|
On her shift, a troll happened into our camp. She sounded the alarm and charged the beast. On it's turn, it claw/claw/bite/rended her for something like 26 damage. 1st level druid torn in half, first encounter.
Now, the way to prevent that would be the GM only rolling the one attack, backhanding the puny creature away. She clearly wasn't a threat.
I think we talked about this one before -- if it was an outdoor camp I probably would have had the troll eat one of the big, delicious horses tethered in place for the taking, giving the others plenty of warning. Charging the thing was also a dumb move -- make it come to you and you avoid a full attack.
Overall, in the case of newbies, even I myself am more likely to fudge things (with the players' knowledge and permission, of course) until they get the hang of it. (Then again, I'm not very secret about it. "New rule: every time Joe rolls a 4, he has to reroll," is about as subtle as I get.)
There were no horses. We be poor.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it's to drain resources then death is possible, If death isn't possible then it's not going to drain any meaningful resources. losing a lv3 spell for a lv12 caster and a cure light charges is not meaningful and thus should probably be skipped.
If the caster is needing to use a 5th or a 6th level spell then the fight should clearly be life threatening, if only just.If the fight is to just delay, then just narrate that you spend a few seconds killing the worthless peons.
Like, I don't see how the fight can be a cakewalk, and also impact the players.
Even make a deal. "Players, to avoid a stupid pointless death how about you fight X and cross of 1 haste. Or you can fight for real and have the possibility of dying."
Any fight where the players actually fight is one where the player's could potentially die. And any fight the players actually fight should be a fight worth having.
I completely disagree. You should absolutely have those fights where the enemy is hopelessly outclassed by the PCs. Doubly so if it is a fight they have had before at lower levels.
My first campaign had the party attacked by archers as they were rowing down a river. By the time the party made shore, the archers had scarpered into the brush.
Some time later, the party had cause to return to that stretch and I decided they should be ambushed again. THIS time, the bard DDoored the fighter and cleric behind the archers, and vengance was had.
If the party never sees the results of their levels, they are robbed of the satisfaction that leveling brings. Sometimes it's just realizing that you are fighting balors, sometimes it's taking on that ogre that nearly killed you before and completely owning him.
You still don't ever know when the GM will fudge or not, So him saying he might sometimes still leaves you not knowing if it was chance or fiat. All he's done is confirm your base assumption, the GM may or may not be fudging this.
I'm sorry but with the "trust issues" people seem to have at their tables i doubt this is satisfactory for anyone.
Yeah, real fun "no fudging" game time!You knew going into it that was a possibility. If you didn't want a chance of that happening, well, either petition the DM for hero points or fudging, or join a different game, or offer to run one yourself.
Yeah, I learned from that one. I learned that in that type of game, don't bother making a good background with a roleplay oriented character. Just go on the board, find the optimal version of the class you want to play, write a 2 lines background and roll play. Cause you never know if you are going to die on the first, second or third random encounter. I mean, the group walk in the woods, a failed perception check later, and you end up with an arrow through your head.
Should PCs death happened? Yes. Should stupid move like running down a corridor full of traps have consequence? Yes. Death from random encounter that have no link whatsoever to the story? Yes, but rarely. The game is suppose to be fun, relaxing and fair. Not this try to survive for more the 1 session game. If this is how you like to play, then good for you. But, except for the one GM, everyone I ever played with don't want that. They want to see their characters grow. Learn more about the story and the world you are presenting them. My players love meeting NPCs from previous campaign or see the castle that their retired characters now live in. That's the game I like to play, and so do my players.
So, do I fudge some die rolls, or modifier some stats for the monsters, or add/remove some monster, or even modify the loot that drops. Yes. Why do I do it. Not because I want to cheat and feel great about myself. Not because I want my friends around the table to have an easy or harder time. But because sometimes we all have more fun that way. Do they know that I fudge some dice? Probably, we never talked about it. Do they know when? No, because I do it very rarely and only if I feel that they don't deserve to die in a random encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I worry less about the GM fudging rolls than the rampant screaming of the word "cheater" and also of "Bad GM". It tells me that people may have been hurt in the past and/or still angry about it. Hard to have trust in the GM or the group with so much ill will being thrown about..
As with 90% of these conversations, have a discussion when setting up the game. Heck, take out the book and show them what is written and ask what their opinion is.
