Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6807845" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Perhaps, then, &quot;trying to keep it a permanent secret&quot;?I admit, it's a somewhat fuzzy requirement. But it's definitely something I consider a part of it--a very troubling part, in fact. If the DM is 100% open and honest about the action--&quot;guys, I was really hoping this monster could actually get to act, I worked very hard to make it interesting and it just folded over like a wet paper bag, can we give it another round?&quot;--then it's very difficult for me to classify that as &quot;fudging,&quot; even if it means altering or outright ignoring the results. By that same token, I have exactly 0 problems with the DM keeping (frex) Perception rolls secret, because it's fantastically difficult for me to keep that kind of knowledge out of my decisions (I have said, not on this forum IIRC, that I cannot &quot;un-know&quot; something I've learned, unless I learn something else that supersedes it).So a secret roll, free of any manipulation on the DM's part? No problem. Not fudging.A roll or set of rolls, whether open or secret, which the DM openly expresses dismay about and asks for group approval to change? No problem. Not fudging.Furthermore, neither of these things has any effect on the players' ability to make informed decisions and learn from past experiences, which is a huge deal for me. The latter also means the DM is willing to admit mistakes and listen to feedback, which is all to the good. Making mistakes and learning from them is a Good Thing.So...yeah. I definitely absolutely feel that &quot;secrecy&quot; is, in some sense, meaningfully related to fudging. And, despite my vehement denunciation of fudging, I would have no problem accepting a group decision/agreement to change a particular result, even if I didn't want to change it myself.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6807845, member: 6790260"] Perhaps, then, "trying to keep it a permanent secret"? I admit, it's a somewhat fuzzy requirement. But it's definitely something I consider a part of it--a very troubling part, in fact. If the DM is 100% open and honest about the action--"guys, I was really hoping this monster could actually get to act, I worked very hard to make it interesting and it just folded over like a wet paper bag, can we give it another round?"--then it's [I]very[/I] difficult for me to classify that as "fudging," even if it means altering or outright ignoring the results. By that same token, I have exactly 0 problems with the DM keeping (frex) Perception rolls secret, because it's fantastically difficult for me to keep that kind of knowledge out of my decisions (I have said, not on this forum IIRC, that I cannot "un-know" something I've learned, unless I learn something else that supersedes it). So a secret roll, free of any manipulation on the DM's part? No problem. Not fudging. A roll or set of rolls, whether open or secret, which the DM openly expresses dismay about and asks for group approval to change? No problem. Not fudging. Furthermore, neither of these things has any effect on the players' ability to make informed decisions and learn from past experiences, which is a huge deal for me. The latter also means the DM is willing to admit mistakes and listen to feedback, which is all to the good. Making mistakes and learning from them is a Good Thing. So...yeah. I definitely absolutely feel that "secrecy" is, in some sense, meaningfully related to fudging. And, despite my vehement denunciation of fudging, I would have no problem accepting a group decision/agreement to change a particular result, even if I didn't want to change it myself. [/QUOTE]

Verification