Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zak S" data-source="post: 6808616" data-attributes="member: 90370">The player decides what is fair by deciding to play the game. Deciding to play D&amp;D without fudging is saying &quot;I think this is fair and these are the odds I want to play by&quot;.Then you have (pretty explicitly) just stated that right now you are more interested in the in-game drama then in the challenge.It's ok to prioritize that, but abolishing some outcomes always means that: you prioritize something else over challenge.Yeah, so that comment wouldn't really be relevant to your concerns.I already said it wouldn't above. However:-They often figure it out. Or otherwise &quot;just get the feeling&quot; this game isn't as hard as their other games-Many will ask.-If they ask and you don't tell them you're being dishonest.-More important than any of this: Know that the reason you're doing it is you're willing to risk sacrificing challenge for some other value.Incorrect, it's house-ruling.Fudging is changing a die rule's result mid-game, but not altering the rules forever after (i.e. not taking &quot;20=crit&quot; out of the rules). House ruling is making a change that you tell the players about that is consistent forever or until the players are informed of (and, in a&nbsp; well-run table, ratify) that change.Totally different thing.We are not discussing what RAW is. Everyone knows that. We are discussing what effects fudging (a thing allowed in the DMG to enable a variety of playstyles that nobody I know uses--like bards) has on the game.Again: outside the scope of the discussion. Hopefully everyone at the table has agreed to every rule or rule change. Including whether the GM will be given discretionary power to fudge at chosen moments.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zak S, post: 6808616, member: 90370"] The player decides what is fair by deciding to play the game. Deciding to play D&D without fudging is saying "I think this is fair and these are the odds I want to play by". Then you have (pretty explicitly) just stated that right now you are more interested in the in-game drama then in the challenge. It's ok to prioritize that, but abolishing some outcomes always means that: you prioritize something else over challenge. Yeah, so that comment wouldn't really be relevant to your concerns. I already said it wouldn't above. However: -They often figure it out. Or otherwise "just get the feeling" this game isn't as hard as their other games -Many will ask. -If they ask and you don't tell them you're being dishonest. -More important than any of this: Know that the reason you're doing it is you're willing to risk sacrificing challenge for some other value. Incorrect, it's house-ruling. Fudging is changing a die rule's result mid-game, but not altering the rules forever after (i.e. not taking "20=crit" out of the rules). House ruling is making a change that you tell the players about that is consistent forever or until the players are informed of (and, in a well-run table, ratify) that change. Totally different thing. We are not discussing what RAW is. Everyone knows that. We are discussing what effects fudging (a thing allowed in the DMG to enable a variety of playstyles that nobody I know uses--like bards) has on the game. Again: outside the scope of the discussion. Hopefully everyone at the table has agreed to every rule or rule change. Including whether the GM will be given discretionary power to fudge at chosen moments. [/QUOTE]

Verification