Search results

(...at arbitrary times--the 2 abilities you describe are limited)

If the table agrees to a rule before play, it's never "making my decisions worthless". Theoretically we all are already taking the halfling ability or the DM inspiration into account when making decisions. It is qualitatively different to introduce odds that are not the odds I signed up for...

Yeah it's definitely a taste issue, the interesting question is what you gain and lose with each approach. As far as I can tell you lose things the challenge-oriented player wants by fudging and lose things the drama-oriented player values by not fudging.

In the situation you just described, the GM fudges. I the situation I describe above, the GM "deals with the shortcoming of the rules" by making a new rule and getting it ratified, which isn't fudging. Those are two different things. If I misinterpreted your original comment I apologize.

Yeah and I think that stuff is important when the players announce a desire to try a challenge according to some specific parameters or the game operates under those assumptions. Like "I wanna see if we can beat Tomb of Horrors rules-as-written", etc. This is a borderline case since a lot of...

...and it does to a lot of other people. Those diverging opinions appeared about 20 seconds after D&D was invented. What's interesting is why opinions differ, not the naked fact that they do. Also: If the rules don't cover something, you make a call and then make sure everyone is cool with...

Yes. That's how I do it: It isn't a thing until the players interact with it (even if they don't know they're interacting with it). However, I do know other people who are pretty serious about the world being a work of imagination with its own integrity (in some creative way or for some...

Well there is an important hair to split: If you want something to have the character of a _puzzle_ (this includes actual puzzles as well as encounters and mapping challenges and other complex kinds of multi-step secrets) then it helps to have a thing prepped. It doesn't "have its own reality"...

Since we don't yet know the answer to either of these questions: and ...and the purpose of discussion is to walk away knowing more than you started then, yes, by definition there is some thing worth it to say on the subject that hasn't already been said.

I've never seen xp condition anyone to do anything. Players just do whatever. Once in a while they'll go "Ok, what next?" and someone will go "Well there's gold behind that monster..." but that's about it.

Well right now we're discussing how to play a game. And not even a part of it that touches on anybody calling anyone racist, sexist, or a Kickstarter thief, so probably any kind of animosity is uncalled for. I get that he is implying you're dishonest, Maxperson --which is a serious charge, but...

This is a thing a person can say and believe and can have a conversation about: This is being mean to someone who wants to talk to you about games for no good reason:

Then it's a moot point. As you say: If you want a game that's purely simulatory then they don't need "fail forward" mechanics. If you aren't bound by the simulatory urge then you can just set up scenarios such that you aren't having people roll unless failure would have a consequence. (i.e...

It's not wrong or untrustworthy, it simply creates an experience that many people would prefer not to have. Anyway, can you answer the questions I asked you above?--it would help clarify your position

Unless the players had some way of knowing (and thus relying on) the encounter table in its entirety, I don't consider this fudging because the encounter table's not a "rule". It's a tool--a thing the GM uses for convenience sake that the players are not really basing decisions about tactics on...

So this is the hypothetical: You fudge. I ask "Do you fudge?" You go "You are out of the game for not trusting me" (Even though you do actually fudge.) Is that right? Can you give an example? I can't think of any situation like that which wouldn't require extreme railroading.

Fudging isn't a lie. But if I ask a GM if they fudged and they say they don't, that is a lie. And I'll ask. Never relevant. If a GM fudges, they might fudge any time we play. Please define "breaks" as specifically as you can. In my experience as GM and player for a very long time, I have...

While it is entirely within the realm of possibility that you could hide fudging forever, I have never seen anyone do it. And it would be kind of creepy to be playing every week with someone who lied to you. Incorrect: any fudging in any direction means my decisions matter less. I don't...

Like, the decision to fight a monster ALWAYS includes the realization the monster might roll a 20 and then max damage. By getting into a fight I have made the choice to risk that. Taking away the consequences of my extreme bad luck is taking away my choice to engage that situation. If I don't...

Let me amend this so it's clearer to you: As soon as you are aware the DM will fudge, you know it's less imperative to think, so you think less (the situation is less under your control) and you just wait for the DM to tell you that you won (Or, though this is less common in my experience...