"Whoops, I meant to put something like a kobold in this room -- but I can see now that when I was making my notes for this dungeon entrance, I accidentally wrote down half this stat block from the Bolrog stats. And darn, we've just rolled initiative. It'll slow the game down to grab the book and look things up. I'll just adjust things on the fly."TheNobleDrake wrote:I have to admit that I don't even understand what you mean here... it's not the attack roll against an impossible to hit AC that needed fudged, it's the player declaring his attack in the first place that needed fudged?GnomeBoy wrote:Strictly speaking, it's not the randomization that on occasion needs fudging -- it's the human input in front of the roll, fudged after said roll.
If it is the human input that needs adjustment, why not handle that adjustment before or without rolling the die?
If I could re-write history, I'd go back and emphasize the phrase "at the design stage' in my post. That is key to my whole point, and you're right, without it in mind, that last statement doesn't make as much sense. I suspect by the way my post is picked apart in your reply, that you weren't getting the gestalt of my statement.
I have sometimes made mistakes at the design stage. If that kobold/Bolrog thing was a mistake (in design), fudging some die rolls can be a correction (at the table). It is in no way unfair; it is a return to intent.
We are the producers, authors, proof-readers, editors, performers and audience of our hobby. I will use my editorial pen whenever I think it'll please the audience the more, or will move the story to a better place. I know a group of players in a tight spot but loving it when I see it. I also know a group of players in over their heads and feeling cheated when I see it. I know which group I'd rather have in front of me.
Further, I believe I have seen authors of some of the Dungeon Crawl Classics line admit on this forum that one detail or other of their work was out-of-whack, and go on to suggest what should be altered in their published work. Were I to run such an adventure without having seen the author's after-publication correction, but noticed something seemed wrong and made my own alteration either before running the game, or at the table if that's where I noticed it, again, that would not be unfair in the least; it would be a correction, a restoration to fairness.
And I'll invoke a little Gygax myself: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play." (DMG, Revised Edition, 1979, page 9). This comes in a discussion of rolling up a wandering monster as per the rules, but judging that result to perhaps be a detriment to the game, based on what is happening at that point in the campaign. These games don't run themselves; human input and judgment is vital.
I'm not advocating willy-nilly re-spinning of rules throughout a game. Last year, I came off a 3+ years GMing stint. I think I fudged rolls maybe five or six times during those campaigns. Perhaps not even that much.
The bottom line is, everyone playing should have the maximum fun possible. If, in aiming squarely at that goal, I override a die roll to increase the enjoyment of the game for the maximum possible number of participants, I am playing correctly. And playing fairly, too.