Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 6124156" data-attributes="member: 3887">Let me answer this by asking another question: what's the relationship between the rules (ie, the formal system mechanics) and the GM?I've always seen the rules as tools to help the GM adjudicate in-game situations. The GM uses them, but isn't necessarily bound by them. A GM can modify the rules, override them, suspend them, add to the body of formal rules used (house rule), put ad-hoc, situational rules in place, etc. Put another way, the GM is the rules. Even when a GM follows the formal rules strictly, each time they assign something like a situational modifier, they're inserting their judgment in the task-resolution process. For that reason, I don't see a lot of difference between giving a player +4 bonus to an action and just assigning by fiat a percentage chance to succeed, ie doing an end-run around the formal rules, when convenient and/or appropriate.That said, I don't really like fudging. I'd prefer to add something to the rules than override a die roll. For example, if a PC fails a save and "dies", I'll give the party 1 round to "do something" to save them. Second chances not explicitly granted by the rules are fine, fudging, not so much.</blockquote>