Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LordEntrails" data-source="post: 8598460" data-attributes="member: 6804070">Whether you define it as a deception or lie is not particularly relevant. Even if they are wrong, if players define it as a deception or lie, or simple negative, then that is what matters. That is what will erode the health of the game.Some folks are pretty serious about there role playing, maybe more so than their relationships. Who am I to judge? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Two things, does it really matter if the person being deceived knows? Is it still wrong to deceive? Second, how do you not know they know? I now kids who count their Halloween candy and know exactly how many pieces of each they have <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />This goes to a point, even if a DM does not admit to fudging, players might think the DM is fudging. That thought goes to eroding the health of the game. Then doing things like Colville suggesting and compounding the lie is... well, since we are humans and not perfect, players are not always going to believe the evidence. And now the group has a bigger issue that is going to be harder to resolve. Trust.Me too. I've been considering writing up this topic for presentation at my next session 0. Would be interesting to see what others come up with. A new thread perhaps?But is that saying much? A quick Google tells me the weekly viewership is single digit millions in the US. Compared to the 300 billion US population, that's less than 1%.You're hearing about it in this thread. And as I've stated before, its the cause that has killed two campaigns I've played in. Just because you haven't knowingly experienced it, does not mean that it is not a problem at the community level.Lucky you. It's not unheard of to myself and others.Yes, but since humans are not perfect, discretion will not always be effective and therefore fudging will be detected, and by this definition, will fail.As said, other rule systems ave mechanics for similar things. A table playing 5E could just give the DM inspiration to use as desired. But, for trust to not be questioned, rolls need to be in the open so the use of the mechanic can be validated by everyone.See, I'm not the only one who has had this experience. For me, fudging is the second most common reason campaigns ave ended prematurely. First being people moving away (before VTTs) and second being fudging die rolls.Regardless of your definition of dishonesty, my morals and ethics indicate that changing the die roll is dishonest. I'm not lone in this. You should accept that others, including potentially one or more of your players, feel the same way.Or they might not agree with your justification for it and believe it is wrong bad and not fun. They are entitled to that view,just like you are to yours.Yes, players do. You, just like the rest of us, are not perfect. Therefore fudging will be detected at some tables in some instances. But it does! I've seen it happen twice. Two campaigns I've played in (as an adult) have died because of this very reason <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Trust eroded at your table is your problem. Do you want your campaign to end because of a misperception that can be avoided by being honest in Session 0?DMs are human, therefore they are fallible, therefore they will make mistakes and not all fudging will be impartial.Well then you are not human <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Or perhaps I am confusing definitions again :O</blockquote>

Verification