Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8603462" data-attributes="member: 22779">Let me put it another way.&nbsp; Say a DM rolls a roll behind the screen and decides to reroll because he or she doesn't like the result.&nbsp; So, a second roll is made, but, comes up with the same result.&nbsp; The DM decides that the dice gods of spoken and keeps the result.Now, the only difference here between player side reroll mechanics and this example is that the roll and reroll isn't witnessed by the players.&nbsp; But, apparently, that's the only thing that makes something fudging?&nbsp; That you, the player didn't get to witness it?&nbsp; Everything else is exactly the same but one is fudging and one isn't?&nbsp; That basically means that fudging=&quot;I the player do not trust my DM to play fairly&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Not exactly the definition I would want to work with.So, no, the secrecy part of fudging is the least important aspect.&nbsp; It simply doesn't matter.&nbsp; It matters so little that doing it in the open makes doing the exact same thing non-fudging.&nbsp; I really don't buy it.&nbsp; The only way that secrecy matters is player preference.&nbsp; And that's pretty hard to argue in any direction other than, &quot;Well, I&nbsp; don't like it so you shouldn't do it.&quot;&nbsp; Again, never a good look.Me, I prefer a more objective definition - fudging is changing the results of die rolls.&nbsp; In the past it was generally the purview of the DM and was done in secret so that the players wouldn't see how the sausage was made.&nbsp; Now, it's generally a player facing element of the game, gamified and codified, making it more regular, more controlled and it's impact easier to measure when designing the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8603462, member: 22779"] Let me put it another way. Say a DM rolls a roll behind the screen and decides to reroll because he or she doesn't like the result. So, a second roll is made, but, comes up with the same result. The DM decides that the dice gods of spoken and keeps the result. Now, the only difference here between player side reroll mechanics and this example is that the roll and reroll isn't witnessed by the players. But, apparently, that's the only thing that makes something fudging? That you, the player didn't get to witness it? Everything else is exactly the same but one is fudging and one isn't? That basically means that fudging="I the player do not trust my DM to play fairly". Not exactly the definition I would want to work with. So, no, the secrecy part of fudging is the least important aspect. It simply doesn't matter. It matters so little that doing it in the open makes doing the exact same thing non-fudging. I really don't buy it. The only way that secrecy matters is player preference. And that's pretty hard to argue in any direction other than, "Well, [B]I [/B]don't like it so [B]you [/B]shouldn't do it." Again, never a good look. Me, I prefer a more objective definition - fudging is changing the results of die rolls. In the past it was generally the purview of the DM and was done in secret so that the players wouldn't see how the sausage was made. Now, it's generally a player facing element of the game, gamified and codified, making it more regular, more controlled and it's impact easier to measure when designing the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification