Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Balancing "RP" and "G"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2747063" data-attributes="member: 26473"><p>You can call it pumpkin pie if you like, it doesn't make it one.A question: in the first example, what if the character rolled a 1, failing hugely instead just missing - would you have allowed the character to fall?</p><p></p><p>Judging from this......I'm guessing the answer is no.</p><p></p><p>Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you had no intention of allowing the characters to fail at getting across the chasm no matter what they rolled. In this case, missing by one or missing by twenty would have the same effect: end of journey, back to the elven village or whatever. </p><p></p><p>And that's the part I don't get - miss by a little or a lot, the results are the same. If you're prepared for the adventurers to fail spectacularly, then failing by a narrow margin isn't a big deal, since the outcome is identical. In this case, it doesn't seem like you were prepared for them to fail at all, since that would end the storyline, end the journey, and "suck the life out of the session" - in this case fudging sounds like just an excuse for keeping your plot moving forward.</p><p></p><p>To me that's just poor encounter design and perhaps a whiff of railroading.</p><p></p><p>In the case of the second encounter, you wanted to offer a rip-roaring combat challenge...and you put all your eggs in one monster basket, ignoring the possibility of good tactics and good luck on the part of the players bringing a swift conclusion to the encounter.</p><p></p><p>Had you planned the encounter to include multiple foes from the outset, you'd have a better chance of running a more extended combat session by virtue of the fact that there are more targets to choose from, at the very least. You can also use better tactics of your own with multiple opponents, which adds to the challenge to the players and their characters.</p><p></p><p>Again, this sounds like poor encounter design.</p><p></p><p>Thank you for providing these examples, <strong>DonTadow</strong> - you've reinforced why I think fudging detracts from the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Shaman, post: 2747063, member: 26473"] You can call it pumpkin pie if you like, it doesn't make it one.A question: in the first example, what if the character rolled a 1, failing hugely instead just missing - would you have allowed the character to fall? Judging from this......I'm guessing the answer is no. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you had no intention of allowing the characters to fail at getting across the chasm no matter what they rolled. In this case, missing by one or missing by twenty would have the same effect: end of journey, back to the elven village or whatever. And that's the part I don't get - miss by a little or a lot, the results are the same. If you're prepared for the adventurers to fail spectacularly, then failing by a narrow margin isn't a big deal, since the outcome is identical. In this case, it doesn't seem like you were prepared for them to fail at all, since that would end the storyline, end the journey, and "suck the life out of the session" - in this case fudging sounds like just an excuse for keeping your plot moving forward. To me that's just poor encounter design and perhaps a whiff of railroading. In the case of the second encounter, you wanted to offer a rip-roaring combat challenge...and you put all your eggs in one monster basket, ignoring the possibility of good tactics and good luck on the part of the players bringing a swift conclusion to the encounter. Had you planned the encounter to include multiple foes from the outset, you'd have a better chance of running a more extended combat session by virtue of the fact that there are more targets to choose from, at the very least. You can also use better tactics of your own with multiple opponents, which adds to the challenge to the players and their characters. Again, this sounds like poor encounter design. Thank you for providing these examples, [b]DonTadow[/b] - you've reinforced why I think fudging detracts from the game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Balancing "RP" and "G"
Top