Thank you for this article! I agree with the gist of what you said.
I've also heard of some GMs who won't fudge rolls but will offer alternative outcomes in the case of unfavorable rolls. Something like: "You can take the damage and be killed/knocked out, or you can say that your shield absorbed the damage and was broken (you lose the item)." This essentially puts the power to "fudge the roll" in the players' hands and allows them to decide when the outcome is acceptable or too much.
Haven't tried this approach myself, but I'm curious how that would work in practice.
Have to admit I came into this post ready to disagree with you, but you make a solid point.
Was pretty recently I had a player roll for random loot and saw that the result was an obvious joke entry that didn't fit the campaign or character. I read off the next entry instead and they were none the wiser.
Thank you for this article! I agree with the gist of what you said.
I've also heard of some GMs who won't fudge rolls but will offer alternative outcomes in the case of unfavorable rolls. Something like: "You can take the damage and be killed/knocked out, or you can say that your shield absorbed the damage and was broken (you lose the item)." This essentially puts the power to "fudge the roll" in the players' hands and allows them to decide when the outcome is acceptable or too much.
Haven't tried this approach myself, but I'm curious how that would work in practice.
Yeah, i think that’s really cool. I also haven’t tried it myself, i think it’s just hard to remember to do it.
Have to admit I came into this post ready to disagree with you, but you make a solid point.
Was pretty recently I had a player roll for random loot and saw that the result was an obvious joke entry that didn't fit the campaign or character. I read off the next entry instead and they were none the wiser.