Search results

No, it doesn't "go away" at all. It is just _reduced_ when the player is aware some die rolls will be nullified. There is challenge. Just less challenge.

We already went over this and for some reason you ignored it: So you say you fudge to avoid "breaking the game", but you define "break the game" as: "creates a situation that fits the dramatic/story situation arc that I and my players like less". i.t "Fails to serve our story/drama-based...

it totally won. What could've been a deadly encounter where a player was challenged, died, and came back knowing their DM pulled no punches and bears are ALWAYS deadly and they had to be on the lookout became an encounter where the player learned bears are deadly sometimes but not to the PC...

If your stated reason (emphasize that: Maxperson & co's stated reason, they said it out loud) for not wanting to be TPK'd is that you were TPK'd by a random (or "minor" encounter) than the placement of the death in the "story" of the characters is more important to them than being forced to...

And whether or not your teeth are rotting is only part of whether you are healthy, but you are objectively LESS healthy if they are rotting than if they're not. If your players view what the dice naturally did as "punitive" then they are not that interested in challenge. They feel a result...

If your players would be disappointed to die or TPK in a "minor" encounter, that means they prize drama over challenge.

Yes, but if you fudge and they know--they are challenged LESS. ...and the reason you fudged is you were more interested in some other thing besides challenge. ...which, you have stated above, you are. I'm not imagining your game. I am responding to things you wrote on the internet. This is...

That proposition is not in doubt. I am simply saying this player's #1 priority is not challenge. This is not a proposition that is in doubt. No need to say this. Either way it's unrelated to the point. No position on WHETHER to fudge is "right". It is 100% true that fudging is an action...

No. I've said that several times in this thread. It's simply good to know the result of the rules you're using and the reason you decide to use them. Yes and the outcome of that calculation is "I don't have to think quite as hard to survive and get the game going where I want it to as I would...

The player decides what is fair by deciding to play the game. Deciding to play D&D without fudging is saying "I think this is fair and these are the odds I want to play by". Then you have (pretty explicitly) just stated that right now you are more interested in the in-game drama then in the...

This isn't true. In pre-authoring world location content, you decide subjects, but the players still-in the moment--decide their reactions to those subjects (and one of the cool things about that is you can actually enable situations with more options if you pre-author rather than just go...

I think if they genuinely don't know that you fudge then, yes, it won't affect how they think and their feeling of challenge. But it is still 100% true that THE REASON that you are fudging is 100% prioritizing in-game drama over something else. You openly stated that you were trying to go...

It's fun and satisfying to people who prioritize challenge over in-world drama. And fighting ogres by the side of the road that you know the GM will never let TPK you isn't fun for those pople, it's just a waste of time. It's a different playstyle that you're not enabling and that's OK. Your...

Again: you can't do puzzley things very well with fully shared authorship. YOu can do some kinds, but here are a ton of kinds you can't.

Confused: if it's risky then by definition there ARE consequences to failure.

The question isn't whether the games "point" you in that direction, the question's whether it's a good idea and fun. I can't think of a reason it'd be fun (even in the long term) to roll success/fail for a thing where failure and time-consumption has no consequence and success is assured if you...

In only one (potentially minor) way: you're basically inserting (perhaps merely a second of) thinking that doesn't matter into the middle of play. Each time the players' choice matters they are that much more sharing authorship author of the story. Each time it doesn't they are that much less...

Well--unless the player realizes you do it and changes the way they act. Again: if you're saying it's rare I believe you, but the reason to bother keeping it rare is exactly the threat to challenge-thinking. ...and no chance of running away? Again this seems pretty railroady. One PC goes down...