Search results

Then I would say you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, since adapting to the results of the dice takes far more imagination than saying, "No, that didn't happen." Since you asked nicely. Pretty much the same comment can be found in threads on this topic - of which there are many...

It's as important as Jump, Tumble, and Climb. Yes, I know that's not what you meant - and in the game I'm playing, it's all rolled into Acrobatics anyway.

Strip context much? Here's what the whole paragraph says. That was a reply directed to the original poster's concerns, not a comment on my view of fudging. So you have no deal-breakers whatsoever? There's nothing a referee can do that will make you reconsider whether or not you want to play in...

Clearly. You're assuming that Hubert is a wannabe. He's not. He's studied and practiced, enough to qualify as a first level character. Let's try this with an actual character, a d20 Modern Fast Hero, level 1. Hubert compensates for his lack of natural physical ability with the most rigorous...

And I'm no less tired of being told that I don't care about my players or my campaign if I don't fudge the dice. I'm don't think I'm being passive-aggressive about anything. Straight up, I think fudging, directly or indirectly, stinks. I've played with referees who fudge and it kills the fun...

"Please, I'll give you all my stuff if you'll just kill me now." But hey, I'm not in your group, so who cares what I think?

Oooo, how ironical! I could cite English football firms as examples of what soccer fans are like everywhere in the world, but that would create something of a misleading picture, doncha think? Dragonlance is the poster child for D&D at its most lametastic. Even the big wheel of Stilton that is...

Any referee who lets a friend sit around for hours because the friend's character died shouldn't be running games, but there are more solutions to that problem than fudging a kill-shot. Maybe I wanted a word with a distinct negative connotation, because that best expresses how I feel about it.

One of the best ideas I've seen for handling weather is to make a reaction roll. Poor reaction? Rain, snow, high wind, extreme heat. Favorable reaction? Clear, dry, warm relative to the season.

Water is wet. The sun rises in the east. Bears :mad::mad::mad::eek: in the woods. And Dragonlance sucks. Using anything related to Dragonlance to make a point about D&D is like playing tennis with the net down.

Spot on, Mallus. This is one of the reasons I let the stats handle what the rules say they are supposed to handle, and leave everything else to the player.

Hubert loves anything and everything to do with ninjas. He's watched every video he can find on ninjas, taken martial arts courses through his recreation center, and ordered weapons and clothing from catalogs. In roughly d20 terms, he is a 1st level ninja. With a dexterity of 6. He has no...

Star Wars Saga Edition and the Old Republic source book. I just do not grok Star Wars.

When a random outcome is manipulated by one person to produce a particular result, yes, rigged. What do you call it? It is a simple play-style difference. The difference is I like what the interaction of the dice, the rules, and player choices bring to the game, and I don't like it when one...

Yes. Yes.

Oh, please. :erm: Recently I read a post on another board that said in effect, "Of course I fudge. What do you think the referee screen is for?" I'm not going to take the time to go back through this thread, but I think it's a safe bet that similar sentiments are expressed here as well. In...

Interesting that neither of these questions generated a response. I'm guessing the answer is, "Of course not, because then the players would know I was fudging."

Dumb players should be struck regularly, like gongs.

No, I don't ever recall an agreement that potty time was off-limits for ambushes.

Or if you reduce a monster's hit points or change its tactics so the adventurers don't get killed, do you give them less - or zero - experience for the encounter?