Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 8239852" data-attributes="member: 6701124">[USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]&nbsp;&nbsp; -&nbsp; Thank you all for your answers and play examples!&nbsp; They helped clarify a great deal about what I was reading in your posts - especially when you described the range of different takes the games you've played and enjoyed had on these issues. Now I just need to find the time (which I obviously didn't have this weekend to reply!) to let the things gel in my head.&nbsp;&nbsp; Being impatient and trying to avoid work though...The thing I'm wondering about most immediately is how much of enjoyment of the DM and players is what they imagine they're doing, as opposed to what they're actually doing.&nbsp; For example, if a player was enjoying what he thought was going through a dungeon with pre-specified difficulties, how much of that should be lost if it turns out the DCs were being made up on the fly?&nbsp; If a player was having fun thinking that all of the responses hadn't been pre-imagined by the DM and showed up organically in play, how much of that should be lost if they learn the DM had a pre-imagined plot that sometimes dropped in?And so, getting off track of the thread, this has me realizing I don't think I've ever been in a session-zero equivalent where the DM has explicitly said where they &quot;fudge&quot; (beyond just not doing it with the dice in some cases) and at what level they put character story in.&nbsp;&nbsp; Do the adamant no-dice-fudgers still adjust whether reinforcements all show up or have the villain switch attacks just to save a PC?&nbsp;&nbsp; Do they adjust what magic items were going to be found if a character dies and is replaced by a different class? etc.&nbsp; And I wonder how many players would want the &quot;no-fudge&quot; option when picking a game style, but then want the fudging out at some level (is taking character backgrounds into account when world designing considered fudging to some).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadence, post: 8239852, member: 6701124"] [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] - Thank you all for your answers and play examples! They helped clarify a great deal about what I was reading in your posts - especially when you described the range of different takes the games you've played and enjoyed had on these issues. Now I just need to find the time (which I obviously didn't have this weekend to reply!) to let the things gel in my head. Being impatient and trying to avoid work though... The thing I'm wondering about most immediately is how much of enjoyment of the DM and players is what they imagine they're doing, as opposed to what they're actually doing. For example, if a player was enjoying what he thought was going through a dungeon with pre-specified difficulties, how much of that should be lost if it turns out the DCs were being made up on the fly? If a player was having fun thinking that all of the responses hadn't been pre-imagined by the DM and showed up organically in play, how much of that should be lost if they learn the DM had a pre-imagined plot that sometimes dropped in? And so, getting off track of the thread, this has me realizing I don't think I've ever been in a session-zero equivalent where the DM has explicitly said where they "fudge" (beyond just not doing it with the dice in some cases) and at what level they put character story in. Do the adamant no-dice-fudgers still adjust whether reinforcements all show up or have the villain switch attacks just to save a PC? Do they adjust what magic items were going to be found if a character dies and is replaced by a different class? etc. And I wonder how many players would want the "no-fudge" option when picking a game style, but then want the fudging out at some level (is taking character backgrounds into account when world designing considered fudging to some). [/QUOTE]

Verification