You still don't ever know when the GM will fudge or not, So him saying he might sometimes still leaves you not knowing if it was chance or fiat. All he's done is confirm your base assumption, the GM may or may not be fudging this.I'm sorry but with the "trust issues" people seem to have at their tables i doubt this is satisfactory for anyone.
This thread has shown quite adequately that the trust issues people have are completely valid, because there are GMs that boldly admit to being untrustworthy.
I worry less about the GM fudging rolls than the rampant screaming of the word "cheater" and also of "Bad GM". It tells me that people may have been hurt in the past and/or still angry about it. Hard to have trust in the GM or the group with so much ill will being thrown about.
I would worry about the GMs cheating more than the people calling them out on it personally. They are the source of the trust issues as this thread shows quite succinctly. In much the same I worry more about forms of prejudice that exist rather than the fact that people point them out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mm. Perhaps so, Anzyr. To my mind this is about as worrisome as calling people who (over)optimize as "cheaters". It all boils down to a matter of opinion and little more than that, despite the yelling and screaming and hand wringing. No one's experience is being impacted, no one is being short changed, and no one is being harmed.
To address something earlier in the thread, if you are punching people in the face over being lied to -- in the game or outside of it -- you have far more problems than a fudged die roll.
I learned that in that type of game, don't bother making a good background with a roleplay oriented character.
I still do all that. The ones that die are just as memorable to me as the ones who don't.
You still don't ever know when the GM will fudge or not, So him saying he might sometimes still leaves you not knowing if it was chance or fiat. All he's done is confirm your base assumption, the GM may or may not be fudging this.I'm sorry but with the "trust issues" people seem to have at their tables i doubt this is satisfactory for anyone.This thread has shown quite adequately that the trust issues people have are completely valid, because there are GMs that boldly admit to being untrustworthy.
I worry less about the GM fudging rolls than the rampant screaming of the word "cheater" and also of "Bad GM". It tells me that people may have been hurt in the past and/or still angry about it. Hard to have trust in the GM or the group with so much ill will being thrown about.I would worry about the GMs cheating more than the people calling them out on it personally. They are the source of the trust issues as this thread shows quite succinctly. In much the same I worry more about forms of prejudice that exist rather than the fact that people point them out.
Right to the most extreme examples as a comparison, like clockwork. Hyperbole that compares light issues with serious ones weakens the impact of serious issues.
I worry far more about the GMs that railroad you through plots with no meaningful choice - whether or not you can die in combat is pretty much irrelevant to railroading.
Or the killer GMs who delight in making way overpowered, but technically within CR guidelines encounters.
Much more than whether a GM will occasionally fudge a roll to avoid a silly death or worse.
Fudging is a form of railroading. It may be an easier to miss form of it, but it is railroading all the same. Killer GMs are an equally valid problem to be concerned about though.
have a discussion when setting up the game. Heck, take out the book and show them what is written and ask what their opinion is.
Yes!
you are punching people in the face over being lied to
To be accurate, no one is, or was, doing that. What I said was that I'd rather have someone go ahead and try to punch me in the face, rather than have to stand there and listen to them lie to me.
Right to the most extreme examples as a comparison, like clockwork. Hyperbole that compares light issues with serious ones weakens the impact of serious issues.You still don't ever know when the GM will fudge or not, So him saying he might sometimes still leaves you not knowing if it was chance or fiat. All he's done is confirm your base assumption, the GM may or may not be fudging this.I'm sorry but with the "trust issues" people seem to have at their tables i doubt this is satisfactory for anyone.This thread has shown quite adequately that the trust issues people have are completely valid, because there are GMs that boldly admit to being untrustworthy.
I worry less about the GM fudging rolls than the rampant screaming of the word "cheater" and also of "Bad GM". It tells me that people may have been hurt in the past and/or still angry about it. Hard to have trust in the GM or the group with so much ill will being thrown about.I would worry about the GMs cheating more than the people calling them out on it personally. They are the source of the trust issues as this thread shows quite succinctly. In much the same I worry more about forms of prejudice that exist rather than the fact that people point them out.
Extreme? There's nothing extreme there. Whether you call the GMs cheaters or fudgers (this sounds wrong somehow) surely there is no disagreement about them being untrustworthy. Because whether you call it cheating or fudging, if one is doing it without telling their players that is a violation of trust. Which makes one untrustworthy.
