Search results

I never contested this assertion. It's strange you would point this out, as it's obvious. My question has nothing to do with demanding a standard be met. It is a question to find out the reason why someone does not employ a given practice or at least see its utility, not a demand to employ...

Then (honest question) why are they game masters? That's part of GMing: picking what rules to engage and how. What's an example of "Content" in this context that isn't "rules"? Like if you chose a monster that's too powerful then you essentially chose a set of numbers that are too high. Why...

Nor do I need to, because my whole point is "Time permitting this is a good idea". So proving that time is always permittingisn't part of my thesis. My question is "If this cost no time or effort, why wouldn't you do it as it provides x marginal advantage"? (And then, as a subsidiary question...

It's like math: you see a random sequence of numbers, but then a few years later a mathematician comes along who has a formula that shows that it isn't actually random. So far I see no compelling reason (feel free to provide one) you couldn't cut the situations in which you need to fudge down...

"Or rather it's simply not worth the bother" is much the same as saying "I don't have time". If you'd say that, you'd answer: "Theoretically, if there were a rule or procedure that guaranteed that you could use an entire ruleset as written and _never have to fudge_ while still enjoying the...

If it merely doesn't exist--that's simply a time problem. IF you have enough time to create it--you do. And if you don't--you don't. As for "cannot"--what makes you think that? There are many systems which allow for slightly altered rules when a player or GM deems them dramatically appropriate...

Sure, and the fact that one of my socks has a small hole in it is a little annoying but not such a big deal that I've went ahead and switched socks. But if time was infinite and the sock fairy was just bringing socks all day I'd be like "Hey thanks for the new socks". To address what I'm saying...

We already went over that: " "Time permitting--it's the best for everybody" is different that "its the best for everybody". So far the only reason any fudger's really given not to have a range of rules for different situations is, essentially, lack of time to fix the rules. " ...so please do...

It's true there's an excluded middle--but as soon as you get fudged on once….you never can be sure it won't happen again. Missing 8 times in a row? That's AMAZING--that is a story in itself. The improbability makes it a story.

"Time permitting--it's the best for everybody" is different that "its the best for everybody". So far the only reason any fudger's really given not to have a range of rules for different situations is, essentially, lack of time to fix the rules. Incorrect: Whether the fudging makes the game...

Go back and read through everything I said. Do I, at any point go "this is best for everyone"? No, I don't. What I do do is ask (not rhetorically) why--if you don't have a challenge-oriented crew--you would play a game which has challenge built in. If you could answer that--awesome. If not...

There's a profound difference between: A) Realizing a rule isn't working. Changing the rule. Letting everybody know the rule has changed. Making sure they're cool with it. Keeping it like that til further notice because this new rule is better. and B) Secretly "changing the rule" because...

Yeah. Most clones and clone-likes are interchangeable. And thanks, Deuce!

Then that table should not have been in use this time. Depends: If this table is something the players have seen--their tactic depends on it and it shouldn't change unless having a suddenly skewed table is part of the scenario. If this table has never been seen by the players, it's...

Playing the game is accepting the challenge to deal with those "lots of things". I am not talking about what's easy, I'm talking about what I think works best. If you had to fudge, it means the system you chose (and helped set up) failed. the best practice (assuming you have time) is to fix...

Then hack it.

If you change the rules, tell people, and they all agree, and THEN roll and then use that rule like that from then on-- then I wouldn't call that fudging. That's just customizing the rules. Fudging's when a die roll is made under the assumption it'll be judged a certain way and then the way...

To me that's like saying you went to play baseball but when the pitcher struck you out you were like "Hey! Wait!" Like, this is what the game is largely about: your ability to hit the ball. D&D is, as a skill, about risk management, paying attention to the situation, tactics and strategy...

Again: If any of these situations happen--you balanced the adventure wrong by choosing the wrong encounters. Or you are using the wrong ruleset. The players presumably showed up to play a game where the monsters have an x chance of hitting them and (once they hit) have a y chance of doing z...

If combat is deadlier than you meant it to be, you made the monster too powerful or you are playing a game where combat is more dangerous than in the game you need to be playing. If you think 8 points of damage is a "mistake", you shouldn't have had a monster swinging a weapon that did d8...