Search results

Those are for the 10 year missions. Not that it really makes any sense in any case. Pike. Kirk. Picard. They all stopped at Starbases and friendly places like Vulcan every third episode. They don't go anywhere for long periods of time unless it's by accident. Janeway, I'm looking at you.

For a lot of people the HOW is every bit as or even more important than the event itself. For you it seems not to matter. For me it makes a big difference. Making the cook's presence or lack of it part of an open locks roll is a how that I really dislike very strongly and would never do in my...

I was a player in a group of about 7 players in a 2e game and we were all 5th-8th level. A single 1st level cavalier bluffed us down because he had a lot of attitude and swagger. After the game is when the DM told us that he was 1st level and we all had a good laugh.

Where did you get the idea that fairness = "neutral" and "impartial?" You can be partial in your ruling and be fair. You can apply something impartially and be unfair.

In theory, sure. In practice we all had the books and read them, and for those who didn't, they read the DMG and MM owned by someone else.

1e DMG page 110. "You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions."

It's very possible. Some encounters are not avoidable or the players fail to avoid them, but need for whatever reason to get past. It would be very unfair for that situation to happen. DM: Hey guys. I know that you've been playing the last 3 months, moving towards this final goal, but I messed...

Not in my experience. This one I see quite a bit. And the above would actually be unfair if not fudged. It's not fair to leave something to chance or have it fail when it should have automatically succeeded. It's an example of restoring fairness.

They're pretty good, so they generally avoid TPKs. They do lose 1-3 PCs over the course of a campaign, though. And I feel like there's another one that I am forgetting.

Dancing weapons kinda sorta fit that bill. You could also just toss the returning property onto any thrown weapon. Daggers, axes, etc. Pretty sure 3e did that by just making a returning property that could be applied to hurled weapons.

1. We aren't really changing the town so much as adding to it. Yes that does change it in a manner of speaking, but we're not going to suddenly say that city hall isn't there when it previously was. We might add in an aid to the Mayor, though, if we forgot to give him one or if it's likely he...

Right. I mean, the rules also don't rule out a sword strike setting off a localized nuke if you hit something with it. Nowhere do the rules say ONLY a d8 damage from a long sword. Plus, the rules give the DM the ability to step outside and above them, but do not do the same for the players...

Just look at some of the NFL games! ;)

Nobody has complained about adding a cook to the kitchen. It's the method described in this thread that doesn't work for traditional play. And we have repeatedly said that we have to add details to the setting, because the DM cannot do it all in advance. It's not possible.

Bias is not inherently unfair. It depends on how the bias is used. In the very rare circumstances that I fudge rolls, there is absolutely nothing unfair about it.

That's not accurate. The town, while not as major as the elves, is still an established fact of the setting. It would be easier to change the town than the elves, but still significantly harder than making an encounter 4 elves instead of 6. Also, the town is in flux and cannot be exactly as...

Have you read the D&D rules? The rules give the DM the authority to alter rules, not the players. The rules give the DM the ability to fudge rolls. Not the players. The rules tell the players what to roll and how to do things. They have no ability to change that. The DM does. Players can...

Yes, in fact if the books declare you can do it, it does mean that it isn't cheating. The players have access to the books. They have agreed to play a game where fudging is in the rules, so doing it is not dishonest in the slightest. By not speaking up and saying that fudging is absolutely...

I've never fudged it so that they live. Every 1 to 3 years there will be a fight where they aren't rolling above single digits, while at the same time I'm hitting and critting like crays, AND they didn't make any bad decisions. That last is important, because if they made a dumb move and got...

That is wrong. I've already given one valid reason for not revealing it, and there are others. 🤷‍♂️ Nope. This is also wrong. There is no such admission since I can in fact be using one of the multiple valid reasons for not revealing fudging. YOU don't like it. That's fine. To you it's an...