Whether you call the GMs cheaters or fudgers (this sounds wrong somehow) surely there is no disagreement about them being untrustworthy.
I disagree, in many cases. If the players want them to softball things by fudging the dice, and they agree, they're upholding their end of the bargain if they do it.
When you go on to clarify, "without letting the players know," I get a lot less sympathetic to them, and if you add, "after telling the players they wouldn't," that's the one that reduces my sympathy to zero.
Mm. Perhaps so, Anzyr. To my mind this is about as worrisome as calling people who (over)optimize as "cheaters". It all boils down to a matter of opinion and little more than that, despite the yelling and screaming and hand wringing. No one's experience is being impacted, no one is being short changed, and no one is being harmed.
No, "over" optimizing is not cheating. By definition. Cheating is. Again by definition.
Whether you call the GMs cheaters or fudgers (this sounds wrong somehow) surely there is no disagreement about them being untrustworthy.I disagree. If the players want them to softball things by fudging the dice, and they agree, they're upholding their end of the bargain.
Uh Kirth... if they tell the players in advance then they aren't cheating. My statement applies only to those who are not following the rules.
Uh Kirth... if they tell the players in advance then they aren't cheating. My statement applies only to those who are not following the rules.
In the immortal words of Frank Drebin, "I know that... now."
See edit above -- sorry for the confusion.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, "over" optimizing is not cheating. By definition. Cheating is. Again by definition.Mm. Perhaps so, Anzyr. To my mind this is about as worrisome as calling people who (over)optimize as "cheaters". It all boils down to a matter of opinion and little more than that, despite the yelling and screaming and hand wringing. No one's experience is being impacted, no one is being short changed, and no one is being harmed.
Ah, but by the hyperbolic language being used in the thread, someone over-optimizing is robbing the other players of the experience of taking on the game without someone so powerful on their side. One could argue that you are cheating the game because you are outpowering the adventure as written.
Sure, it's a dumb argument. So is the rest of this. There are better things to worry about. Have fun, game well, and don't sweat the small stuff.
Extreme? There's nothing extreme there. Whether you call the GMs cheaters or fudgers (this sounds wrong somehow) surely there is no disagreement about them being untrustworthy. Because whether you call it cheating or fudging, if one is doing it without telling their players that is a violation of trust. Which makes one untrustworthy.Right to the most extreme examples as a comparison, like clockwork. Hyperbole that compares light issues with serious ones weakens the impact of serious issues.You still don't ever know when the GM will fudge or not, So him saying he might sometimes still leaves you not knowing if it was chance or fiat. All he's done is confirm your base assumption, the GM may or may not be fudging this.I'm sorry but with the "trust issues" people seem to have at their tables i doubt this is satisfactory for anyone.This thread has shown quite adequately that the trust issues people have are completely valid, because there are GMs that boldly admit to being untrustworthy.
I worry less about the GM fudging rolls than the rampant screaming of the word "cheater" and also of "Bad GM". It tells me that people may have been hurt in the past and/or still angry about it. Hard to have trust in the GM or the group with so much ill will being thrown about.I would worry about the GMs cheating more than the people calling them out on it personally. They are the source of the trust issues as this thread shows quite succinctly. In much the same I worry more about forms of prejudice that exist rather than the fact that people point them out.
No, im pointing out you compared calling out people being bigots to people being sure to call gms who fudge untrustworthy.
Its exceedingly hyperbolic to compare those things and kind of cheapens the offense of being a bigot. There's this whole spectrum you can go through before you reach comparing a thing to dehumanizing others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, "over" optimizing is not cheating. By definition. Cheating is. Again by definition.Mm. Perhaps so, Anzyr. To my mind this is about as worrisome as calling people who (over)optimize as "cheaters". It all boils down to a matter of opinion and little more than that, despite the yelling and screaming and hand wringing. No one's experience is being impacted, no one is being short changed, and no one is being harmed.
Ah, but by the hyperbolic language being used in the thread, someone over-optimizing is robbing the other players of the experience of taking on the game without someone so powerful on their side. One could argue that you are cheating the game because you are outpowering the adventure as written.
Sure, it's a dumb argument. So is the rest of this. There are better things to worry about. Have fun, game well, and don't sweat the small stuff.
