NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7570052" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, I wouldn't find it productive or sensible to fudge dice. If I am 'playing to see what happens', then why would I force an outcome? If I'm playing as an advocate of the player's having fun and engaging their avowed interests, then there's no sense in which I am concerned if they fail or succeed, all outcomes will produce fun.TBH, I personally feel that playing in a fairly 'story now' kind of way is actually most likely to result in a GM both framing scenes and resolving them in a logical, plausible and coherent way. My long experience indicates that in a more traditional classic D&D-esque structure it is quite likely the DM will go through all sorts of contortions at some point. Things like illusionism will arise (@Sadras fudging, which produces the illusion of choice, but not the substance), or hard railroading techniques may be employed (no, the tea house has no sect in it because the adventure is structured so that the sect is met at location X and it cannot accommodate the players attempting to change that). This is where 'no myth' arose, to deal with that ramp down into the morass. These can all be classified as 'bad GM, bad game', but there IS a genuine desire in the circles of game designers to make games which reliably return better play experiences for more players. We can argue about success, but clearly even WotC felt this in the design of both 4e and 5e (and maybe 3.5 too, its harder to say).</blockquote>

Verification