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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9625877" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Why not?Because prior to being directly, completely, and explicitly revealed-in-play, there's all sorts of effects the true facts should have on the world. That's like...literally what solving a mystery IS. Following the trails of facts that point to the correct answer.If you have a situation where you, as DM, have given evidence in a suspended state--where it could be a perfectly good true clue, actually pointing to the real perpetrator, OR it could be a well-made false clue, pointing to an innocent person--then it isn't possible to reason from them to the answer. For the very simple reason that there ISN'T an answer.Solving a mystery is a process of reasoning from clues to answers (and, consequently, of finding and verifying clues). If there are no answers, that process cannot occur.If I, as the DM, fudge a die the players didn't see so that what was a crit becomes a miss (or whatever you prefer), what difference does it make to the players?The difference it makes is that we cannot learn from the things we interact with. They can--and, as you have demonstrated, will--change underneath our feet. Our attempts to learn are stymied by the simple fact that we could be correctly following the evidence to A, up until the moment that suddenly it's actually B, and anything which validly pointed to A before is now an invalid false clue.I oppose all forms of fudging on principle, and it doesn't matter whether the fudge is quantitative or qualitative.So...you're now literally admitting that the thing you're talking about interferes with "solve a mystery".Why, exactly, are we arguing if you are outright admitting the thing I've been aiming at this whole time?</blockquote>

Verification