Yes, that would be a dumb argument. Saying that cheating is in fact cheating however is not. It is pretty much the most basic easy to support arguments possible. Calling "fudging" cheating (when it is) is not hyperbolic, it's not incendiary, and it's not insulting. It is simply a logical statement of fact. And as some of us have heard recently... facts are pretty stubborn things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something can be a logical statement of fact and yet still be incendiary. This lesson is taught every week to Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Or Brennan on Bones. Or <insert character here who doesn't understand how to talk to people> on <X show/movie>.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something can be a logical statement of fact and yet still be incendiary. This lesson is taught every week to Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Or Brennan on Bones. Or <insert character here who doesn't understand how to talk to people> on <X show/movie>.
If a spade is offended to be called a spade, the issue lies with the spade.
Extreme? There's nothing extreme there. Whether you call the GMs cheaters or fudgers (this sounds wrong somehow) surely there is no disagreement about them being untrustworthy. Because whether you call it cheating or fudging, if one is doing it without telling their players that is a violation of trust. Which makes one untrustworthy.Right to the most extreme examples as a comparison, like clockwork. Hyperbole that compares light issues with serious ones weakens the impact of serious issues.You still don't ever know when the GM will fudge or not, So him saying he might sometimes still leaves you not knowing if it was chance or fiat. All he's done is confirm your base assumption, the GM may or may not be fudging this.I'm sorry but with the "trust issues" people seem to have at their tables i doubt this is satisfactory for anyone.This thread has shown quite adequately that the trust issues people have are completely valid, because there are GMs that boldly admit to being untrustworthy.
I worry less about the GM fudging rolls than the rampant screaming of the word "cheater" and also of "Bad GM". It tells me that people may have been hurt in the past and/or still angry about it. Hard to have trust in the GM or the group with so much ill will being thrown about.I would worry about the GMs cheating more than the people calling them out on it personally. They are the source of the trust issues as this thread shows quite succinctly. In much the same I worry more about forms of prejudice that exist rather than the fact that people point them out.No, im pointing out you compared calling out people being bigots to people being sure to call gms who fudge untrustworthy.
Its exceedingly hyperbolic to compare those things and kind of cheapens the offense of being a bigot. There's this whole spectrum you can go through...
My comparison does no such thing. Reread it.
This lesson is taught every week to Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Or Brennan on Bones. Or <insert character here who doesn't understand how to talk to people> on <X show/movie>.
STUNTMAN MIKE: "You have no idea what any of these shows or people are, do you?"
GIRL: (Shakes head, maintaining deer-in-the-headlights look)| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that would be a dumb argument. Saying that cheating is in fact cheating however is not. It is pretty much the most basic easy to support arguments possible. Calling "fudging" cheating (when it is) is not hyperbolic, it's not incendiary, and it's not insulting. It is simply a logical statement of fact. And as some of us have heard recently... facts are pretty stubborn things.No, "over" optimizing is not cheating. By definition. Cheating is. Again by definition.Mm. Perhaps so, Anzyr. To my mind this is about as worrisome as calling people who (over)optimize as "cheaters". It all boils down to a matter of opinion and little more than that, despite the yelling and screaming and hand wringing. No one's experience is being impacted, no one is being short changed, and no one is being harmed.
Ah, but by the hyperbolic language being used in the thread, someone over-optimizing is robbing the other players of the experience of taking on the game without someone so powerful on their side. One could argue that you are cheating the game because you are outpowering the adventure as written.
Sure, it's a dumb argument. So is the rest of this. There are better things to worry about. Have fun, game well, and don't sweat the small stuff.
AND YET PEOPLE REACT POORLY TO IT AND SAY THAT IT IS.
Due respect but insult or not insult isn't determined by the person who offers it or their intentions, but the person who receives it. Its funny because as someone concerned about prejudice one would think that fundamental point wouldn't elude you as it is pretty central to race and cultural relations today. Look at the Redskins controversy, the confederate flag controversy, blackface in halloween costumes, all the conversation about cultural appropriation, the list goes on and the common thread is always those offering insult insisting a thing isn't insulting while those insulted get angrier and angrier about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a spade is offended to be called a spade, the issue lies with the spade.Something can be a logical statement of fact and yet still be incendiary. This lesson is taught every week to Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Or Brennan on Bones. Or <insert character here who doesn't understand how to talk to people> on <X show/movie>.
