Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8610787" data-attributes="member: 22779">No, fudging means choosing a result based on what the fudging person wants, rather than because the mechanics say so.So, fighter runs up to the opponent and attacks.&nbsp; Next, the wizard asks if he can cast fireball so it hits two opponents but not the fighter.&nbsp; In TotM, that answer has as much to do with whatever the DM feels like at the time rather than anything remotely associated with mechanics.&nbsp; Since TotM play means that no one has any real idea, other than in the broadest sense - melee range, ranged attack range is about it - the answer is pretty much whatever the DM feels like making up at the time.Thus, fudging.&nbsp; The DM decides that the fireball will hit the ally, not because there's any actual evidence that it will, but, because the DM wants to increase the difficulty of the challenge and doesn't want the wizard to end the fight just yet.&nbsp; Or, maybe the DM just wants to get on with this fight because it's not really all that important, so, he decides, sure, why not?&nbsp; The wizard can hit the two targets without hitting the fighter.IOW, the answer to &quot;Will this fireball hit my ally&quot; is largely dependent on factors that have nothing to do with in game fiction or simulation or anything like that and everything to do with what the DM feels like at the time.&nbsp; After all, in exactly the same set up next session, it could easily go the other way.&nbsp; Note, at no point does the DM TELL the players about this.&nbsp; The decision making process is kept entirely secret, thus satisfying your definition for fudging, chooses to ignore the mechanics (not using any sort of representation to clarify the battle) and hinges entirely on the DM choosing an answer based on what the DM wants at the time.&nbsp; So, no, I'm not devaluing the use of the term.&nbsp; I'm applying your term pretty much exactly as you defined it.&nbsp; The only part missing is maybe using a mechanic and choosing a different non-mechanical outcome.&nbsp; But, since we've already in very vague territory with very little mechanical heft anyway simply by choosing TotM, a little variance is understandable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8610787, member: 22779"] No, fudging means choosing a result based on what the fudging person wants, rather than because the mechanics say so. So, fighter runs up to the opponent and attacks. Next, the wizard asks if he can cast fireball so it hits two opponents but not the fighter. In TotM, that answer has as much to do with whatever the DM feels like at the time rather than anything remotely associated with mechanics. Since TotM play means that no one has any real idea, other than in the broadest sense - melee range, ranged attack range is about it - the answer is pretty much whatever the DM feels like making up at the time. Thus, fudging. The DM decides that the fireball will hit the ally, not because there's any actual evidence that it will, but, because the DM wants to increase the difficulty of the challenge and doesn't want the wizard to end the fight just yet. Or, maybe the DM just wants to get on with this fight because it's not really all that important, so, he decides, sure, why not? The wizard can hit the two targets without hitting the fighter. IOW, the answer to "Will this fireball hit my ally" is largely dependent on factors that have nothing to do with in game fiction or simulation or anything like that and everything to do with what the DM feels like at the time. After all, in exactly the same set up next session, it could easily go the other way. Note, at no point does the DM TELL the players about this. The decision making process is kept entirely secret, thus satisfying your definition for fudging, chooses to ignore the mechanics (not using any sort of representation to clarify the battle) and hinges entirely on the DM choosing an answer based on what the DM wants at the time. So, no, I'm not devaluing the use of the term. I'm applying your term pretty much exactly as you defined it. The only part missing is maybe using a mechanic and choosing a different non-mechanical outcome. But, since we've already in very vague territory with very little mechanical heft anyway simply by choosing TotM, a little variance is understandable. [/QUOTE]

Verification