Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 9542042" data-attributes="member: 6901101">That assumption is unproven, and at the least, unwise. The player really wanting to look the part of the hero while running a gauntlet with excessively hard skill checks, all to impress the significant other they adore in character isn't fudging the acrobatics check just for self-interest. They are doing it for the overall health of the game - to be able to play their character with their own agency. I mean, this is especially true if they know the &quot;love connection&quot; will be negated if they failed. This is the exact same thing as if the DM instantly lowered the standard to run the gauntlet, or worse yet, had the gauntlet roll opposing rolls, and fudged those rolls. Either the DM and the player are fudging rolls for the overall health of the game they want to see run, or they are both doing it out of their own self-interest. Again, people keep trying to piecemeal this or partition it with semantics. There are none. You are either fudging, and you like it that way. Or you don't like it that way so you keep the rolls out in the open.To be blunt back, if a string of rolls creates a circumstance where an entire group, who has access to incredible feats, powers, and an abundance of game mechanics that prevent them from dying are killed off, you didn't do your work as a DM. (You as in a DM, not you personally.) Could one PC die. Sure. If that is unpalatable, then once again, you didn't discuss it during session zero like you were supposed to as a DM. So as DM, you didn't do your work you were supposed to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scott Christian, post: 9542042, member: 6901101"] That assumption is unproven, and at the least, unwise. The player really wanting to look the part of the hero while running a gauntlet with excessively hard skill checks, all to impress the significant other they adore in character isn't fudging the acrobatics check just for self-interest. They are doing it for the overall health of the game - to be able to play their character with their own agency. I mean, this is especially true if they know the "love connection" will be negated if they failed. This is the exact same thing as if the DM instantly lowered the standard to run the gauntlet, or worse yet, had the gauntlet roll opposing rolls, and fudged those rolls. Either the DM [B]and[/B] the player are fudging rolls for the overall health of the game [I]they want to see run[/I], or they are both doing it out of [I]their own self-interest[/I]. Again, people keep trying to piecemeal this or partition it with semantics. There are none. You are either fudging, and you like it that way. Or you don't like it that way so you keep the rolls out in the open. To be blunt back, if a string of rolls creates a circumstance where an entire group, who has access to incredible feats, powers, and an abundance of game mechanics that prevent them from dying are killed off, you didn't do your work as a DM. (You as in a DM, not you personally.) Could one PC die. Sure. If that is unpalatable, then once again, you didn't discuss it during session zero like you were supposed to as a DM. So as DM, you didn't do your work you were supposed to. [/QUOTE]

Verification