And you prove my point for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you prove my point for me.If a spade is offended to be called a spade, the issue lies with the spade.Something can be a logical statement of fact and yet still be incendiary. This lesson is taught every week to Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Or Brennan on Bones. Or <insert character here who doesn't understand how to talk to people> on <X show/movie>.
Thats also a pretty racist reference dude.
Stuff that completely misses the point and makes faulty comparisons.Yes, that would be a dumb argument. Saying that cheating is in fact cheating however is not. It is pretty much the most basic easy to support arguments possible. Calling "fudging" cheating (when it is) is not hyperbolic, it's not incendiary, and it's not insulting. It is simply a logical statement of fact. And as some of us have heard recently... facts are pretty stubborn things.No, "over" optimizing is not cheating. By definition. Cheating is. Again by definition.Mm. Perhaps so, Anzyr. To my mind this is about as worrisome as calling people who (over)optimize as "cheaters". It all boils down to a matter of opinion and little more than that, despite the yelling and screaming and hand wringing. No one's experience is being impacted, no one is being short changed, and no one is being harmed.
Ah, but by the hyperbolic language being used in the thread, someone over-optimizing is robbing the other players of the experience of taking on the game without someone so powerful on their side. One could argue that you are cheating the game because you are outpowering the adventure as written.
Sure, it's a dumb argument. So is the rest of this. There are better things to worry about. Have fun, game well, and don't sweat the small stuff.
If you call a thief a thief, is it the thief's right to be offended? I think not.
Thats also a pretty racist reference dude.And you prove my point for me.If a spade is offended to be called a spade, the issue lies with the spade.Something can be a logical statement of fact and yet still be incendiary. This lesson is taught every week to Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Or Brennan on Bones. Or <insert character here who doesn't understand how to talk to people> on <X show/movie>.
This should be amusing. By all means enlighten me as to how.
If you call a thief a thief, is it the thief's right to be offended? I think not.Stuff that completely misses the point and makes faulty comparisons.Yes, that would be a dumb argument. Saying that cheating is in fact cheating however is not. It is pretty much the most basic easy to support arguments possible. Calling "fudging" cheating (when it is) is not hyperbolic, it's not incendiary, and it's not insulting. It is simply a logical statement of fact. And as some of us have heard recently... facts are pretty stubborn things.No, "over" optimizing is not cheating. By definition. Cheating is. Again by definition.Mm. Perhaps so, Anzyr. To my mind this is about as worrisome as calling people who (over)optimize as "cheaters". It all boils down to a matter of opinion and little more than that, despite the yelling and screaming and hand wringing. No one's experience is being impacted, no one is being short changed, and no one is being harmed.
Ah, but by the hyperbolic language being used in the thread, someone over-optimizing is robbing the other players of the experience of taking on the game without someone so powerful on their side. One could argue that you are cheating the game because you are outpowering the adventure as written.
Sure, it's a dumb argument. So is the rest of this. There are better things to worry about. Have fun, game well, and don't sweat the small stuff.
I'm going to ask this, in complete good faith, It isn't intended to be insulting but are you on the spectrum? Neurodivergent? Because it feels like I'm arguing human interaction with someone who doesn't quite get it. I don't mean to offend but it would be a nice thing to know so if it is true i can drop back 10 yards and try a different angle to get to some common ground here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like some people are asserting over and over again that "cheating" and "fudging" are synonymous in a way I simply do not see.
It should be fairly clear that these two phrases are do not have identical connotation, right? Simply asserting a thing over and over again does not actually make a compelling argument for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to ask this, in complete good faith, It isn't intended to be insulting but are you on the spectrum? Neurodivergent? Because it feels like I'm arguing human interaction with someone who doesn't quite get it. I don't mean to offend but it would be a nice thing to know so if it is true i can drop back 10 yards and try a different angle to get to some common ground here.If you call a thief a thief, is it the thief's right to be offended? I think not.Stuff that completely misses the point and makes faulty comparisons.Yes, that would be a dumb argument. Saying that cheating is in fact cheating however is not. It is pretty much the most basic easy to support arguments possible. Calling "fudging" cheating (when it is) is not hyperbolic, it's not incendiary, and it's not insulting. It is simply a logical statement of fact. And as some of us have heard recently... facts are pretty stubborn things.No, "over" optimizing is not cheating. By definition. Cheating is. Again by definition.Mm. Perhaps so, Anzyr. To my mind this is about as worrisome as calling people who (over)optimize as "cheaters". It all boils down to a matter of opinion and little more than that, despite the yelling and screaming and hand wringing. No one's experience is being impacted, no one is being short changed, and no one is being harmed.
