Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6510467" data-attributes="member: 177">Because maybe they are good at the other parts of GMing, and they and their group don't really mind the occasional fudge.  Remember, if everyone's having a good time at their table, that is all that matters.  Failing to meet your concept of what is proper or good for everyone isn't a real issue. As one possible example, yes.  But, that choice was not necessarily governed by a rule that can be changed.  Many games don't have a concept of rules for such.  The guidelines D&D gives in various editions are all flawed, and nobody, including the designers, have been able to make them universally "fixed"For two reasons:  I only need a couple to prove the point that reasons exist.  That's all I was aiming to do.Not in practice, no.  Yes, they are disincentivized if they figure out when and how they can rely on it happening.  But rare, unpredictable fudging doesn't have that result.Again, that's not what happens in practice at the appropriate table.  If the players are not really terribly stuck on the idea of challenging themselves against an objective ruleset, they wind up not caring.Again (and perhaps the last time) no.  If you cannot predict, then you still have to try.  You can only slack off trying when you know the fudge is coming - do it any other time and you hose yourself.  That certainly isn't how you worded it before.  As I said already - because the given ruleset may present appropriate results the overwhelming majority of the time on its own.  Many feel you don't need to change to an different ruleset for an edge case here or there.</blockquote>

Verification