Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6787186" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I was unable to assume the bolded bit, because there were two constraints placed on the situation in question: (a) it must be an enemy/group that the PCs should be able to defeat easily, but (b) purely because of luck, and explicitly not because the DM or PCs did anything &quot;wrong,&quot; they TPK instead. If we remove the &quot;DM didn't do anything 'wrong' &quot; restriction, then of course all of my calculations would go out the window.I'm with S'mon on this one, Miladoon--we can't allow &quot;fudging&quot; to expand too far. I have no problem with changing the details of a fight before it happens--that's no different from the DM choosing geography of places that haven't been defined yet. &quot;Fudging,&quot; for me, is when you change the fundamental (mechanical) nature of something after it would already be &quot;known&quot;/&quot;witnessed&quot; by the party, without an attendant in-fiction explanation for the change. So, for example, let's say that picking a particular partially-magical lock is a DC 20 check. But the party Arcane Trickster rolls an Arcana check (with Expertise) and does really well, enough that they can identify the magical nature of the lock easily (e.g. they roll a total of 25+, a REALLY good result)--and, as a result, the magical protections of the lock pose no impediment, reducing the lock DC by some amount (maybe down to 15 or even 10). That's a player-driven example of an &quot;in-fiction&quot; explanation for why the mechanical representation of an action or entity changes.Edit:So, here's an example of a way someone could do three of the most commonly cited &quot;fudging&quot; things, without them being &quot;fudging&quot; in my book.Invoke a deity of Luck or Fate (or one of each, &quot;competing&quot; with each other). Both of them think Heroes &quot;belong to them.&quot; Both of them want Heroes that are challenged, that are &quot;worthy.&quot; And both of them get annoyed when their &quot;game-pieces&quot; fail to perform as expected--above OR below.So when the monsters crit weirdly often? Goddess of Luck says, &quot;Nah bro, that's no crit. Can't let you rely TOO much on my power!&quot; This is a known, understood phenomenon--sometimes, for her own fickle reasons, Lady Luck smiles upon someone (and not just PCs--though more commonly PCs) and they escape unscathed from a killing blow. When a monster falls in a single round because of a beautiful confluence of Luck and Skill, the God of Fate points his finger and says, &quot;I give you another chance--DO NOT disappoint me,&quot; and it is filled with preternatural endurance, able to take even more punishment.&quot;Chances&quot; that would've been cooler if they'd just happened to have succeeded. Narrative-based restructuring of the randomness of combat to make things &quot;more interesting.&quot; And it's something the PCs know, in-world, as a thing that happens.It would still annoy me. I'd still be miffed that the &quot;game&quot; part of RPG is being neutered into &quot;visual novel&quot; (in my opinion). But it wouldn't be fudging anymore, not by my standards.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6787186, member: 6790260"] I was unable to assume the bolded bit, because there were two constraints placed on the situation in question: (a) it must be an enemy/group that the PCs should be able to defeat easily, but (b) [I]purely[/I] because of luck, and explicitly [I]not[/I] because the DM or PCs did anything "wrong," they TPK instead. If we remove the "DM didn't do anything 'wrong' " restriction, then of course all of my calculations would go out the window. I'm with S'mon on this one, Miladoon--we can't allow "fudging" to expand too far. I have no problem with changing the details of a fight before it happens--that's no different from the DM choosing geography of places that haven't been defined yet. "Fudging," for me, is when you change the fundamental (mechanical) nature of something after it would already be "known"/"witnessed" by the party, without an attendant in-fiction explanation for the change. So, for example, let's say that picking a particular partially-magical lock is a DC 20 check. But the party Arcane Trickster rolls an Arcana check (with Expertise) and does really well, enough that they can identify the magical nature of the lock easily (e.g. they roll a total of 25+, a REALLY good result)--and, as a result, the magical protections of the lock pose no impediment, reducing the lock DC by some amount (maybe down to 15 or even 10). That's a player-driven example of an "in-fiction" explanation for why the mechanical representation of an action or entity changes. Edit: So, here's an example of a way someone could do three of the most commonly cited "fudging" things, without them being "fudging" in my book. Invoke a deity of Luck or Fate (or one of each, "competing" with each other). Both of them think Heroes "belong to them." Both of them want Heroes that are challenged, that are "worthy." And both of them get [I]annoyed[/I] when their "game-pieces" fail to perform as expected--above OR below. So when the monsters crit weirdly often? Goddess of Luck says, "Nah bro, that's no crit. Can't let you rely TOO much on my power!" This is a known, understood phenomenon--sometimes, for her own fickle reasons, Lady Luck smiles upon someone (and not just PCs--though more commonly PCs) and they escape unscathed from a killing blow. When a monster falls in a single round because of a beautiful confluence of Luck and Skill, the God of Fate points his finger and says, "I give you another chance--DO NOT disappoint me," and it is filled with preternatural endurance, able to take even more punishment. "Chances" that would've been [I]cooler[/I] if they'd just [I]happened[/I] to have succeeded. Narrative-based restructuring of the randomness of combat to make things "more interesting." And it's something the PCs [I]know[/I], in-world, as a thing that happens. It would still annoy me. I'd still be miffed that the "game" part of RPG is being neutered into "visual novel" (in my opinion). But it wouldn't be [I]fudging[/I] anymore, not by my standards. [/QUOTE]

Verification