The point being that, either way, you can turn a bad die roll into an interesting encounter WITHOUT needing to fudge.That's very true and something I prefer to keep in mind when doing random encounters. The single-minded desire to slaughter everything in sight and treat encounters as random XP/loot pinatas just irks me.
Even a d4 troll encounter can be made into a non-violent, RP encounter. Maybe those trolls are a raiding party hunting encroaching giants and actually ends up bartering a little with the party after the typical saber-rattling and teeth-gnashing. Maybe it's even a rare CG or CN troll exile. Random encounters ending in violence by default is lazy and unimaginative GM'ing.
That's always fun to me, as a DM. Teaching players the joy of nonviolent solutions.
I had my players happen upon a stone giant who was sleeping once. They were pretty low level and didn't ask about the giant before killing it in its sleep. It was harmless! It was Neutral and sleeping ffs! As the fighter wrapped his spiked chain around its neck, all the giant could do is look up with big puppy-dog eyes and whisper "why?!"
Just the other week my DM rolled 3 20s and a 19 on saves against my powers in one combat. I wish he hadn't rolled that high. I never EVER will wish he had lied to me and told me it was an 8.
Once again, I'm not saying the GM should always fudge. This might have been okay and not a big deal. How about this story:
I was playing a changeling spellthief in an Eberron campaign running a module. If you don't know, spellthieves are half rogue, half sorcerer (though getting INCREDIBLY limited spells and not until 4th level), with the ability to steal spells (obvious, I know, but just to make sure you understand). 85% of what we fought was undead and/or construct - my rogue half was almost useless, since my sneak attack couldn't be used. We saw a single caster the entire time I played him, thus rendering the spell steal out as well. I spoke with my GM about how I would like to make use of ANY of my class features at some point. We ended up seeing that caster. However, due to bad rolls on my part and a poor decision by a teammate, I was unable to even engage the caster. This is a situation in which I wished the GM had fudged a few of the bad rolls in order for me to actually get to play my class. We had agreed as a group to run modules in Eberron until the GM was more comfortable with the world, and sadly the modules simply didn't call for anything eligible for me to play my advantages against.
Yes, the GM could have simply provided me with stuff that I wanted to fight. However, I would have found it a more enjoyable game if I felt as if I was able to be useful WITHOUT having a situation handed to me - the only thing fudged would have been my ability to reach the said caster, not the entrance of a few casters with their backs turned to me.
Players also have bad luck. If I am fighting and can't roll above a 5 to save my life, what recourse to I have? I can't fudge! If the player "fudges" it's cheating.The answer is, as I've said, action points or something similar to allow players to mitigate bad luck or bend the rules.
I use hero points (recently; had been using action points) for the players. I fudge as the GM. The difference to me isn't much, except that I'm not limited to providing an enjoyable game by a per-use mechanic.
|
I guess I just don't believe the DM is always right. That way lies madness. When rule 0 violates rule 1 and leads to -1, then I'd say rule 0 shouldn't be followed. As a DM I've been wrong before and am genuinely grateful when players edify me about some arcane misconstruction of the rules.Three Laws of Gaming
Rule -1: There isn't a game without players
Rule 0: The DM is always right.
Rule 1: The rules were written for a reason. Ignoring them wasn't it.
The problem here is you're trying to take each rule individually.
They are in this order for a reason.
Here's a great example of GM cheatery I just experienced. The party was fighting 6 Driders, our APL was 10, driders are CL 7, therefore this was a "Hard" encounter according to RAW. One of the characters was a gunslinger, firing within the first range increment (Touch attacks). The GM was making the gunslinger hit a 21 to hit the Driders with touch attacks, the rest of the party had to reach about 30.
Lets break that touch AC down.
Touch AC=21
Touch AC=10+dexterity+deflection+dodge+size
21-10=11
11= Dex+deflection+dodge+size
11= +?+?-1
Driders have a dex of 15 or +2 bonus. They are large so -1
11= +2-1+deflection+1 dodge (they have this feat)
7=deflection
Basically, the driders would need total of +7 of deflection to reach this touch AC, or have an extra +7 worth of dex to get this high.
In other words, for a CL 7 monster, this is impossible in pathfinder. Of course, we aren't playing pathfinder obviously, we're playing 'GM says'.
Keep in mind, the gunslinger is expending 1 gold every time he fires his weapon too (paper cartridges).
