monsters granted very little...

Fair enough. But we see tons of threads and complaints about martial classes being weak in social interactions and fighters being unable to rule because of low INT, or fighters being unable to solve traps or have input into exploration. You can't go a week without a new thread about how bad...

Even in 5e with 4d6 drop lowest... +1's in 5e are basically +0's. If you are using standard array and put a 13 in Cha, then one of your physical stats will be +0. Sure you can do that to create an interesting character and that's cool, but the rules of the game put a lot of pressure against...

I prefer roll the dice in order and take what you get. But I'm generally ok with "if you don't like that set of stats, reroll". Point buy or even roll and assign creates so much hemming and hawing about where to optimally place stats that sometimes its just better to go with an organic straight...

Never seen any issue with the paladin requirements. Everyone I've played with rolled their stats hoping they could make paladin. When they fail to qualify, a collective groan is issued from the group and then they move on and pick a class. No one considered it unfair. The dice rolled as they...