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: 6809013" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Why isn't deciding ahead of time that the bear cannot score a critical any different than deciding the bear deals subdued damage? I don't use subdual damage, and even if I did I wouldn't expect a wild animal to 'pull their punches' and not deal actual damage.How is having the bear not attack the first player that wasn't weak not taking away player agency? How is that not worse than deciding that a single blow cannot cause a critical, then see where things go from there? The world is full of dangerous things. Some known and placed by me, and some unknown and random. If I were to prevent them from wandering into the territory of a monster too dangerous for them, it would be railroading. If I were to make random encounter tables by level, and they were to travel the same area for a period of time and they'd encounter increasingly dangerous creatures as they did, it would be inconsistent and unrealistic.Again, how is altering the structure of the world to protect the characters better than changing a single blow?According to the rules, my suite of tools includes fudging. And as others have pointed out, once the dice are rolled, it's the only tool that doesn't break immersion in the game and keep things moving forward, if it's done properly.All of the suggestions you have presented occur prior to the event, and that's exactly what I did by determining before we started that the bear could not score a critical on the initial hit. I don't hide that I may fudge. I have already stated that I will not fudge if the players have expressed their dislike of it, and that I would be more clear that it is a tool that I have/may use with new players. Although that will still be dependent upon what they table decides, not one person. I have no problem not fudging for a single person, even in the event that the rest of the table has approved it. Although I probably wouldn't fudge regardless, because that presents other potential problems.I also don't consider this deception any different than the periodic dummy roll so they players are on their toes, and don't really know whether they just didn't perceive a threat hiding nearby, or that there really isn't anybody there. Deception is one of the DM's tools in many ways, fudging just extends that deception to an occasional die roll. The fact that the players don't always know the modifiers or the DC to a roll means that their rolls may not be as good as they think, although again, I would not consider extending fudging to modify a player's roll.Actually, since I think fudging is really something to be reserved for those situations when the consequences of the dice are, for lack of a better term, 'unfair' I don't think this is true. The players are never given a false choice, or removing the impact their actions have. It is reducing the risk, not the challenge or options, and that reduction is momentary and doesn't remove the risk from future events, even immediately following. It is extremely rare that characters choose death, and were it evident that a character was specifically choosing death (sacrificing themselves) then I would not fudge. They know that I might fudge, but they'll never know that I rolled a 20 instead of 19.In the example with the bear, the challenge (and potential choice) was to detect that the bear was there (failed), and then to avoid being attacked by/kill the bear among others. As it turned out, the didn't detect the bear, the bear made its surprise attack (which I had determined could not be critical), and ran away. Any actions taken by the players after that were entirely in play. They could ignore it, chase it, fire missile weapons at it, spells, etc. If that put them in position where one of them would potentially die, so be it. The fact that the players didn't know that I had removed the option of a critical (or that the bear had a 13 or less Strength, or dealt only subdual damage, or whatever other decision I decided ahead of time as acceptable) is irrelevant from the perspective of the characters, and the players if they've already indicated it's OK to fudge.The only real difference is that my choice was a contingency plan. I will opt not to allow a critical if the bear rolls a natural 20. Your suggestions, such as a smaller/weaker bear, or subdual damage, changes the challenge of the encounter, and fundamentally changes the encounter itself.I chose a course of action that would come into play only 5% of the time in that particular encounter. Your options modified the encounter 100% of the time. That's a calculated risk on my part. That I might actually roll a 20, in which case I'd have to side-step the critical hit rules. LOL. My current home campaign started this way, although I do instruct my players that we'll purchase equipment, etc. in game. The players thought it was one of the best starts to a campaign that they'd had.Although your two statements are quite different. The scenario is player agnostic. It has nothing to do with the players/characters doing something that the DM doesn't want them to. It's unfortunate that the players didn't know the situation before hand, but that's different than the DM taking away a choice if the players choose something the DM doesn't want.More importantly. My example, and my use of fudging, is entirely based on a slim chance that a consequence greater than what I consider appropriate happens. Sure I could modify things in many different ways to prevent the possibility from even being there, but that ultimately reduces the risk and the challenge for the players, and I think is more detrimental than changing one roll. In the event that I had to change that roll, my description of the hit would be quite different too. They would know that they 'narrowly escaped' a near deadly blow, and they would know that they just took a large amount of damage as well. They are able to assess the situation clearly and honestly knowing that another blow like that could be deadly, and that it could happen in the next few seconds. I am not removing any choices from the players, and if they continue with the same course of action, then the consequences are not altered either. More importantly, it is not altering the scenario as a whole. Before the encounter started there was a possibility that they could suffer damage if they engaged in combat (by direct choice or otherwise), and that the combat could turn deadly. That hasn't changed. The only thing that changed was a single potentially killing blow, and that won't be prevented again should they continue.Even if the attack had been reduced to nothing - "As you leaned into the woods to get a better look, you hear a snap and feel a powerful glancing blow that might have been deadly had it connected. You turn and find yourself face-to-fur with the back of a large bear that is turning and running into the forest"None of this materially changes the encounter, nor reduces the choices of the players, nor takes away player agency, and it doesn't really even change their view of the world or what's dangerous. I suppose I could have done that without even rolling an attack, but I think that would bother people more, because it would remove 100% of the uncertainty instead of just 5%.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification