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: 8599157" data-attributes="member: 6790260">That's where we differ. No, I cannot read the DM's mind. But I can directly observe that the DM is engaging in various tactics.I can never see the DM's internal thought processes. That is universal for all DMing actions ever. If I required a lack of bias at the level of thought processes, I could not in good conscience be a DM, nor accept anyone else being one. But I can see what actions they take in the active play space....as long as they aren't concealed. I can try to account for what a given person thinks is relevant, by watching what they choose to say. I can prepare for monster tactics because those tactics (necessarily) must be displayed to me in order to do anything. I can prepare for choice of targets, because the only possible way that "choice of target" can affect me is if I become aware that the target has been chosen.You are correct that I can never know what goes on inside the DM's head. But I can see what they do for all of your example things. According to its proponents, not only can I not see what fudging does, the very fundamental intention IS to prevent me from seeing what fudging does. You have seen how several posters, not just me, have said that the knowledge that the DM might fudge when they feel it warranted causes a creeping, unavoidable doubt that any given roll is the genuine article. It's not possible to have that kind of doubt with monster tactics because we can just...see the monster tactics. They are, of necessity, right there in the open.The DM's internal thoughts are always opaque to me, especially since I play mostly online. But there is another, additional layer of opaqueness--an opaque layer requested by players that are at least neutral about fudging, and specifically implemented to avoid upsetting those players who strongly oppose fudging. The intent will always be opaque, but the "you won't even be allowed to find out that I'm doing it" is additional opaqueness not present in any of the other examples you've given. I could, at least in principle, observe that a DM is lowballing most encounters or intentionally using inappropriately foolish tactics or what-have-you. If the pro-fudging advocates are as successful as they claim to be (which I doubt, but am willing to grant for the sake of argument), then I cannot even in principle observe that the DM is fudging.</blockquote>

Verification