No it is a not being a jerk kind of thing. It is one thing to disagree and not want something in your own game it is another thing to be make statements which come down to you are a bad DM and a cheater to boot.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
My DM just told me he fudges rolls....
- Thread starter Twichyboy
- Start date
- Status
No it is a not being a jerk kind of thing. It is one thing to disagree and not want something in your own game it is another thing to be make statements which come down to you are a bad DM and a cheater to boot.
In the examples I gave my players did not come to the table and ask for special treatment. I choose to give it because I made a judgement call that I thought would make that session more fun for the player. You know the same way I make a hundred other judgement calls when I am DMing.
You know some people like to be with their friends when things are going bad in their life and playing is away of escaping from the situation.
You seem to be very rigid in your outlook on this. I have fudged exactly twice to save a PC. It may never happen again on the other hand if I feel in my judgement as the DM that it makes for a better game then I will do it.
I will never commit to the I will always or I will never do something as a DM. I believe a sign of a great DM is one that is flexible enough to realize that always and never can really suck the fun out of the game.
Wild Gazebo
Explorer
While I think Twichboy's concern and your response is the perfect example of the various comments regarding concerns for player/GM interaction, I think I'm going to leave it here. Bullgrit has stated succinctly and aptly how there is a distinct preference and play-style difference that makes a lot more sense to me. I still wonder about how that play-style is reasonably observed...but like I said, I think I'm gonna leave it here.
I sincerely hope you have as much fun gaming as I do and continue to do what works for you and your friends.
Were you to have actually read my posts in this thread, I daresay you'll understand how laughable your assertion is.
Here's a protip:
There's a difference between asserting someone thinks x and asking for clarification if someone thinks x.
I welcome you to actually discuss the topic with me, rather than make insulting and unsupported assertions ad nauseum.
But hey, it's all about having fun at the table at the end. There's no right or wrong in that.
The Shaman
First Post
Honestly, if losing at a roleplaying game is so traumatic that you need to be isolated from the consequences of rolling a one when you really needed a twelve . . . ah, nevermind, not worth it.
"I reserve the right to fudge when I deem it appropriate," is no less rigid.
Please tell me you understand that.
And you are welcome to that belief.
Let me add one suggestion: if you make sure to let your players know up front, then you and I are guaranteed to never trouble one another in an actual game. Win-win, any way you slice it.
First of all there is no losing at a role playing game. Just like there is no winning. And for some reason you feel the need to just spout off extremes over this subject. Why is that?
I never said it would be traumatic give me a break. What I said was that in my opinion it would not be as much fun for them. That is a huge difference from what you are making it out to be. All my players are mature adults and they are not going to let losing a character be a traumatic experience.
When you game sometimes you have great games and sometimes not so much. I chose to make a DM decision on what I thought was the best way to make the session fun in those two cases. It is no different then any other decisions I have made to make the game fun for my group.
My players trust me and their opinion on my choosing to fudge is simply this I am the DM they trust my judgement on when to do it and when not to do it. They know my goal is to run a fun exciting game with interesting encounters and puzzles.
And only on the internet can someone take a position that choosing to stay flexible and not make a statement like I will never fudge that it would have depend on all the circumstances as some how being rigid.
I don't think there would ever be any possibility of us being at the same table.
No, it is one of those "EN World has civility rules" things.
You're welcome to not like what others do. But to cast aspersions upon them personally (like calling them lazy) is rude. It is really that simple.
Address the logic of the position, not the person of the poster. If you need to ascribe faults to people in order to support your position, then your position is pretty weak, and probably ought to be reconsidered. If you don't need to ascribe faults, but you do it anyway, then you're acting like a jerk.
So, from this point on, I expect everyone to be kind and respectful to each other in this thread. If you don't feel like abiding by that, please go find another thread that doesn't bring you to such nastiness.
Thanks, all, for your time.
Earlier this year, the evening news ran a short segment about these new tapes from Jackie Kennedy. In a short bit, she recalled something Bobby or somebody had advised.
I lack the actual quote, but the gist of it was, never be so uncivil such that there is no reconcilliation possible.
There are ways of stating your position that don't incense the other side. That make it unpalatable for them to even consider part of your argument because it reminds them of the disgust they have for you.
It seems like this is the lesson that applies when mods have to step in.
I don't think that holds true in most people's minds.
Generally, when somebody declares that X is wrong and they will NEVER do it, that person is rigid, because they have stated a position on which they will not budge. They have eliminated a possibility or choice for themselves. It usually strikes others as undiplomatic.
When a person says they might or may use it, they are retaining the option. They are in fact being more flexible in their stance.
In the world of communication, any time you give an absolute NO and NEVER, you are reducing options and holding a rigid stance.
Everytime you phrase it as "I would prefer not to..." or "I would avoid it if I could, but I can see how it might be useful for you" is more diplomatic and does not make you appear to be rigid.
This brings up a question I have for the folks in the never-fudging camp.
"Hypothetically, in a circumstance described above (player dealing with personal issue, player just lost the 2nd character quickly through no or little fault of their own) and given that you'll abide by the results of the die-roll, would you do any other adjudication to alleviate the impact?"
In other words, would you step in to do anything to make it to where the player doesn't have to roll up a new character, in that circumstance?
- Status
