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: 8172677" data-attributes="member: 6790260">110% agreed.Have you ever even considered the possibility of just saying "no, that's BS, the attack missed you, I don't care what the dice say"? Or of inserting a little bit of diegetic divine intervention that the players can wonder (or become paranoid) about?Deceiving your players is not the only way to reject unacceptable dice rolls or mechanical results. It is possible to be the guardian of fun without making your players believe you actually let them play a game rather than enforce your will and just happen to mostly choose not to disagree with the dice.It always matters what is true. Especially when other humans are involved. That we speak of fictional things (and thus ones that do not physically exist) in no way reduces the value and impact of the truth. That said, truth alone is no excuse; hence, as I said in the previous paragraph, we can still be guardians of fun without being deceivers. We can still uphold our responsibility to deliver a good time without cheating or misrepresenting. We just have to show a very, very little bit more creativity.Agreed. Or if a video game presented odds of success that had nothing to do with the actual calculation. (See also: the newer X-Com games.)But doing so guarantees some other people will lose more. More importantly, it means you aren't playing a game, you're being spoonfed a fixed experience. Do you really think "winning more" would actually correlate with folks getting more money? Do you really want an experience where strategies are pointless because the house doesn't just win, it fixes the results of play?</blockquote>

Verification