Here's a great example of GM cheatery I just experienced. The party was fighting 6 Driders, our APL was 10, driders are CL 7, therefore . One of the characters was a gunslinger, firing within the first range increment (Touch attacks). The GM was making the gunslinger hit a 21 to hit the Driders with touch attacks, the rest of the party had to reach about 30.
Lets break that touch AC down.
** spoiler omitted **
No no you have it wrong the thread is about changing rolls everyone who is anti-fudging on here would be fine with this as long as the change was made prior to you guys starting to steam roll it. Doesnt matter that it might have been just to screw over the gunslinger as long as the screwing was prepped ahead of time and not done mid fight.
Here's a great example of GM cheatery I just experienced. The party was fighting 6 Driders, our APL was 10, driders are CL 7, therefore this was a "Hard" encounter according to RAW. One of the characters was a gunslinger, firing within the first range increment (Touch attacks). The GM was making the gunslinger hit a 21 to hit the Driders with touch attacks, the rest of the party had to reach about 30.
Lets break that touch AC down.
** spoiler omitted **
You missed natural armor but that still doesn't work out to explain such a high AC. Wait, no you didn't, natural armor doesn't affect touch AC, although it would explain some of boost had he included on it ... But not the 30 the rest had to roll unless it got added twice.
Unless those things had some sort of spell or magic item in place, I don't see how those ACs were reached. He nearly doubled the touch AC and make it half again as much for the rest of you.
So yeah, with the caveat of not knowing his side of the story and going purely with your side, I'd agree with you.
Did anybody ask him why so high an AC?
Yep. He just says, as he always does when he blatantly boosts the stats of monsters far beyond what their EL allows, 'Thats just what their stats are' or some other nonsense.
For instance, I've seen characters with a buffed AC 34 be hit by multiple drow posion bolts in one round by a squad of EL 2 soldiers with a +8 to hit. We're talking 5 soldiers, about 4 hit every combat even though it would require them to each crit to hit. Oh, and it takes a 20 to save vs poison on these puppies instead of 15; so fail one save that shouldn't have been that hard to begin with and you're out of the combat. (unconscious if you fail). Yeah, I looked at the module when I became convinced he was bullshitting stats, sue me.
So I guess what I should really be asking is this: How do you call out a GM who you know for a 100% fact is cheating, or making stuff up?
No no you have it wrong the thread is about changing rolls everyone who is anti-fudging on here would be fine with this as long as the change was made prior to you guys starting to steam roll it. Doesnt matter that it might have been just to screw over the gunslinger as long as the screwing was prepped ahead of time and not done mid fight.
It matters, it's just not fudging. Is it really that difficult to get this? DMs can be dicks without fudging.
I had one player grab a goblin by the ankles and dunk it head first into a pot of clam chowder. Many of the other goblins stopped and stared aghast, some giggled. That reaction was suggested in the module although it had more to do with a player critting a goblin. But what I also did was make the goblins flat-footed for a round as they stood and gaped, making them easier to hit.
Another example: A PC pulled a very foolish move and found herself alone with half a dozen goblins in a very small cellar. She was toast, until she thought of a plan. She managed to not get hit for a round, actually there might have been somebody with her ... oh yeah, the squishy sorcerer that kept thinking he can front-line fight until after this battle, and she summoned a pony. The first thing the pony did was to rear up and smash a goblin flat. (two natural 20s and max damage I believe) Well, suddenly the goblins were absolutely freaking out. They couldn't tell it was "just" a pony, all they knew is that suddenly there was a horse and it was stomping on them! So they're paying the PCs absolutely no attention whatsoever. Again, circumstantial flat-footed AC for her and the sorcerer for a couple rounds as all of their focus is on that demon pony.
So it's cool that you stick tight to the rolls and I get that, you find it fun; but for our group the fudge rule makes the game just that much more fun. Sure, I use it for fun and not just to prevent disasters, but people were in tears over the clam chowder move they were laughing so hard ... the insane elf ranger that's got ranks in profession(chef) who stopped fighting a round or two to taste test and then add seasoning to the stew didn't help with that.
And that's why implications of dishonesty rankle me. If I was doing it for personal gain, yes, call me dishonest, a liar, a cheat, stuck on my story. But ask any of my players about the Chowder Incident or the Pony in the Cellar* and me being dishonest and lying with what I did and they'll give you a very confused, blank look at the least.
