Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2747870" data-attributes="member: 18280">Swrushing,Whatever you want to do in your game is fine with me.&nbsp; I've defending the rights of DMs to do whatever they want in more threads than I can remember (though I'd happily point you to some).&nbsp; Ultimately, the only thing that matters is the social contract between you and your players.&nbsp; If you're both getting what you want from the game, then that's the reason you're playing, right?One needs to believe that one can eliminate &quot;unacceptable&quot; results if one wishes eliminate the need for fudging.&nbsp; However, if you go back through this thread, I believe that you will discover that it is what results qualify as &quot;unacceptable&quot; that determine whether or not one is pro- or anti-fudging.House rules offer a fix only if your definition of &quot;unacceptable&quot; results is fairly specific.&nbsp; You can house rule any number of specific &quot;unacceptable&quot; results.&nbsp; You cannot house rule to eliminate &quot;unacceptable&quot; results when what is &quot;unacceptable&quot; changes.&nbsp; House rules come up when someone says &quot;I fudge because X is unacceptable&quot; where X can be defined, and can therefore be dealt with without fudging.&nbsp; Which is why I could easily come up with a house rule to fix your lethal crit problem (merely by reordering your statement of the problem, for the most part), and why you found my &quot;solution&quot; to your second problem so unhelpful:&nbsp; the problem itself remains undefined.Fudgers need to fudge either because X is a changing value, or because they don't know what X is, and, yes, I do call that user error.&nbsp; And, no, I am not in tech support.Earlier on, pages and pages back, I said that your game sounded interesting.&nbsp; From your descriptions in this and other threads, you're defininately including elements that I would enjoy in a game.&nbsp; As I said before, &quot;The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact&quot; is a valid house rule.&nbsp; Moreover, I said that if you're honest about your fudging, it isn't cheating.&nbsp; In another thread, which I would be happy to point you to, I even went so far as to say that the DM can do whatever he or she so desires (though he or she is not guaranteed players if he or she does so&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />&nbsp; )&nbsp; So, clearly, what you do in your game is fine with me.&nbsp; Your table, your rules.&nbsp; Why not share the fun, though?&nbsp; Why not allow the house rule that &quot;The players reserve the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact&quot;?RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2747870, member: 18280"] Swrushing, Whatever you want to do in your game is fine with me. I've defending the rights of DMs to do whatever they want in more threads than I can remember (though I'd happily point you to some). Ultimately, the only thing that matters is the social contract between you and your players. If you're both getting what you want from the game, then that's the reason you're playing, right? One needs to believe that one can eliminate "unacceptable" results if one wishes eliminate the need for fudging. However, if you go back through this thread, I believe that you will discover that it is what results qualify as "unacceptable" that determine whether or not one is pro- or anti-fudging. House rules offer a fix only if your definition of "unacceptable" results is fairly specific. You can house rule any number of specific "unacceptable" results. You cannot house rule to eliminate "unacceptable" results when what is "unacceptable" changes. House rules come up when someone says "I fudge because X is unacceptable" where X can be defined, and can therefore be dealt with without fudging. Which is why I could easily come up with a house rule to fix your lethal crit problem (merely by reordering your statement of the problem, for the most part), and why you found my "solution" to your second problem so unhelpful: the problem itself remains undefined. Fudgers need to fudge either because X is a changing value, or because they don't know what X is, and, yes, I do call that user error. And, no, I am not in tech support. Earlier on, pages and pages back, I said that your game sounded interesting. From your descriptions in this and other threads, you're defininately including elements that I would enjoy in a game. As I said before, "The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" is a valid house rule. Moreover, I said that if you're honest about your fudging, it isn't cheating. In another thread, which I would be happy to point you to, I even went so far as to say that the DM can do whatever he or she so desires (though he or she is not guaranteed players if he or she does so :p ) So, clearly, what you do in your game is fine with me. Your table, your rules. Why not share the fun, though? Why not allow the house rule that "The players reserve the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact"? RC [/QUOTE]

Verification