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="Skallgrim" data-source="post: 5110568" data-attributes="member: 79271">I think that it is odd that (at least to my perception), we seem to be talking just about a few things and ignoring others completely.For example, we are continually bringing up protecting the PCs vs. letting them take their lumps. We are continually bringing up "trusting a DM"  vs. being able to objectively verify their rolls.I often roll dice behind a screen, and I fudge a LOT of them.  However, I don't think I've ever fudged one to protect a PC, or to harm one (though that has often been a consequence). A lot of monsters have an attack that is once per encounter.  That attack might even be their "signature attack" (say, the death gaze of a bodak).  If I have one bodak in the encounter, and it misses with its one chance to use that attack, then no one in the party even gets to "see" what it does!  I don't like encounters which don't actually feature the "special effects" of a monster.  Sure, I could rewrite the monster so that the power was Reliable, but I can't see how that is any less of a "fudge" than a die roll would be.On the flip side of the same coin, a monster might have a power which is really effective, and recharges only on a 6.  If the monster sees exactly how effective it's big nasty attack is on turn 1, and can simply repeat it on turn 2 (when it rolls a 6), and then again in turn 3 (when I roll another 6), why in the world wouldn't it just do so?  I don't see how deciding the monster is suddenly totally stupid is any less of a "fudge" than simply saying the power did not recharge.  I'm not saying this is to protect the PCs.  The power in question might simply immobilize them, or Stun them.  What party wants to sit there through 3 turns doing nothing?What I am arguing is that you can fudge to simply make a combat more varied and interesting, rather than just to adjust the difficulty level. If the big bad monster gets stunned in turn 1, and fails to save in turns 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (which is totally in the realms of possibility), then the party might have an easy, but uninteresting fight.  Every group I have ever DMed would much rather have interesting than easy.Also, I still don't see how "fudging the dice" is totally a matter of DM trust, but the DM altering the tactics of the monsters, or the composition of the encounter, to adjust for the players is not.  If the monsters are supposedly existing in this "real fantasy world", then they should be the same whether the group has 4 strikers or a balanced party of 6, or a huge party of 12.  How is it totally OK to adjust the entire world that the PCs encounter, based on the party makeup, and "cheating" to alter a roll occasionally?</blockquote>

Verification