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

[Maxperson]

Heh. Funny how things are "in flux" before initiative is rolled, but, changing setting elements is off limits. How can things be in flux and carved in stone at the same time?

Perhaps it's a matter of degree.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I miss morale, and the reaction roll.

Are you lamenting the removal of those rules from the game or you really need those rules to determine how a NPC reacts generally or in combat?
Even in those instances when I may be unsure on which course of action the NPC could take or which PC the enemy may engage with in combat I announce to the table the possible options and probabilities and I roll the die there and then.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are you lamenting the removal of those rules from the game or you really need those rules to determine how a NPC reacts generally or in combat?
Even in those instances when I may be unsure on which course of action the NPC could take or which PC the enemy may engage with in combat I announce to the table the possible options and probabilities and I roll the die there and then.

I like having rules rather than being told to just make it up on the spot. Plus, rules allow for other rules to interact with them, allowing for more options and less abstract sim.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I like having rules rather than being told to just make it up on the spot. Plus, rules allow for other rules to interact with them, allowing for more options and less abstract sim.

Out of interest are those rules not included within Level Ups version of the game? I only have 1 of the 3 core books at the moment and cannot recall seeing them but to be honest it's not what I look for or why acquired the book.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Out of interest are those rules not included within Level Ups version of the game? I only have 1 of the 3 core books at the moment and cannot recall seeing them but to be honest it's not what I look for or why acquired the book.

I don't recall seeing them. It's pretty much the now usual "look at the situation, play the monsters fairly, and use your judgment" thing. Also skill checks.

I don't have the game memorized though, so I'm open to being corrected.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Problem as usual is this has more impact on PCs than NPCs because they're going to have a lot more dice slung in their direction across the course of the game.

(Which doesn't mean I think crits are a bad idea, just that the fact they apply in both directions doesn't mean as much as I think you're suggesting here).

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps it's a matter of degree.

I suppose. I think that answer's a bit convenient though. "Everything is in flux, except for the things I don't like to be in flux" is hardly a very satisfying axiom for game design.

See, I have zero problem with the idea that everything is in flux up to the point where it is introduced to the table (initiative is rolled). I fully support that idea. But, I was told that things being in flux was the antithesis of sandbox play. Which kinda leads to my confusion. If things are "in flux" then doing something like adding a cook to the kitchen is perfectly fine - after all, who or what is in the kitchen is "in flux" until the door is opened. Rolling random encounters are perfectly fine because everything is "in flux" until it's established at the table.

I love playing this way.

But, we've just spent the last four or five hundred pages of posts absolutely denying that things can be "in flux" in a simulationist and/or sandbox game.

So, you'll have to pardon my confusion here.

 

[Rystefn]

What unchangeable by the DM rule did the DM violate?

If you think it's cool and fine and perfectly above-board to change the roll, then do in the open, in full view of everyone at the table. If you actually believe that there's nothing wrong with it, then you wouldn't hide it. If you fudge behind a screen, then you are admitting that it's not okay, no matter how many times you declare that it's perfectly fine when you're not making eye contact with the other people in the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you think it's cool and fine and perfectly above-board to change the roll, then do in the open, in full view of everyone at the table. If you actually believe that there's nothing wrong with it, then you wouldn't hide it. If you fudge behind a screen, then you are admitting that it's not okay, no matter how many times you declare that it's perfectly fine when you're not making eye contact with the other people in the game.

I do have to point out you can think its ethically OK but think there's a loss of something in the illusion of the game if its visible. I don't consider that a good enough reason, but its not an irrational or hypocritical one.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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

How do your players feel?? Would they rather you be impartial and TPK them or fudge things so they live?