Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9548559" data-attributes="member: 6790260">But if fudging occurs, it isn't the dice saying anymore. The DM chose. By the standard given, the DM can't do that without violating the sanctity of in-world causation. Same goes for a wide variety of DMing tools, like quantum ogres, locations which just happen to be near whatever direction you decided to go, or anything else that arises from the DM deciding that this would be a better experience. I'm just not seeing how this uncompromising &quot;it MUST be diegetic, it MUST be derived only from known information or the processes of the rules when said rules are invoked&quot; stance can incorporate even a single instance of fudging without becoming self-contradictory. &quot;It must be diegetic and derived from known info or rules-processes, unless the DM feels different&quot; is much, much too porous a standard for what you've articulated here and elsewhere.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9548559, member: 6790260"] But if fudging occurs, it isn't the dice saying anymore. The DM chose. By the standard given, the DM can't do that without violating the sanctity of in-world causation. Same goes for a wide variety of DMing tools, like quantum ogres, locations which just happen to be near whatever direction you decided to go, or anything else that arises from the DM deciding that this would be a better experience. I'm just not seeing how this uncompromising "it MUST be diegetic, it MUST be derived only from known information or the processes of the rules when said rules are invoked" stance can incorporate even a single instance of fudging without becoming self-contradictory. "It must be diegetic and derived from known info or rules-processes, unless the DM feels different" is much, much too porous a standard for what you've articulated here and elsewhere. [/QUOTE]

Verification