Neither of those things are fudging. What rolls were changed after the die hit the table? Unless I'm missing something neither of these things are fudging.
Being honest or not has nothing to do with personal gain. You can do dishonest things for the best of reasons. That said, if you have more fun while fudging, then you DO fudge for personal gain. Does that make it cheating less or more?
When we have posters who argue ignoring a rolled dice is the mnost CE act in existance but who then tell us to just pick the result we want to happen yeah its hard to get.
To some of these people if i say that my players had been in a string of tough fights but were determined to finish what they started and get surprised before they can rest and the bad guy casts empowered fireball on the party and everyone botched, and rolled max damage and its enough to outright kill them all i shouldn't cut the damage back any even if this guy is just some lucky mook on the way to the BBEG. To do so to them would be bad because it either
1. lying to the players
2. Cheating
3. Me being power hungery
4. Me coddling my players
5. Me being a bad GM.
But if i simply decide to take any number of actions that dont involve dice such as
1. Change the spell when I see they are getting weak
2. Don't surprise them.
3. Make it another enemy
4. Let them have time to heal.
I'm a great GM who gives my players challenges with none of that nasty cheating.
Only a brand new GM runs a module as is. Modules are for idea's, no more, no less.
Hate to be the contrarian here, but I disagree :). I like running modules as is. At least APs which are generally very well written and thought out. Not to say you can't, or that I don't, just cannibalize adventures for ideas as well. I'm just saying they're both valid. Modules are not JUST for ideas.
When we have posters who argue ignoring a rolled dice is the mnost CE act in existance but who then tell us to just pick the result we want to happen yeah its hard to get.
To some of these people if i say that my players had been in a string of tough fights but were determined to finish what they started and get surprised before they can rest and the bad guy casts empowered fireball on the party and everyone botched, and rolled max damage and its enough to outright kill them all i shouldn't cut the damage back any even if this guy is just some lucky mook on the way to the BBEG. To do so to them would be bad because it either
1. lying to the players
2. Cheating
3. Me being power hungery
4. Me coddling my players
5. Me being a bad GM.But if i simply decide to take any number of actions that dont involve dice such as
1. Change the spell when I see they are getting weak
2. Don't surprise them.
3. Make it another enemy
4. Let them have time to heal.I'm a great GM who gives my players challenges with none of that nasty cheating.
I'm not sure what thread you've been reading. Really. You've built a whole army of straw men there, son.
Somehow, I think that the people who make money off this (Paizo, Wizards, White Wolf, etc) might have a better idea how to balance stats and create an engaging and believable adventure rather than the guy who just talked about spamming 30 kobolds that use nothing but magic missile at his players because they dared to buff themselves to a higher AC. Immersion much? Got a backstory to back that encounter up, that isn't written like a bad fan fiction?
Sorry, but at least when I run a game, I use rules as written. Not GM says. And I try to make it believable.
How does a golem react to an illusionary wall cast by a wizard it is chasing?
Sorry, but at least when I run a game, I use rules as written. Not GM says. And I try to make it believable.
Interesting.
I assume you mean the spell illusory wall. After a quick check at the rules, I imagine the golem would believe a wall to be there. Golems are not immune to figments specifically, and the spell offers no spell resistance. I'd probably have the golem try to bust through the wall like Kool-Aid man and make a save for it. If it failed it'd stay there.The lack of intelligence of the golem could just as easily mean it would discontinue pursuit as soon as it couldn't see the caster, however.
Not sure what it has to do with anything but I always love a good chin-scratcher :)
How does a golem react to an illusionary wall cast by a wizard it is chasing?
Sorry, but at least when I run a game, I use rules as written. Not GM says. And I try to make it believable.
There's one of three ways that could play out, in my opinion.
A) Golem stops completely. Being incapable of 'complex strategy or tactics', it might not have the capacity to attempt to smash through the illusory wall. Now the wizard can make his escape, or summon monsters to fight the Golem for him.
B) Golem tries to smash through wall, gets a will save. Either it succeds passes through the illusion, or it facewalls against the illusion. In Pathfinder, magic immunity only applies to spells or abilities that provide spell resistance. Silent image does not allow spell resistance (not sure how to word that).
C) Golem creator is present, dispels the illusion and/or orders the golem to go through the illusion.
Edit: I'd go with option B, personally.
