Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9511282" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree with [USER=7032863]@gorice[/USER] that it helps to be clear about the purpose of various dice rolls.Some dice rolls are just shortcuts or guidelines for content generation - eg some rolls for treasure. Assuming that the treasure tables are properly designed, they should be a reasonable guide to balancing treasure placement. But departing from them, while still having regard to their implicit precepts, should do no harm.Some dice rolls are content generation but also a consequence mechanism - in classic D&D, this is true of wandering monsters, so fudging these is trickier. Gygax has a discussion in the opening pages of his DMG of when it might be OK to fudge a wandering monster roll; what the discussion reveals is that there is a mismatch between the game mechanics and the game as played, resulting from three things: (i) wandering monsters are primarily on a time clock; (ii) mostly, the use of time in dungeon exploration is the expenditure of a resource; (iii) sometimes, and despite (ii), the use of time in dungeon exploration is just a by-product of "simulation" and has no actual game play significance. (i) and (ii) are tightly related - be careless with your resource (time), and you will suffer an adverse consequence (wandering monsters). But when (iii) arises, then its connection to (i) causes a problem, because a party can suffer a consequence (ie wandering monsters) even though they haven't yet made any significant play decisions (in Gygax's example, they are just moving through the explored parts of the dungeon to the target destination for their expedition).The real solution to Gygax's problem is to change (i), so that it doesn't apply in (iii)-type scenarios. But given that that is not a trivial design exercise, the fudging "solution" is understandable, provided the GM understands the principles that should govern its application. (And Gygax tries hard to spell them out.)Some dice rolls are action resolution. Gygax is adamant, in the same opening pages of his DMG, that these should not be messed with; and even in his later discussion of fudging, he gives as an example in the context of action resolution the effects of being reduced to zero hp, and gives the GM licence to treat that as something other than death (but still hors de combat), again subject to appropriate principles.If the impetus to mercy that Gygax points to is coming up at all often, then that suggests it's time to change the rules! If the action resolution rules regularly fail to provide the desired action, that's a problem.Right.From WotC's perspective, though, they have a strong interest in maintaining, at least in general terms, a consistent set of game mechanics, even where those cease to be suitable for the sort of game their customers are playing. This was true back in the AD&D 2nd ed days and hasn't changed.I agree fully with the second quoted paragraph. The first arises because of the second: and so, in a game that is designed without legacy baggage, and that takeg full advantage of the growth in technical understanding of RPG design over the past 50 years, there should not be the sort of tension between outcomes the mechanics deliver and the mission statement that tends to arise for D&D.</blockquote>

Verification