Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6808767" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I'll start with the end because I think it's spot on. In most cases I'd agree that it's usually a failure on my part. That doesn't mean that I always have to let the players in on that secret. It's rare that I have to fudge, but it's not uncommon to spot a mistake I've made that might have raised that possibility. So I try to learn from those to eliminate that possibility from occurring again. I have also developed house rules specifically from situations like these, so they won't occur again.As I've said, I provide a booklet with house-rules, indications of which rules I don't use, and I'll make sure that it's clear that I might fudge, but only in extreme circumstances, and if I feel it's necessary it will be in the party's favor. If we're at the table I probably won't spend a whole lot of time going over things like this, it needs to happen before that and not cut into other player's time.But sometimes it's not a fault of the rules. I have fairly steep house-rules for near-death, because I've removed most of the instant death options. Death from massive damage? You fail your first two death saves. Disintegration? You fail the first two and must make an immediate death save on the spot. But I also make raising from the dead very rare. So the penalties are significant, and last for days (at least 3, depending on how you roll each day). In the example I gave with the bear attack, it was drawn from real life. But even a single hit from a bear could kill a first level character, and especially a critical. Even without my house rules, with simple death on the table, the RAW don't provide a way to prevent that possibility. The bear surprised the character (great), it made it's attack (by design) and then ran away (as planned). It was designed to show a 1st level character that even a bear could be deadly. But I had no interest in the character actually being killed. There was no mistake on my part, no design flaw in the game, just a scenario that I wanted to use to make a point. The fact that it played out the way it did was a bonus.I don't see anything wrong with fudging a die roll in the event of a critical, because it was best for the game. Not the story, just because there was no point in having to determine what to do with that player at that point in time. Even within the story, the remaining players had the usual options, return with the body, take the body, etc. But from the gaming standpoint we would have had to figure out what that player would do in the meantime. It just wasn't necessary.In addition, your list of potential fixes, some easier to implement than others, are also more permanent. A fudged die roll is usually an isolated incident. Something to deal with a very specific situation, for whatever reason. It doesn't need an overarching fix, nor do we need to start trying to have a rule for every possible circumstance as 3.5/Pathfinder/4th edition was seemingly inclined to do. It's just a brief moment in time, whether by mistake or not, to say - no, I don't accept that right now.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification