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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 6124183" data-attributes="member: 12460">The most common technique I employed was adding hp to bad guys who otherwise would have been one-shotted by the two uber players, but if the bad guy was simply meant to die, if that was the bad guy's purpose, I let the dice decide the outcome, which was essentially a forgone conclusion. If the bad guy was meant to present a continuing menace, even if only a few sessions, I would add enough HP that it could survive a few attacks so that it could survive to harry the PCs for a while.The second-most common technique I used was soft-balling a roll against the weaker players. I usually designed encounters with multiple aspects. There were bad guys for the uber players to fight and there were puzzles or skill-type challenges for the other players. Sometimes the weaker players would get involved in the fights though, and if that was what they wanted to do, I tried not to punish them. They would have a streak of "good luck," where the bad guys would mostly miss them or suffer minimum damage.The least common method of "dice-massaging" or fudging was when what was supposed to be a particularly challenging encounter wound up being a snooze fest because of poor luck on part of the bad guys. I would either let the PCs kill the bad guys off early by letting the next attack kill them or force them to deal a little damage by fudging a good roll just to wake the players up. I never killed a player or gave them a debilitating disease or anything like that as a result of such actions.90% of the time I followed the rules as written (at least as far as I interpreted things). I feel that's a pretty acceptable rate.I don't consider any of that cheating, unfair, or wrong, especially in a story-centered campaign.</blockquote>

Verification