Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6813801" data-attributes="member: 97077">For my part, that is correct.Right.Not in my view.I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean to set the DC below the lowest a player could roll? If so, I wonder why the DM decided the outcome was uncertain in the first place. Otherwise it sounds just like setting a DC normally - pick a difficulty based on assessing the situation. (I may not be reading this right. I've been over it several times and it isn't clicking.)I'd stop short of calling it fudging, but I don't play this way. I set success and failure conditions and roll to decide between the two.That's definitely fudging in my view.It might just be another action that is is undertaken an adjudicated, but the success or failure conditions of the first ability check should definitely come into play as it has already been resolved in my view. I don't see this sort of thing in play though. Once goal and approach is clear, I announce stakes, then the player rolls and I narrate results. No reversies, no backsies.My definition of fudging is pretty clear in general - choose to engage the rules/dice to get a result, then change/ignore the result. But in the case of the DM knowing going soft tactically to prevent a particular outcome, this dips a toe into fudging in my view because ultimately it goes back to the DM not being okay with the stakes. This is the underlying issue with any kind of fudging and why I have mentioned several times that thinking about and learning how to set the stakes at the outset of a challenge is a great skill to have (for more reasons than just avoiding the need to fudge).</blockquote>

Verification