Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2748093" data-attributes="member: 18280">Yet, nonetheless, it does.&nbsp; Success is always my desire, with any given roll, but success is not satisfying merely for its own sake.&nbsp; Making the attempt, when there is a significant chance of failure, and succeeding anyway, is thrilling.&nbsp; For that matter, failing spectacularly can be pretty fun too.&nbsp; I have had a PC murdered by other party members in a game where I believed that, absolutely, they had done the right thing (and I told them so).&nbsp; I have had a PC (2nd Ed swashbuckler) make it through horrible traps by sheer innovation and a lot of lucky rolls only to be killed by a monster when he managed to swim out of the water outlet.&nbsp; It was terribly fun.Earlier, when we were talking about letting players decide when to fudge, you said that you see a sharp difference between the perspective and roles of DMs and players (my paraphrasing).&nbsp; Well, part of the &quot;implied contract&quot; I believe exists in RPGs includes that there is a difference as well between the role of DM and dice.&nbsp; In other words, once the dice are rolled, they are rolled.&nbsp; You may have in-game means of modifying this even after the roll (swashbuckling cards, action points, house rule to allow DM shifting target numbers), but if the means is in-game, then perhaps it is not what is meant by &quot;fudging&quot;.In other words, when you told your players you might change the outcome of die rolls in some circumstances, you gave yourself an effective house rule allowing (presumably limited by style and player preference) abilities to countermand the dice in game.&nbsp; Effectively, once you have a house rule in place, no matter what that house rule is, if you and your players are happy with it, it cannot be considered either &quot;cheating&quot; or &quot;bad DMing&quot;....or even &quot;poor encounter design&quot; since you are now designing encounters with your complete ruleset (RAW plus house rules, implied or explicit) in mind.A fine slice, indeed.&nbsp; However, it is a slice that is firmly conveyed by the rules.To me, this strongly implies that the result is compared to a target number that exists beforehand.&nbsp; Otherwise, there is no point to comparing the result to a target number.&nbsp; Instead, it should read&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Roll a d20.&nbsp; &nbsp; * Add any relevant modifiers.&nbsp; &nbsp; * That is now the target number.Instead, the rules clearly show that you add relevant modifiers prior to comparing the result to the target number.&nbsp; There is no mechanic in the RAW that says&nbsp; &nbsp; * Roll a d20.&nbsp; &nbsp; * Add any relevant modifiers.&nbsp; &nbsp; * Compare the result to a target number.&nbsp; &nbsp; * Add any additional modifiers you might desire.&nbsp; &nbsp; * Compare the result to a target number again.&nbsp; &nbsp; * Continue until you get the result you desire.The only definition I could find for fudging was as follows.&nbsp; Admittedly, my google-fu may be off this morning.&nbsp;v 1: fake or falsify; &quot;Fudge the figures&quot;; &quot;cook the books&quot;;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;falsify the data&quot; [syn: manipulate, fake, falsify,&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; cook, wangle, misrepresent]&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 2: avoid or try to avoid, as of duties, questions and issues;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;He dodged the issue&quot; [syn: hedge, evade, put off, circumvent,&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; parry, elude, skirt, dodge, duck, sidestep]Again, if you and your players are happy, and you are upfront about it, I read this as a case of rules changing rather than fudging in a prejorative sense.&nbsp; It is not, however, within the scope of the rules as written (as some have tried to imply, and you have wisely not), nor is it the type of game which I would enjoy playing in.It's unfortunate that we have a room full of DMs here.&nbsp; I would be interested in the opinions of players as well, particularly those players who have been RPGing for a while and are not often called upon the DM.&nbsp; Any of you lurking?&nbsp; What do you think?RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2748093, member: 18280"] Yet, nonetheless, it does. Success is always my desire, with any given roll, but success is not satisfying merely for its own sake. Making the attempt, when there is a significant chance of failure, and succeeding anyway, is thrilling. For that matter, failing spectacularly can be pretty fun too. I have had a PC murdered by other party members in a game where I believed that, absolutely, they had done the right thing (and I told them so). I have had a PC (2nd Ed swashbuckler) make it through horrible traps by sheer innovation and a lot of lucky rolls only to be killed by a monster when he managed to swim out of the water outlet. It was terribly fun. Earlier, when we were talking about letting players decide when to fudge, you said that you see a sharp difference between the perspective and roles of DMs and players (my paraphrasing). Well, part of the "implied contract" I believe exists in RPGs includes that there is a difference as well between the role of DM and dice. In other words, once the dice are rolled, they are rolled. You may have in-game means of modifying this even after the roll (swashbuckling cards, action points, house rule to allow DM shifting target numbers), but if the means is [I]in-game[/I], then perhaps it is not what is meant by "fudging". In other words, when you told your players you might change the outcome of die rolls in some circumstances, you gave yourself an effective house rule allowing (presumably limited by style and player preference) abilities to countermand the dice [I]in game[/I]. Effectively, once you have a house rule in place, no matter what that house rule is, if you and your players are happy with it, it cannot be considered either "cheating" or "bad DMing"....or even "poor encounter design" since you are now designing encounters with your complete ruleset (RAW plus house rules, implied or explicit) in mind. A fine slice, indeed. However, it is a slice that is firmly conveyed by the rules. To me, this strongly implies that the result is compared to a target number that exists beforehand. Otherwise, there is no point to comparing the result to a target number. Instead, it should read * Roll a d20. * Add any relevant modifiers. * That is now the target number. Instead, the rules clearly show that you add relevant modifiers prior to comparing the result to the target number. There is no mechanic in the RAW that says * Roll a d20. * Add any relevant modifiers. * Compare the result to a target number. * Add any additional modifiers you might desire. * Compare the result to a target number again. * Continue until you get the result you desire. The only definition I could find for fudging was as follows. Admittedly, my google-fu may be off this morning. v 1: fake or falsify; "Fudge the figures"; "cook the books"; "falsify the data" [syn: manipulate, fake, falsify, cook, wangle, misrepresent] 2: avoid or try to avoid, as of duties, questions and issues; "He dodged the issue" [syn: hedge, evade, put off, circumvent, parry, elude, skirt, dodge, duck, sidestep] Again, if you and your players are happy, and you are upfront about it, I read this as a case of rules changing rather than fudging in a prejorative sense. It is not, however, within the scope of the rules as written (as some have tried to imply, and you have wisely not), nor is it the type of game which I would enjoy playing in. It's unfortunate that we have a room full of DMs here. I would be interested in the opinions of players as well, particularly those players who have been RPGing for a while and are not often called upon the DM. Any of you lurking? What do you think? RC [/QUOTE]

Verification