Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you want your DM to fudge?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6809538" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>First, I don't think a bear would assess threat in this manner. A weak human and a strong human are still humans. Regardless, it attacked the character within reach, as is what I would expect of a wild animal. The reason I explained where the concept came from is that it explains the motives I assigned the bear. It wasn't interested in attacking anybody, nor is it defending anything. It just happens to be in the same place at the same time as another creature that it is startled by. It instinctively hits it then runs away. Nothing more.</p><p></p><p>More importantly, I think that making the bear attack only the stronger character not only stronger Plot Armor than a contingency that would only affect the scenario 5% of the time. More troubling to me is that it also feels like favoritism.</p><p></p><p>I have no doubt that certain intelligent creatures will target specific players for different reasons (attack the spell casters!), but when general monsters ignore some characters because they might be too weak and die, so they can attack that ones that won't just sounds wrong to me.</p><p></p><p>I still fail to see the difference between my contingency and many of your suggestions, particularly since many of them change the risk and the challenge. If the bear only attacks the stronger human, who probably won't die, then the risk is not only lessened, but eliminated for the other players. In addition, the challenge is lessened for the players because the likelihood that they will all be available to attack each round is increased. In my scenario, the surprise attack weakens the character, increases the potential challenge, and doesn't rely on logic that I can't swallow, nor favoritism.</p><p></p><p>Beyond even that, my solution is a last resort, and otherwise doesn't change the dynamics at all. Yours inherently does.</p><p></p><p>I certainly don't expect you to change your position, I think it's a reasonable position, and one that works for you and many others. I guess the reason I don't throw out fudging as an option is I still think it's a useful tool occasionally.</p><p></p><p>Maybe it's poor DMing in some people's eyes. Or lazy, or I made a mistake. In this case, though, from an objective standpoint, my option has a lower impact on the encounter. It didn't require any modifications of the rules, the encounter, or the creatures involved, it doesn't alter the challenge, reduces the risk to a very small degree, and only momentarily, and I don't think it would alter the view of most players if they knew that the approach was a simple "I won't allow the first blow to be critical." The only issue (for some) is that it involves potential fudging. </p><p></p><p>I have used most if not all of the ideas you presented as well. Some others options are younger monsters, injured monsters, etc. But none of the other options would serve my intended purpose, and the other options were really unnecessary since all I needed to ensure is that it would not score a critical hit. </p><p></p><p>And before Zak S jumps in here - I did not change the challenge one little bit. The challenge and available actions to the players remained the same. I reduced the risk of the initial blow, and then the risk returned to the default of the game. The challenge remained the same - the chance of detecting the bear, and the chance of killing the bear never changed.</p><p></p><p>Ilbranteloth</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 6809538, member: 6778044"] First, I don't think a bear would assess threat in this manner. A weak human and a strong human are still humans. Regardless, it attacked the character within reach, as is what I would expect of a wild animal. The reason I explained where the concept came from is that it explains the motives I assigned the bear. It wasn't interested in attacking anybody, nor is it defending anything. It just happens to be in the same place at the same time as another creature that it is startled by. It instinctively hits it then runs away. Nothing more. More importantly, I think that making the bear attack only the stronger character not only stronger Plot Armor than a contingency that would only affect the scenario 5% of the time. More troubling to me is that it also feels like favoritism. I have no doubt that certain intelligent creatures will target specific players for different reasons (attack the spell casters!), but when general monsters ignore some characters because they might be too weak and die, so they can attack that ones that won't just sounds wrong to me. I still fail to see the difference between my contingency and many of your suggestions, particularly since many of them change the risk and the challenge. If the bear only attacks the stronger human, who probably won't die, then the risk is not only lessened, but eliminated for the other players. In addition, the challenge is lessened for the players because the likelihood that they will all be available to attack each round is increased. In my scenario, the surprise attack weakens the character, increases the potential challenge, and doesn't rely on logic that I can't swallow, nor favoritism. Beyond even that, my solution is a last resort, and otherwise doesn't change the dynamics at all. Yours inherently does. I certainly don't expect you to change your position, I think it's a reasonable position, and one that works for you and many others. I guess the reason I don't throw out fudging as an option is I still think it's a useful tool occasionally. Maybe it's poor DMing in some people's eyes. Or lazy, or I made a mistake. In this case, though, from an objective standpoint, my option has a lower impact on the encounter. It didn't require any modifications of the rules, the encounter, or the creatures involved, it doesn't alter the challenge, reduces the risk to a very small degree, and only momentarily, and I don't think it would alter the view of most players if they knew that the approach was a simple "I won't allow the first blow to be critical." The only issue (for some) is that it involves potential fudging. I have used most if not all of the ideas you presented as well. Some others options are younger monsters, injured monsters, etc. But none of the other options would serve my intended purpose, and the other options were really unnecessary since all I needed to ensure is that it would not score a critical hit. And before Zak S jumps in here - I did not change the challenge one little bit. The challenge and available actions to the players remained the same. I reduced the risk of the initial blow, and then the risk returned to the default of the game. The challenge remained the same - the chance of detecting the bear, and the chance of killing the bear never changed. Ilbranteloth [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you want your DM to fudge?
Top