NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6808706" data-attributes="member: 6778044">OK, fine - we, as in you and I, or you and whomever you are responding to, are talking about whether fudging leads to players thinking less in challenge-terms. I agree and disagree. Regardless of whether I fudge rolls or not, the players are challenged. They are unsure as to whether the actions they take will succeed or fail, and by how much. Failure can include such horrific things as death. You personally might think that you would encounter less of a challenge in my games than other games that don't use fudging. That I might arbitrarily decide that a specific, isolated dice roll is inappropriate at the time does not diminish the challenges that the PC's face. They have to work, and think, and also hope that the dice gods are kind to them or they suffer significant consequences, up to and including death. They still have the primary impact upon the story, with perhaps a little nudge away from something that I object to. Not towards something, but away from something. Perhaps you have to think harder - am I on my own, or is something helping me? Frankly, if the players ever got to the point that they thought I was helping them, then it would be too far. Turning an instant death into unconscious, for example, doesn't lessen the situation much. In my campaign you are suffering from at least one level of exhaustion following a near death experience, perhaps other more serious effects, and you still have to deal with the challenges at hand.Not to mention, a random dice roll does not present a challenge at all. The first encounter in my last session was an attack against a 1st level PC by a bear. He didn't notice the bear, and got clobbered. The entire point of the encounter, since these were new people in my campaign, is that it's a challenging world. I wouldn't expect most people, even armed with a sword, to willingly attack a bear or tiger in melee combat, for example. In D&D they are often viewed as simply weak monsters. There's a monster, I attack it.If the bear had rolled a critical, I would have ignored it. Why? Because I had no interest in killing a character in the first encounter after those characters had come together and decided upon their course together. It would have been disruptive and entirely unnecessary. On the other hand, the player (who had gone through and witnessed several mock combats with wooden swords immediately prior) didn't expect things to be so deadly or challenging (they had gotten lucky in the initial encounters). That single hit, with a potential fudge or not, was more than enough to set the stage for a challenging, dangerous, and exciting adventure.OK, so I did it for story. Or because I was too lazy to start a new character. The truth is, the campaign is designed for public play and the expectation that different players will be present each week. So easy drop-in/drop-out, and each player rolled 3 characters. But he wanted to play this one, and I had no reason to start off with a killing blow. The player's perception (as explicitly stated) - this is a much more challenging campaign than the other ones I've played. And that was evident in the care and strategies that the players are using going forward.The problem with a discussion as narrow as you would like to define it, is that this is then only a discussion about the players' perception, and the only people that can provide an answer are those players at that specific table. I don't presume to speak for you or anybody else. I can tell you that the players I've DM'd over the years have not complained about whether or not I fudge, and in the vast majority of cases have never even asked. I can tell you that they have asked and complained about many, many other things. I can tell you that they have often thought that my campaigns are much more challenging than others they have played, and they have told me that. So if this is what we are talking about, then I'd say that we have reached the extent of the discussion. You feel that it is less of a challenge when the DM fudges, presumably even once. I'm sure you know other people who agree with you. I expect that people in my campaigns won't care, past and present. We tend to gravitate toward people who like the same things we do. Despite playing for as long as I have, and with as many people I have, my actual experiences are still very limited in scope.So all I'm prepared to agree with is that some players will think that playing with a DM is less of a challenge, and others won't. Discussion complete.Does that mean the thread is over? I suspect not.IlbrantelothPS - and don't get me wrong, I like your posts and you have good insights. But neither you or I have the power to limit the scope of the discussion, outside of choosing what we respond to. My responses are not always limited to what one person has stated. You like to know that the results of the dice will not be tampered with. I'm OK with that, although I personally prefer a little more leeway, and also grant that leeway to other DM's running games that I participate in as a player (which isn't often).</blockquote>

Verification