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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7753943" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Yes, they are different. But the point is that if a rule allows fudging, then fudging is not cheating. It's simply a rule that states, "use the dice as a tool to help adjudicate resolutions. Most of the time the dice are the right answer, and most of the times you use them, the results of the dice are the right answer too." And it's not that these rules are "supposedly followed." The rule essentially states that most (perhaps 90%+) of the time the die roll is what is used. But there are times when it's not. It could be 99%, it could be a lot less. Note that no matter what, it also has to make sense within the fiction, at least in my game. That is, there should be consequences.So the rule to allow fudging is important, even if it is a house rule.Probably the most common circumstance for fudging is the unexpected roll that would result in the death of a character. This is also a specific situation that Gary called out. My take on that passage has always been simple: the game isn't designed to provide a rule for every possible outcome. In AD&D, you were either dead or not. No maiming, no list of possible alternatives to death when you're dead. Here Gary is specifically pointing out that there are alternatives. And the DM has the right to alter that result from death to something else. The recommendation is that there should be consequences. And I personally think that's the major precept he's talking about. It's not about how sacred the die rolls are. It's about the consequences of their actions, and if the normally prescribed consequence (death) isn't appropriate, then substitute a similar severe consequence. Consequences are important, but they don't always have to be the same consequences.This goes along with another major precept that grew into the golden rule; that the DM is the arbitrator, the referee, and adjudicator. That they are empowered to take into account the circumstances, and this isn't only about the in-game circumstances. In his commentary on overruling character death he specifically calls out, "It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well."Something that I will point out again, though, is that it's the table that must agree on the rule. Whether the rule is in play or not should not be a secret. Whether the situations where it is engaged are secret is up to the group. I have players that really just don't want to know about anything that goes on behind the screen. All they want is for things to play out in an enjoyable way for them. Other players are DMs and they want to know more about what I'm doing. I'm happy to share any of it. It's open and honest.</blockquote>

Verification