Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaculata" data-source="post: 6804567" data-attributes="member: 6801286">What you are describing is entirely different from what was discussed. What was under discussion, is the act of asking for a skill check, and then reconsidering whether there was any doubt over the outcome. In example A, the DM does not admit any mistake, and simply narrates the outcome, even though the skill check was pointless. And in example B, he informs his players that he made a mistake, and that the roll result can be ignored.I don't have a problem with either. I don't think A is any less honest than B. But I think a DM should teach himself to not always ask for skill checks. I think too many DM's and players automatically assume a skill check, when it should be up to the DM to decide if there is any doubt over the outcome to begin with.Now what you are describing is entirely different: The act of narrating the level of success or failure based on the exact roll result. I do this as well. A player can barely succeed, barely fail, or succeed or fail gloriously. In the case of a glorious success (usually a 20+ result) I often ask the player to describe to the other players what he does. In the case of an amazing failure (usually a 1), I often add further complications on top of the attempt going horribly wrong. But this has nothing to do with fudging. It is simply a different way to adjudicate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaculata, post: 6804567, member: 6801286"] What you are describing is entirely different from what was discussed. What was under discussion, is the act of asking for a skill check, and then reconsidering whether there was any doubt over the outcome. In example A, the DM does not admit any mistake, and simply narrates the outcome, even though the skill check was pointless. And in example B, he informs his players that he made a mistake, and that the roll result can be ignored. I don't have a problem with either. I don't think A is any less honest than B. But I think a DM should teach himself to not always ask for skill checks. I think too many DM's and players automatically assume a skill check, when it should be up to the DM to decide if there is any doubt over the outcome to begin with. Now what you are describing is entirely different: The act of narrating the level of success or failure based on the exact roll result. I do this as well. A player can barely succeed, barely fail, or succeed or fail gloriously. In the case of a glorious success (usually a 20+ result) I often ask the player to describe to the other players what he does. In the case of an amazing failure (usually a 1), I often add further complications on top of the attempt going horribly wrong. But this has nothing to do with fudging. It is simply a different way to adjudicate. [/QUOTE]

Verification