D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

"Hidden Die Rolls. Hiding your die rolls keeps them mysterious and allows you to alter results if you want to. For example, you could ignore a Critical Hit to save a character's life. Don't alter die rolls too often, though, and never let the players know when you fudge a die roll."

It's in the "Respect For The Players" section.

I will say I'm still somewhat annoyed to find out my GM has admitted to fudging rolls on rare occasions to keep us from dying. Although admittedly, the "healing yoyo" is also kind of obnoxious. So... I dunno.

I see nothing about fudging that has anything to do with "respecting the players".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure. But there is no guarantee that stopping the encounter and then restarting it, hoping it will play better, actually results in it playing better. And then I'd might have to stop it again.

That's only true if you're just rerunning it with the extent setup. If I've got to roll things back, that's probably not all I'm doing.

 

[Enrahim]

Sure. But there is no guarantee that stopping the encounter and then restarting it, hoping it will play better, actually results in it playing better. And then I'd might have to stop it again.

Changing on the fly takes us through the encounter and I can then analyze it to learn how to tweak it better, in my own time, not stressing over game time being wasted.

There are advantages to both methods, and disadvantages to both methods. I lean towards not stoppning play, and that will inform my actions.

Don't need a full reset. You could do what would would have done to tweak the situation anyway. My examples was that even extreme measures might be open with the honest approach

For instance: "I realise now this monster has too many HP so it will become a slog. Do you mind if I halve whatever it has left now? I still think it might be tough for you, as it has some tricks up it's sleeve."

 

[Lanefan]

I agree, and see that work as also falling on the game designers. For example, games often now incorporate death moves that relieve GM from worrying about critical hits, or are structured to mitigate or even obviate overtuning in prep.

I do notice Daggerheart has this

When planning your session (or even midsession), you can adjust an existing adversary’s stat block to fit the needs of your battle.​

​

(Emphasis mine.) Is re-tuning adversaries midsession fudging?

Yes, it's fudging.

 

[Lanefan]

I mostly see this particular fudging example as more evidence that critical hits are a bad general mechanic that is specifically targeted at making high variability things happen to players.

Feature, not bug. Never mind the players also get to inflict those high-variability things on their foes, and IME players love that part.

Yet again, it comes back to the risk vs reward question.

 

[Maggan]

For instance: "I realise now this monster has too many HP so it will become a slog. Do you mind if I halve whatever it has left now? I still think it might be tough for you, as it has some tricks up it's sleeve."

My players prefer not seeing the man behind the curtain.

And I don't see it as "dishonest". That's too strong of a word for me changing the HP on the fly to make an encounter run better and to create a more memorable experience.

DM aren't infallible. Game designers aren't infallible. I'm not infallible. And my players don't expect me to be. They just want me to run a fun game for them, and if that means I have to make decisions on the fly making things more or less difficult for them, that's part of the job description.

And for me, it is also a part of what makes a role-playing game something greater than for example a board game.

EDIT: Or maybe not "greater" but "different" is a better word. But I like rpgs more than board games, so for me, "greater" fits well.

 

[Maggan]

For instance: "I realise now this monster has too many HP so it will become a slog. Do you mind if I halve whatever it has left now? I still think it might be tough for you, as it has some tricks up it's sleeve."

Come to think about it, I could just state at the beginning that "I might have missed some parts of the design of the monsters. Do you mind if I adjust on the fly? I still think the encounters might be tough for you, as the opponents has some tricks up their sleeves".

And the players could say, "sure, knock yourself out."

Or more probably in my group, "yeah, why are you asking?"

 

[Pedantic]

Feature, not bug. Never mind the players also get to inflict those high-variability things on their foes, and IME players love that part.

Yet again, it comes back to the risk vs reward question.

Players are bad at math. Team monster will roll many, many more attacks than team hero and have many many more bodies to distribute their health between. That, and frankly I think your delight in random negative outcomes is anomalous. Negative events are interesting when they make you play differently, not when they stop you from playing.

You're right that crits are popular though, which is mostly I think evidence that at the table game design is bad regardless of whether it's players or GMs doing it.

 

[clearstream]

I would think the world would have been a much better place, if it hadn't been possible to have false beliefs...?

How would we then get to enjoy pretending to be persons that don't exist inhabiting places that aren't real?

 

[Maxperson]

If you're not willing to TPK your party to maintain impartialness, then you really weren't impartial in the first place.

That's not a bad thing; but you gotta be honest with yourself and with your players.

I never said or implied that I'm not willing to TPK the group.