You also might wish to give
them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a
complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining.
You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a
particular course of events that you would like to have occur.
I wonder how many players would react well to their character losing an arm solely on 'GM fiat.'What I find interesting is that to me Gygax seems to be primarily justifying fiat and mild deception, while allowing that the GM has the right (though not necessarily the justification) to fudge. The specify example cited of turning an insta-kill into a maiming that is not defined under the rules is an example of arbitration, not fudging at all.
There can often be value in making something planned appear to be random. You can put it to use when you want the PCs to pick up a clue that's important to the game, but you don't want the importance to be immediately obvious. I've done that before to allow the players to figure out its importance without shoving it in their faces.seems to be saying, "Just because you are rolling the die does not mean you are obeying it." I kind of agree, although I prefer to be upfront about when I am defining certain outcomes. I think there is an important distinction betwen the intention with which you throw the die, versus your willingess to live with a rolled result when it is no longe probable but actual.
I haven't seen anything that suggests to me that he thought changing a die roll, based on the outcome, was a generally good idea or even something he considered or endorsed.
There can often be value in making something planned appear to be random. You can put it to use when you want the PCs to pick up a clue that's important to the game, but you don't want the importance to be immediately obvious. I've done that before to allow the players to figure out its importance without shoving it in their faces.
For instance, I've done it when using a good old-fashioned "rumours you hear in town" dealy. I roll randomly for X number of rumours the PCs hear. One or two of them, of course, are not actually random - roll the die and ignore the result, so the players don't realize that this one is the important one. Some might call that dishonest, but I've used it to good effect before.
I wonder how many players would react well to their character losing an arm solely on 'GM fiat.'
I can see the, "My GM is an arseface!" thread already.
Maybe, but that's not what fudging is.Knights of the Old Republic is just as good of a game if, occasionally, one has to reboot after a failed battle.
Perhaps not, but D&D is not a computer game, and the DM is not a microprocessor.Maybe, but that's not what fudging is.
Would Knights of the Old Republic be "just as good of a game" if, when the game engine has otherwise determined that you're about to die, the bad guy whiffs, and you know (or suspect) that the outcome was changed?