Hate to be the contrarian here, but I disagree :). I like running modules as is. At least APs which are generally very well written and thought out. Not to say you can't, or that I don't, just cannibalize adventures for ideas as well. I'm just saying they're both valid. Modules are not JUST for ideas.
Only a brand new GM runs a module as is. Modules are for idea's, no more, no less.The problem with modules are their inflexibility. They can be loaded with good material, NPCs, and alike, but the fact of the matter is if the PCs decide they want to go explore a CR 9 zone at level 2, you have three choices. Chase the players off with a CR 9 terror, GM fiat your way out of it, or change the nature of the encounter entirely. I change the nature of the encounter entirely and let them be the heroes they always wanted to be. Which, of course means, if they level in the time being I'll have to boost the CR 2/3 thing they were going to face.
There's just too many issues with modules. Now, I've read Runelords and read the first book of Kingmaker. Runelords is a TPK machine if you do a direct conversion from 3.5 to PF, but has great story elements and dungeon design. The first book of Kingmaker is LOADED with side quest material.
I would never run either. They can't be run with players who started with 2nd AD&D, ie have about 15-20 years of gaming experience. Those players don't want linear. They want VERY OPEN games. Here's your map, you're in a pub/hotel/woods find the adventure via role playing, do it in any order, get distracted by random sub plot, and see what happens. You have to always adjust the game. If they wander into your CR 15 swamp before they even know there's a problem there, you have to deal with it.
When I say new GM, "new" doesn't mean it's your first game.
I think we're getting sidetracked with this, but you raise interesting points. It comes down to playstyle. I like both. I've played in utter ends of this spectrum. Really hardcore deep games where the DM lets you go anywhere and do anything you want, and casual games where you just sort of go where the story points you (also casual games where you can do what you want and deep games where you do what the adventure requires of you). Adventures are for more go with the flow type groups. When I run I sort of expect a moderate level of this. I guess I design more like a videogame with branching story points and quest hubs than a particularly fluid or on the fly sort of nebular campaign.
And to be fair, most of my gaming friends in BOTH camps are in their 30s and 40s and grew up playing D&D in the 80s and early 90s. I don't find there to be a particularly strong correlation with age.
Somehow, I think that the people who make money off this (Paizo, Wizards, White Wolf, etc) might have a better idea how to balance stats and create an engaging and believable adventure rather than the guy who just talked about spamming 30 kobolds that use nothing but magic missile at his players because they dared to buff themselves to a higher AC. Immersion much? Got a backstory to back that encounter up, that isn't written like a bad fan fiction?
Sorry, but at least when I run a game, I use rules as written. Not GM says. And I try to make it believable.
/Off Topic Tangent
Well speaking as a DM and a kobold expert (player of one for 4+ years and actually running a kobold campaign for the last year and a half) kobolds have the highest rate of birth for sorcerers among any of the humanoid races.
Taking into account your average clan (they could also belong to a tribe which is at least 10 clans banded together) which contains somewhere between 100 to 1000 kobolds, if you average that you get somewhere around 500 odd kobolds. Around half the kobolds in a given clan are battle trained which would be around 250.
With the kobold's proponent for magic in their blood, it wouldn't be out of the question really for there to be 30 kobolds with some knack for sorcery. The chance of 30 having magic missile is pretty low, but that many with magical talent wouldn't be out of the question for certain.
Most of this information can be found in the "Slayer's Guide to Kobolds" and the "Races of Dragon" books.
/End Off Topic Tangent
I'm not sure what thread you've been reading. Really. You've built a whole army of straw men there, son.
Just a few examples in the thread
1. The Kingmaker question that was brought up.
Cheating: Making the encounter different after rolled.
Not cheating: Making it different before starting.
2. Reincarnate
Cheating: Ignoring the roll by one point when it came up something that very few people would even want to play.
Not cheating: Telling everyone before the roll we are going to disregard that on the chart and add it to GM choice.
Edit: I'd go with option B, personally.
Me as well, basically because it takes the decision out of my hands and puts it into a die roll, which I will then abide by :)
Also meatrace i have a question for you what would you have done as GM in the several scenarios posted where the dice simply made things unfun for everyone period.
I'm not sure what thread you've been reading. Really. You've built a whole army of straw men there, son.Just a few examples in the thread
1. The Kingmaker question that was brought up.
Cheating: Making the encounter different after rolled.
Not cheating: Making it different before starting.2. Reincarnate
Cheating: Ignoring the roll by one point when it came up something that very few people would even want to play.