Ah, but by the hyperbolic language being used in the thread, someone over-optimizing is robbing the other players of the experience of taking on the game without someone so powerful on their side. One could argue that you are cheating the game because you are outpowering the adventure as written.
Sure, it's a dumb argument. So is the rest of this. There are better things to worry about. Have fun, game well, and don't sweat the small stuff.
It is difficult to have common ground when people do not found their arguments in logic and argues against valid definitions. If you wish to find common ground I recommend doing both.
Fudging is a form of railroading. It may be an easier to miss form of it, but it is railroading all the same. Killer GMs are an equally valid problem to be concerned about though.I worry far more about the GMs that railroad you through plots with no meaningful choice - whether or not you can die in combat is pretty much irrelevant to railroading.
Or the killer GMs who delight in making way overpowered, but technically within CR guidelines encounters.
Much more than whether a GM will occasionally fudge a roll to avoid a silly death or worse.
So you want the GM to run the adventure as writen, with no modification and no fudging, cause that would be lying? Ok. So if said group of adventurer figth some monsters in room A7 and down the corridor in A8 there is other monsters. Is the GM allowed to make them rolled for perception to hear the fight in A7 even though it is not written in the adventure? Better yet, can the group spend the night in A7 because the author forgot to include a table of random patrols in the dungeon?
This should be amusing. By all means enlighten me as to how.Thats also a pretty racist reference dude.And you prove my point for me.If a spade is offended to be called a spade, the issue lies with the spade.Something can be a logical statement of fact and yet still be incendiary. This lesson is taught every week to Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Or Brennan on Bones. Or <insert character here who doesn't understand how to talk to people> on <X show/movie>.
Spade is a slang term for a black person, the reference is pretty deeply tied to the one drop rule where if you had even one sub saharan ancestor you were considered a negro, and by the 18-1900's was used regarding those of mixed ancestry.
For added fun look up the lyrics to the ice cream truck song some time.
So you want the GM to run the adventure as writen, with no modification and no fudging, cause that would be lying? Ok. So if said group of adventurer figth some monsters in room A7 and down the corridor in A8 there is other monsters. Is the GM allowed to make them rolled for perception to hear the fight in A7 even though it is not written in the adventure? Better yet, can the group spend the night in A7 because the author forgot to include a table of random patrols in the dungeon?Fudging is a form of railroading. It may be an easier to miss form of it, but it is railroading all the same. Killer GMs are an equally valid problem to be concerned about though.I worry far more about the GMs that railroad you through plots with no meaningful choice - whether or not you can die in combat is pretty much irrelevant to railroading.
Or the killer GMs who delight in making way overpowered, but technically within CR guidelines encounters.
Much more than whether a GM will occasionally fudge a roll to avoid a silly death or worse.
Monster have perception written into their statblock and there rules for its use. It would not be fudging if one succeeded on a roll to realize the fight was occurring and alerted the others. That would therefore be written into the adventure even if the adventure never considered that possibility. Fudging would be deciding that monsters that would hear a fight do not because the players having a tough time or vice versa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This should be amusing. By all means enlighten me as to how.Thats also a pretty racist reference dude.And you prove my point for me.If a spade is offended to be called a spade, the issue lies with the spade.Something can be a logical statement of fact and yet still be incendiary. This lesson is taught every week to Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Or Brennan on Bones. Or <insert character here who doesn't understand how to talk to people> on <X show/movie>.
As perceived slur The phrase predates the use of the word "spade" as an ethnic slur against African Americans,[9] which was not recorded until 1928; however, in contemporary U.S. society, the idiom is often avoided due to potential confusion with the slur.[16]
This should be amusing. By all means enlighten me as to how.Thats also a pretty racist reference dude.And you prove my point for me.If a spade is offended to be called a spade, the issue lies with the spade.Something can be a logical statement of fact and yet still be incendiary. This lesson is taught every week to Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Or Brennan on Bones. Or <insert character here who doesn't understand how to talk to people> on <X show/movie>.
