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="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5110708" data-attributes="member: 2011">Yes, but by fudging, you are protecting or harming the PCs and dictating the results of the encounter by definition.In this case, in the name of "interesting".Some people justify their lack of DM impartiality in the name of fun, or the name of interesting, or the name of fairness, or in the name of the continuation of the campaign.It's one thing to create an interesting balanced encounter for the group that you have. Typically, the DM should limit this to number of PCs, but there is often a need to not introduce certain types of encounters if the PCs are lacking certain roles or abilities. It's hard to overcome flying monsters if nobody has a ranged attack.It's something else to fudge the game on the fly in an attempt to make it more interesting.Take your death gaze example. 5 PCs lose a healing surge because the DM decided that it would be cool <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> to force a PC to 0 hit points.The thing I don't like about fudging is that DMs are not omniscient. When the DM is impartial (or at least tries to be impartial), then unexpected events can more likely occur such as 3 PCs out of 5 are unconscious. What do the other 2 do to save the day? That is a lot more interesting to me as a player than seeing a PC knocked to zero so that the DM could show off death gaze.Opps, sorry. The DM didn't allow multiple PCs to go unconscious. So, the players are not in an interesting situation where they have to pull a miracle out of their butts.Or alternatively, the PCs kick major butt and win in style without the DM slowing that down. For example, a few weeks back, our group killed the BBEG Lich in an n+4 encounter in 2 rounds and the rest of the encounter foes in 2 more rounds, it was a major encounter and the end of a major adventure and quest. On paper, it should have easily lasted 8 or more rounds (based on number of hit points to take out foes) and been seriously challenging, but it was done in 4 rounds due to luck (multiple crits) and tactics. That was fun and interesting for them, but it wouldn't happen in a fudged game. They walked out of that encounter high fiving. The DM might think "oh, all my hard work wasted". The players thought "what a great fight, we kicked some serious Lich tail".By railroading the game with a lot of on the fly adjustments, the DM dictates more than just the scenario, he dictates the results of the scenario. Maybe without even realizing it. By making it harder (regardless of motive like making it interesting), he forces the PCs to use up more resources. By making it easier, he allows the PCs to use up fewer resources. There is a difference between having a heavy influence on the creation of a scenario, and having a heavy influence on the results of a scenario.By fudging, DMs insert themselves into the results of the scenario. They should only do that to the level at which the monsters have capabilities and intelligence. Not more, not less.</blockquote>

Verification