Search results

Well, I was more referencing that "fudging" in the extended sense of adding or removing opposition creatures isn't meaningfully different from adding or removing hit points (or damage output, or what-have-you), in the sense that all of them are altering the world for non-diegetic reasons because...

As noted, there is a difference between kinds of impossible. Let me put it this way. If I tell you you need to guess a number that is greater than seven and less than three, does that sound exciting? It's also impossible, so since we're at impossible, that should make it rare and wonderful...

But the point is that it isn't 100% pure, unmitigated personal taste. There's more going on here. Mathematically, other than the extra action economy, there really is a lot that is the same between adding/removing opponents in order to strengthen/weaken the opposition...and reducing/increasing...

Generally: can have non-prehensile tails, but don't have to, and do not naturally have wings. Dragonborn that manifest wings have done something to make that happen. It isn't their natural form--but it could be a throwback or a magical alteration/enhancement of some kind.

How...would they get their wings beneath their body? The joints attach above their shoulders... But more importantly, wings pointed the way these point don't produce forward thrust. The flappy diaphanous membrane would create chaotic turbulence in that direction, even if the wing is somehow...

The Enantiornithes still had claws forward, feathers backward, and flew in the direction of their heads. These topaz dragons cannot control their flight if they are flying forward, unless the wings are 100% irrelevant to their flight. In general, dragon flight is understood to be magically...

I have always disliked this design concept. I dislike it even more than the other 5e designs. And I really, REALLY hate the new Gold dragon. This. Where others might see this as "oh, it's so obviously fantastical because it wouldn't work IRL!", I just...see how it wouldn't work. Like...it's...

Restoring or preserving fairness--as noted above--rarely has any positive impact on the player's experience. I brought up the Dark Souls games for a reason. They are notorious for being fair, which is why they can be so disheartening. Outside of cases where something is genuinely bugged out...

At least with the undead/deathless thing, I only realized after the words had left my mouth that "oh no...this person's build depended on this working..." That was part of what motivated me to find a workaround. And, as stated, I got lucky, there was not only a workaround, but it was both...

Yes. So they appear or disappear out of nowhere--just out of sight. Exactly as video games do. Almost always with a planned possible combat encounter! For goodness' sake, are you presuming that anyone who doesn't do things identically to how you do just instantaneously manifests things directly...

I don't understand what the difference is. You "balance encounters a touch before it starts". Okay. So...does that mean you might add or remove combatants before the fight begins? If so, you're literally doing the thing you've said you won't do, "spawning" (or despawning) entities in order to...

As stated, that does not to me sound like there is unfairness in the combat. The GM made a mistake, doing something stronger than they intended. It sounds like the GM is adding unfairness--beneficially for the players, detrimentally for their opposition--by putting their thumb on the scale. So...

Whereas, for me, I think we should apply the rules--which everyone can see, so they know what they're getting--fairly. If the results are then not to our satisfaction, we work that out. We don't try to pretend that unfair rules are actually fair by constantly adding even more unfairness. Two...

For my own part, I strive to be consistent or--if I am not sure--I strive to hold only my own work/benefits to the highest standard of scrutiny, with a lower standard for others, but not no standard at all. I have, in the past, revealed problems for others because of this. Both times this was...

That was my intent, yes.

I laid out what "fairness" means--at least to me. A rule that is applied consistently is fair. A rule that is applied inconsistently is not fair. "GM decided not to apply the rules this time Because They Felt Like It" is a rule not applied consistently. Fair rules are, generally speaking, not...

How is that possible? Seriously. If the encounter is too strong to be beaten, that isn't "unfair to the players". It is fair that some things br genuinely beyond their ability. Fairness does not mean guaranteeing success! Fairness means applying the rules without fear or favor. The thing you...

Not at all. It is most strongly motivated by: Preserving the appearance that the GM does not make mistakes Preserving the "experience" the GM wishes the player to have (hence why the second most commonly discussed type of fudging, after protecting PCs from random mega damage, is keeping a...

And yet that's exactly what people expect, and have done for ages. Does this mean all of those people were fools to have such an expectation? It's not like this is a new idea. Far from it. It's been repeatedly discussed in this very thread!

Fudging is, by its very nature, not running a fair game. It is, by intent, a bias.