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: 9618859" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The dice coming up as those specific numbers is an uncommon result. That, you are correct, is unavoidable.Making that uncommon result be an extreme event within the fiction, however, is NOT unavoidable. That's a choice that is purely elective. Rolling 00 twice on two d100s is a rare event--one in ten thousand!--but it is a designer choice to make that event be super awesome or super awful. It could just be somewhat cooler or somewhat harmful, or just another possibility among many.No, it isn't. Sorry. You are making mountains out of molehills. I don't accept this argument. "Lower than one-in-a-million" is effectively nonexistent, since this kind of "alright, let's wrap this up, it's done" sort of thing definitely doesn't happen every fight. Let's, generously, say that it's 1 in 10 million, and assume that only, say, one in ten fights even prompts that response. That would mean you'd need to fight A HUNDRED MILLION COMBATS just to see that fluke chance happen once, on average.I'm not even sure there have been a hundred million combats fought in 5e. I certainly do not believe that there have been a billion.Hence, if this is a pattern that would only have deprived around 1-10 people this experience, ever, across the entire ten-plus-year history of 5e? Yeah, I don't really see that as being a meaningful concern. Given it's saving (at least) hundreds of thousands of hours of play-time across all the other cases, yeah, I think that "maybe, possibly, 10 people ever in the whole game got deprived of this experience" is a perfectly reasonable price to pay for nearly everyone getting a significant boon out of it.Absolutely the hell not. The secrecy is the thing that makes fudging awful and utterly unacceptable. When alterations are made in the open, people have a chance to resist, to dispute, to say "hey, no, I want to play that out" or "yeah, let's just move on, it'd be boring to slog through pointless rolls." In other words, exactly the thing you go on to complain about in just a bit--that the PCs don't get a chance to react. Fudging never gives the players a chance to react. Doing things openly and explicitly not only does do that, it also gives players the chance to evaluate whether the DM really listens when they dispute a choice the DM has made.Whosoever said "without any chance given to shoot them as they leave or chase them down or even follow them to see where they go"? Nobody I can see. I absolutely would not ever say that, so I don't know who you're arguing against, but it isn't me.Wrapping up a battle when the result is clearly a foregone conclusion is simply saying, "We could do the tedious bookkeeping, but instead, let's just agree that the obvious result happens and move on to the next interesting thing, unless someone objects." And, naturally, "the next interesting thing" would be (a) determining if anyone managed to run or not, and if so, (b) giving the PCs a chance to follow. If nobody managed to run, then it's a matter of whether the PCs interrogate or just shoot to kill.You could at least try for a charitable reading, you know...Again, why are you assuming some diktat from on high, a DM sweeping away any notion of player participation or agency? I have never advocated for anything even remotely like that, and I know you know this. I am if anything rabidly against such behavior, and have gone on record about it several times.</blockquote>

Verification