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: 6808775" data-attributes="member: 6778044">So this is interesting. It implies that when you don't think the DM is fudging (or you know it if all rolls are in the open, although that's not a guarantee that they aren't altering something like hit points behind the screen), you take fewer risks than when you think they are fudging. I fudge infrequently enough that I don't really think people figure it out, but assuming they do it would be a very risky proposition to test it. My fudge threshold ends when the players are responsible for their own death through poor decisions. I also don't really get the 'why bother?' attitude. I guess if the DM was fudging so much that it removed risk altogether. But that's really more of an issue of a poor DM altogether, and the excessive use of fudging is perhaps what made it memorable?But maybe that's just my assessment of when I feel it's appropriate. In the examples I've given, the bear attack was there to make a point and set the level of challenge. So I would have fudged if necessary because it was completely unnecessary to kill a character just for that. But the party's decision to engage the ettins directly, and in their lair? You're on your own there. There was even an NPC that could give them a run-down as to what was going on and give them assistance. Instead they decided that the person across the ravine must be an enemy, or at least competition, and we're taking the ettins out.Don't get me wrong. By no stretch of the imagination do I think I'm a spectacular DM. I hope I'm pretty good, and the players seem to like it. So that's what I have to go by. But based on what I'm reading here and elsewhere there certainly seem to be some really bad experiences.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification