Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 9541737" data-attributes="member: 467">Probably. I don't want to say &quot;definitely&quot; because there is probably some corner case where the term &quot;fudging&quot; would apply, but I hate arguing around corner cases.However, just because you are playing highly improvisational does not mean there can't be fudging. The definition I am using (and I think is broadly understood) is that the GM is changing an outcome or result that has already been established (for whatever purpose).So, if you are running Shadowdark, which embraces a random and improvisational playstyle, and the random dungeon, encounter and monster generators pit the PCs against a seven headed dire chimerdra. Once the GM has started that encounter, the GM negating a crit behind the screen is still fudging. (As stated upthread, it feels fuzzy if not accepting those random generator results in the first place qualifies as fudging. I don't think so, but I can see arguments the other way too.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 9541737, member: 467"] Probably. I don't want to say "definitely" because there is probably some corner case where the term "fudging" would apply, but I hate arguing around corner cases. However, just because you are playing highly improvisational does not mean there can't be fudging. The definition I am using (and I think is broadly understood) is that the GM is changing an outcome or result that has already been established (for whatever purpose). So, if you are running Shadowdark, which embraces a random and improvisational playstyle, and the random dungeon, encounter and monster generators pit the PCs against a seven headed dire chimerdra. Once the GM has started that encounter, the GM negating a crit behind the screen is still fudging. (As stated upthread, it feels fuzzy if not accepting those random generator results in the first place qualifies as fudging. I don't think so, but I can see arguments the other way too.) [/QUOTE]

Verification