Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6807846" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I agree, you shouldn't do something secretly that you know others don't want to do. "Please let the dice fall where they may" is not a horrible thing. It's just a thing. Just like folks who prefer to let the DM have the right to fudge should they feel it's necessary. Neither is inherently right or wrong.The problem you are describing is one of consensus. First, as a DM, if the question arises I will happily tell them that there are occasions, as rare as they may be, that I might consider fudging the dice. If the players object, then I certainly don't have to do that, and that's fine. I can roll with that. But what if they players don't come to a consensus. I think majority rules in this situation makes sense, but if it's a two for and two against, then at my table it's likely to swing in the favor of fudging, simply because I'm the deciding vote.If the rest of the table doesn't care, sure. But your assumption is that your objection to not allowing it is not met by somebody else's objection to allow it. Now what, you're at a table where one person objects and says that all dice must be rolled in the open, and somebody else who doesn't want to force that. Sure it's only the DM potentially fudging the dice, but that doesn't mean the rest of the table isn't entitled to a vote. Then it's not easily fixable.What if that objection is by the DM? Why should the say of one player override the DM? Why isn't it "I'm inviting you to come play in my sandbox, and here are the rules"?I'm not saying I wouldn't choose to accommodate that player, but why should it be the default? Shouldn't the other players have a say? How much time should each person have to make their case before a ruling is made and the game can commence?Does it apply for every rule? What if the DM doesn't allow optional rules? No feats. No uncommon races. Does that mean that you're entitled to bring a drow ranger, or a variant human with crossbow expertise simply because you're one player who says "Hey, I don't like this"?Does it apply to every table? If you sat down at Ed Greenwood's, Chris Perkins, Mike Mearls, or Ernie Gygax's table, would you feel entitled to be the deciding vote of one?I'm happy to agree to not fudge, and if I agree to it, I won't. But I've been playing a long time, and I really feel that for certain types of rolls, the players shouldn't see the results. I much prefer that when you are using a lot of skills, such as investigation, perception, deception, persuasion, etc. that you don't see the roll. So I'm not a big fan of all rolls being in the open.If that's what the group wants, then fine, I'll go with it. If it's just a single player, then it's a bit tougher. I don't want to single out somebody, but on the other hand, why am I forced to change my well-established game and methods at the behest of one player? Even if the rest of the group is indifferent?The reality is, if you were to sit at my table, I suspect we might differ in approach in a lot of ways. In which case it might make sense for one or the other to decide that we aren't a good match. I'm always willing to give it a try, but I also think there is no shame in two adults deciding that they are playing two different games and amicably go their own way.I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to get a sense as to what you, or others for that matter, consider fair when a choice like this comes up. I certainly don't agree with the "boot you from my table" approach, but I'm not sure a one-player veto is the answer either.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification