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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8595220" data-attributes="member: 97077">I think it depends on what specific task was tied to the ability check in the DM's notes and what the player actually had the character do. If my notes say a given approach to a goal, X, has by default an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure and therefore a DC 15 Persuasion check is necessary, but the player does Y which, in context does not have an uncertain outcome and/or a meaningful consequence for failure and thus no check, then all I did was write a contingency that is wasted. I did not fudge. I was only reminded of how prep time may be squandered preparing contingencies and must now adjudicate for Y.If instead the player actually did do X and because I liked their speech or whatever I just granted auto-success, then that's something akin to fudging, but as I said in this thread or the other, not technically so since in my view fudging is about asking for or making a roll then ignoring the result. Because the effect is the same as fudging, I avoid this. That said, this approach is not entirely due to the desire to avoid fudging. It is merely a happy side effect of what I see as the proper process wherein the DM ignores the player's acting ability in delivering the speech and boils it down to a task to be adjudicated. (In this example, their speech amounts to X, which requires a check.) If the character has a personal characteristic the player portrayed in the doing, I can award Inspiration that the player is then welcome to spend on the check for advantage on the check if they want. Or they can retain the resource for later.</blockquote>

Verification