Not cheating: Telling everyone before the roll we are going to disregard that on the chart and add it to GM choice.
There ya go. You got those right. What is baffling is the CONTINUED assumption that I'm calling anyone evil or a bad GM for doing this stuff. You just wouldn't be MY GM.
If you ignore dice rolls, WHY USE DICE?!
The anti fudging side on the majority made these accucsations not you specificly sorry if that wasn't clear.
Also meatrace i have a question for you what would you have done as GM in the several scenarios posted where the dice simply made things unfun for everyone period.
Please repost any scenarios I haven't already responded to. I've already responded to many.
If you mean "fudge this roll or there will be a TPK" it's a false choice. As a DM you have to fix the problems before they arise OR give the players the tools to deal with them.
Also meatrace i have a question for you what would you have done as GM in the several scenarios posted where the dice simply made things unfun for everyone period.Please repost any scenarios I haven't already responded to. I've already responded to many.
If you mean "fudge this roll or there will be a TPK" it's a false choice. As a DM you have to fix the problems before they arise OR give the players the tools to deal with them.
I'll try to find the 2 or 3 but no it was situations where the dice on both sides of a fight simply made it drag out for hours with no one making progress other than the one i posted invovling some lucky ass goblins.
I'll try to find the 2 or 3 but no it was situations where the dice on both sides of a fight simply made it drag out for hours with no one making progress other than the one i posted invovling some lucky ass goblins.Also meatrace i have a question for you what would you have done as GM in the several scenarios posted where the dice simply made things unfun for everyone period.Please repost any scenarios I haven't already responded to. I've already responded to many.
If you mean "fudge this roll or there will be a TPK" it's a false choice. As a DM you have to fix the problems before they arise OR give the players the tools to deal with them.
Well, until I get something more concrete, I'll just say action points for everyone! I really like action points. Heck, in my Dark Sun game it's all we players have! Really low treasure ya see...*pout*
Somehow, I think that the people who make money off this (Paizo, Wizards, White Wolf, etc) might have a better idea how to balance stats and create an engaging and believable adventure rather than the guy who just talked about spamming 30 kobolds that use nothing but magic missile at his players because they dared to buff themselves to a higher AC. Immersion much? Got a backstory to back that encounter up, that isn't written like a bad fan fiction?
Sorry, but at least when I run a game, I use rules as written. Not GM says. And I try to make it believable.
/Off Topic Tangent
Well speaking as a DM and a kobold expert (player of one for 4+ years and actually running a kobold campaign for the last year and a half) kobolds have the highest rate of birth for sorcerers among any of the humanoid races.
Taking into account your average clan (they could also belong to a tribe which is at least 10 clans banded together) which contains somewhere between 100 to 1000 kobolds, if you average that you get somewhere around 500 odd kobolds. Around half the kobolds in a given clan are battle trained which would be around 250.
With the kobold's proponent for magic in their blood, it wouldn't be out of the question really for there to be 30 kobolds with some knack for sorcery. The chance of 30 having magic missile is pretty low, but that many with magical talent wouldn't be out of the question for certain.
Most of this information can be found in the "Slayer's Guide to Kobolds" and the "Races of Dragon" books.
/End Off Topic Tangent
Thats a very good argument, and in that specific scenario where you just happen to be in the midst of the kobolds I can agree that it's possible. The way it was presented was however, not conducive to belief.
See, I was imagining 30 kobold sorcerers appearing as some kind of random encounter, designed specifically to punish your *buffed* big dumb fighter.
There ya go. You got those right. What is baffling is the CONTINUED assumption that I'm calling anyone evil or a bad GM for doing this stuff. You just wouldn't be MY GM.
If you ignore dice rolls, WHY USE DICE?!
Well put. I like this guy :P
If you ignore dice rolls, WHY USE DICE?!
How about we also drop the assumption that people comfortable with fudging ignore dice rolls? I'm not seeing a lot of advocacy for that under most circumstances. Choosing to adjust specific results isn't the same as ignoring dice rolls to the point that dice are unnecessary.
Ah, I think I see. You are against fudging of the dice, but not against fudging anything else.
If you ignore dice rolls, WHY USE DICE?!
Anything else doesn't really fall into my definition of fudging.
