Search results

I disagree with this assertion. Just because the books declare you can do it, doesn't mean it isn't cheating. Cheating is more than simply "did you follow the rules?" If someone developed a device that allows you to read other people's minds, and secretly used it in order to win at a poker...

We actually do have at least one person on this forum--IIRC in this thread, but I fear I no longer remember specifically whom--who has point-blank told me that yes, they do in fact tell their players that they may, on fairly rare occasions, fudge rolls if they feel that doing so is genuinely in...

Sure. I don't think that a feeling in that sense--a visceral response--is of such dire import that it ever justifies the falsehood. Is it sad that there are a few rare situations where, if only we could act dishonestly, we could otherwise have everything positive we want and nothing negative...

That the thing might occur more often in absolute terms is irrelevant to me. I was speaking of frequency. As in, the frequency of GM fudging is, assuredly, higher than the frequency of player fudging, even if the absolute count of fudging-instance moments is higher for players than GMs. GMs are...

The difference is that a simple fact would break the spell. I mean, consider: "The feeling of having a friend that actually would backstab you if it would be helpful to them, but you fully believe would have your back through thick and thin". Would you not say that that feeling is false, even...

The belief is actually had. But the feeling isn't what they think it is. Again, you have repeatedly emphasized that the joy arises from having a "deserved" victory, when it isn't. That very specific thing, as far as I'm concerned, is an overtly harmful thing the GM should not cause. The...

I have played official WotC adventures which include extremely difficult save DCs (IIRC it was DC 17-18?) against an effect that, if not passed, literally guarantee that your character is useless for the next month. Wise design has not been a priority at WotC for at least a decade.

I just don't think that a false feeling can be...well, really had. Because...it's false. That's just what it being a false belief means?

I take the view that it narrows down with time, and can be nailed down well before the monster itself actually appears, within certain boundaries. Example: Party is stalking a monster they don't know the identity of, they just know that it's been hunting and killing people in an area. It's...

Pulling out one specific line to call out what I see as a core difficulty here: But they cannot have that feeling regardless. You have made clear said that it is not a "hard won and deserved victory", emphasis in original. What you are describing isn't them actually having that feeling, it is...

It is functionally equivalent to doing so, yes, and thus I classify it as such. What is the difference between "oh crap, that roll was max damage, I'm...just going to pretend the dice were average" and "oh crap, that roll was max damage, I'm...just going to pretend that the monster has a -5...

The GM cannot--at least, not without pretty thoroughly ruining the experience for most players--make every single decision they ever make completely, totally transparent to the players at every single instant. Doing so would, at the very least, grind the game to a halt. So, at least logically...

Well, firstly, I find this a little contrived. For this to happen, we have to have had: A combat which depleted most of the party's resources and put at least one character in mega mega danger zone, but not in a way they feel like is them in mega mega danger, which is...a strange thing for a...

Regardless: you can fix this problem without resorting to fudging. Given fudging is known to be quite controversial, and players generally respond very badly to learning that the GM has engaged in fudging, even for good reasons? I'm not really sure why it's worth doing when there are pretty...

Oh, I'm in complete agreement on replacing fudging with either pre-prepared answers, or improvised diegetic (and thus discoverable) ones. I'm very much of the opinion that there is nothing you can achieve using fudging, that you cannot also achieve without using it. This does entail a small...

(Ignore this. Accidental repeat of previous post because I had a saved draft and thought that meant I hadn't posted it.)

It absolutely is not. And if you had actually read what I posted, you would know that I have no problem with a thing occurring within the world that isn't what it appears to be. Because I said as much. You're also literally not using the words @clearstream was using. Because when they used the...

Its openness is precisely what makes it not a problem anymore. That it is a roll that could fail is, frankly, irrelevant.

The sky is irrefutably blue. Now I will cite textbooks proving that the sky is in fact blue. Sometimes, a thing is irrefutably true because people can just observe it directly. Because the evidence is literally all around them. A substantial proportion of GMs--hence, "many, many" GMs--fudge...

Not necessarily. I have given my definition of fudging already, but to reiterate: fudging is altering the result of a mechanic (usually a rolled one), done specifically in secret. If the GM is playing with their cards face up, no secrecy around it? It isn't fudging, it's having a conversation...