Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6807033" data-attributes="member: 97077">The basic conversation of the game calls for the DM to decide whether or not rules need to be applied to resolve actions taken. The rules cannot establish anything as uncertain. You may choose to believe that any given attack in a combat situation has an uncertain outcome and apply rules to resolve it, but that's you, the DM, making those decisions. The rules can't make it for you.I follow the rules... when I decide to bring the rules into play as is the DM's role. You appear to follow the rules and sometimes override their results when you feel like it. That is fudging, which of course I know you're okay with. I am not and so I don't do it. I don't need to as [MENTION=18333]Rhenny[/MENTION] points out.In a game where the DM decides on success, failure, or uncertainty based on the player's stated goal and approach relative to the fictional situation unfolding, no, not really. It may, however, be good to know as a player that your character is going to be more successful at certain things on the whole, if the stated approach falls short of outright success (but isn't outright failure).When it comes to using definitions more suitable to previous editions of the game, maybe you should consider it. During the playtest, I railed against DM empowerment and supported RAW above all else because I was a big proponent of D&amp;D 4e. If there's a way to look at old WotC forum posts, you can probably find such arguments. (I didn't really post on enworld until last year despite registering some years ago.) But after a while, I realized that it just doesn't fit D&amp;D 5e. Perhaps you'll come to the same realization some day, too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 6807033, member: 97077"] The basic conversation of the game calls for the DM to decide whether or not rules need to be applied to resolve actions taken. The rules cannot establish anything as uncertain. You may choose to believe that any given attack in a combat situation has an uncertain outcome and apply rules to resolve it, but that's you, the DM, making those decisions. The rules can't make it for you. I follow the rules... when I decide to bring the rules into play as is the DM's role. You appear to follow the rules and sometimes override their results when you feel like it. That is fudging, which of course I know you're okay with. I am not and so I don't do it. I don't need to as [MENTION=18333]Rhenny[/MENTION] points out. In a game where the DM decides on success, failure, or uncertainty based on the player's stated goal and approach relative to the fictional situation unfolding, no, not really. It may, however, be good to know as a player that your character is going to be more successful at certain things on the whole, if the stated approach falls short of outright success (but isn't outright failure). When it comes to using definitions more suitable to previous editions of the game, maybe you should consider it. During the playtest, I railed against DM empowerment and supported RAW above all else because I was a big proponent of D&D 4e. If there's a way to look at old WotC forum posts, you can probably find such arguments. (I didn't really post on enworld until last year despite registering some years ago.) But after a while, I realized that it just doesn't fit D&D 5e. Perhaps you'll come to the same realization some day, too. [/QUOTE]

Verification