As perceived slur The phrase predates the use of the word "spade" as an ethnic slur against African Americans,[9] which was not recorded until 1928; however, in contemporary U.S. society, the idiom is often avoided due to potential confusion with the slur.[16]
English language has this fun thing called context. Do tell me how the phrase could be perceived as a slur in this context.
So are we now not allowed to use a common garden implement?
I think one should simply consider using other idioms for calling things as they are or cutting through irrelevant details. Something like "tell it like it is" or "if it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck" or "let's not mince words" is probably less evocative of horrific racism.
Like it costs you absolutely nothing to say "miser" instead of "niggard" right? And we avoid that second one solely because it sounds like another word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So are we now not allowed to use a common garden implement?I think one should simply consider using other idioms for calling things as they are or cutting through irrelevant details. Something like "tell it like it is" or "if it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck" or "let's not mince words" is probably less evocative of horrific racism.
Like it costs you absolutely nothing to say "miser" instead of "niggard" right?
Its also kind of funny that NOW we're concerned about context, despite stripping it all away regarding fudging vs cheating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do know the phrase in origins actually has absolutely and completely zero in any way to do with that, right?
I just know that in order to live with myself, I won't be able to patronize the ice cream truck anymore. This is probably a good decision for a variety of reasons.
Monster have perception written into their statblock and there rules for its use. It would not be fudging if one succeeded on a roll to realize the fight was occurring and alerted the others. That would therefore be written into the adventure even if the adventure never considered that possibility. Fudging would be deciding that monsters that would hear a fight do not because the players having a tough time or vice versa.So you want the GM to run the adventure as writen, with no modification and no fudging, cause that would be lying? Ok. So if said group of adventurer figth some monsters in room A7 and down the corridor in A8 there is other monsters. Is the GM allowed to make them rolled for perception to hear the fight in A7 even though it is not written in the adventure? Better yet, can the group spend the night in A7 because the author forgot to include a table of random patrols in the dungeon?Fudging is a form of railroading. It may be an easier to miss form of it, but it is railroading all the same. Killer GMs are an equally valid problem to be concerned about though.I worry far more about the GMs that railroad you through plots with no meaningful choice - whether or not you can die in combat is pretty much irrelevant to railroading.
Or the killer GMs who delight in making way overpowered, but technically within CR guidelines encounters.
Much more than whether a GM will occasionally fudge a roll to avoid a silly death or worse.
Some adventure specifically called for the monster to move from room to room with the noise of the battle. Others don't. If I am using the adventure as written, there is nothing telling how the other group should react. Join in the fight, go get reinforcement, tell the boss, barricade the room they are in now, a mixture of those. The possibilities are endless, but the author didn't suggest anything. So no matter what I do, someone can come and say, well that's not how they should have reacted. Any decision from that point is made up by the GM and could be called cheating by some.
And you didn't answer about the patrols. Do I add some in, or do I pretend that this supreme evil leader didn't think of setting up patrols to protect his lair?
The actual origin of that phrase, 'dude' is Ancient Greece and has nothing whatsoever to do with racist references.Thats also a pretty racist reference dude.And you prove my point for me.If a spade is offended to be called a spade, the issue lies with the spade.Something can be a logical statement of fact and yet still be incendiary. This lesson is taught every week to Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Or Brennan on Bones. Or <insert character here who doesn't understand how to talk to people> on <X show/movie>.
The actual origin of the swastika was a buddhist symbol too, and pepe the frog was from a terrible web comic where he smoked a bunch of pot and sat on the couch and had no real political opinions.
Some adventure specifically called for the monster to move from room to room with the noise of the battle. Others don't. If I am using the adventure as written, there is nothing telling how the other group should react. Join in the fight, go get reinforcement, tell the boss, barricade the room they are in now, a mixture of those. The possibilities are endless, but the author didn't suggest anything. So no matter what I do, someone can come and say, well that's not how they should have reacted. Any decision from that point is made up by the GM and could be called cheating by some.
And you didn't answer about the patrols. Do I add some in, or do I pretend that this supreme evil leader didn't think of setting up patrols to protect his lair?
Provided the NPCs are reacting appropriately with their INT/WIS and their rolls anyone who would accuse the GM of cheating would be incorrect in their accusation. The GM determining how NPCs react is not fudging, provided it is consistent with the NPCs actual means and abilities.
If there are not patrols then there are no patrols. This does not stop you from roleplaying individual NPCs to act appropriately with their INT/WIS.