Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zak S" data-source="post: 6807316" data-attributes="member: 90370">Unless the players had some way of knowing (and thus relying on) the encounter table in its entirety, I don't consider this fudging because the encounter table's not a "rule". It's a tool--a thing the GM uses for convenience sake that the players are not really basing decisions about tactics on.Like: where it says how much a longsword does, that's a rule. The table you use to decide which weapons the monsters are carrying that you made or that the module made is not really a rule--it's just a thing you use to help make decisions.Rules are things that need to be relatively stable for tactical and strategic conditions to be legible. A lot of random tables just happen the same mechanical bots as rules (ie dice and numbered lists).If, on the other hand, the players knew there was a lich here and knew they might randomly encounter one at any time, then turning a lich encounter into a non-lich encounter is fudging. Because that was a risk the players chose to take and the consequences of that risk were nullified. Example: Players want to play x legendarily difficult module as written because they want to see if they can beat it.</blockquote>