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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 7540616" data-attributes="member: 1288">This whole side-tangent is the meta-level out-of-game equivalent to "white room" mechanical balance discussions. It completely omits something so vital as to be an exercise in futility: specifically, the individual group.People argue over whether it's better "for the game" or "for the players" to fudge or not to fudge, without ever considering context. Some of us have DMed for (roughly) the same group of people long enough to know whether a particular random event is going to make things more or less fun for our players, and decide accordingly. No, we're not flawless--we're not mind-readers--but we're right more often than not.Similarly, even with complete strangers, sometimes there are circumstances where we might have reason to think fudging is a good idea, even if we normally wouldn't, or vice-versa. For instance, if some bizarre combo of bad luck, critical hits, and failed saves is going to kill a character in the first half hour of a three-hour convention game, I think the DM's well within their rights to tweak things a little, as long as they can do it subtly.The "fudge regularly" contingent and the "never fudge" contingent are both going to be wrong for some groups. They are, ultimately, arguing personal preference as though it were a universal solution, and it frankly gets ridiculous seeing people tell DMs they don't play with what's wrong for that DM's table.</blockquote>

Verification