But assuming a broader definition, I guess it depends on the anything else and the situation. I'm against changing a creature's stats (HP, AC, etc) after combat is engaged. Or to make it more broad, I'm against altering a challenge after the challenge has begun, be it a riddle or trap or combat or social encounter OR changing those things at any time due to the amount of player strategy/skill/luck. For example, players are going to storm a castle and decide to take some secret entrance that you know will be unguarded because you didn't to put any defenses there when you drew up the castle. It's sort of unfair to put them there now, JUST so the players will have a harder fight ahead of them. Maybe it'll be more rewarding, maybe sometimes the players need an easy victory, I feel it's better not to change things like that. I see the merits in it as a measure to cover up your own incompetence as a GM, but I'd do it exceedingly sparingly and always explain the situation to my players afterwards.
I had a really epic combat with a dragon disciple once, controlling him as the DM. The player thinks he's being clever and tumbles back 10 feet so the DD in dragon form can't full attack and healed himself. I then full attacked him. The player looked at me at shock and disbelief and basically accused me of cheating. After the combat I showed him the character sheet and showed him that I took Lunge, it was written into the villain's repertoire before the fight, and it was a nasty NASTY surprise! If I had changed out, say, Dodge for Lunge on a whim JUST to perform that nasty surprise, it would be unfair and a colossal dick move. Still not "fudging" in the sense I understand it, but I'd say cheating. And it wouldn't be cheating because it makes it unfun for that player, it's cheating because it would be dishonest; that villain would NOT have that feat before combat was engaged.
How about we also drop the assumption that people comfortable with fudging ignore dice rolls? I'm not seeing a lot of advocacy for that under most circumstances. Choosing to adjust specific results isn't the same as ignoring dice rolls to the point that dice are unnecessary.
If you ignore dice rolls, WHY USE DICE?!
Maybe not quite, but it's a slippery slope yadda yadda. You may want to say "I'm just adjusting the die roll +/-2" but what the EFFECT is does not comport to that same gradient. You give the villain a +2 to hit, it hits the player and does damage when he otherwise wouldn't have. You aren't saying "I'm gonna give this guy a +2 to hit" you're saying "I've decided he hits". In the end how is it different than just saying "he hits you, you take 10 damage" without touching a die? Other than one it's clear you're just playing by DM fiat and the other you're just couching it in terminology to help you feel better about it.
If you think that "fudging" is fine, then have at it! Just don't delude yourself into thinking you're not doing what you're doing-changing the world to fit YOUR view of what should happen, on whatever scale.
Again though, not a value judgment. I don't like it and I won't tolerate it (much) from my GMs, but if it works for you keep on keeping on. I just want to spread the good word that there are better ways to mitigate disaster than being dishonest.
See we agree on these things other than i see what your doing as fudging but i dont see what either you nor I do as cheating. I may nudge a dice roll sometimes but only when that result is truely a problem.
A good example i can think of was loot rolling in 3E base every loot table except the last ended with 100% roll on the next highest table one strange streak of luck during a game we through together on a road trip had seen me roll this result on 3 tables before i decided that i was rerolling to maintian some semblance of power in the game.
Now of course 10years later i would have woven a intricate story around the item and made it more than just Phat Lewt but thems the break.
And that's the real crux of the matter. People have different definitions, and react badly to people with different definitions using the same word.
Anything else doesn't really fall into my definition of fudging.
Both Kirth and myself have defined what we mean by fudging repeatedly. And even if people have missed that, the title of the thread is Fudging Rolls, so I'd think the topic was pretty plain.
Regardless of other definitions, an on-topic debate is only about one act: fudging die rolls.
I have a distaste for your broader type of fudging as well, but it's not nearly as distasteful as fudging dice is to me.
|
|
If you think that "fudging" is fine, then have at it! Just don't delude yourself into thinking you're not doing what you're doing-changing the world to fit YOUR view of what should happen, on whatever scale.
OF COURSE I am. I'm the DM, I MAKE the world to fit my view. How you call that cheating when the rules of the group SAY I CAN do that is beyond me.
Again though, not a value judgment. I don't like it and I won't tolerate it (much) from my GMs, but if it works for you keep on keeping on. I just want to spread the good word that there are better ways to mitigate disaster than being dishonest.
Not a value judgement, but we can find a better way than being dishonest?
I'm appalled.
Not a value judgement, but we can find a better way than being dishonest?I'm appalled.
Find me a better term for doing one thing and saying you've done another and I'll use it.