i’d argue banana bread is cake, and is not bread, even though it has “bread” in its name
if you were offered a slice of banana bread but they were out so you got a slice of sandwich loaf instead, i suspect you’d be more annoyed than if you got a slice of chocolate cake
Cake doesn’t use yeast (leavened basically means using yeast).
some cakes do use yeast, and something like baking powder is a leavening agent
Cake uses eggs, bread doesn’t.
brioche
Cake is expensive to buy or make. Bread isn’t as bad.
brioche
it’s a doctrinal difference
also you could possibly look at something like gluten formation, but i suspect there’s a gluteny cake out there as well as a glutenless bread
what are you talking about that’s literally already how underground trains already work
it’s writing
advanced degree in literature
🧐
sometimes allowing an outcome that should mechanically via the rules of the game and logically via the rules of common sense has more downsides than upsides
it doesn’t have to refer to exclusively player death
it has the meaning you assigned to it before rolling it, whether or not you’re pulling that meaning from a specific table, and whether or not you reveal the system to the players
if you decide ahead of time that a low result is going to be a tough encounter, and a high result is going to be a pile of treasure, then it comes up low and you decide to ignore that and give them treasure instead based on your gut feeling, you’re fudging the roll
if you decide what’s going to happen next based on your pull from a tarot deck, and somehow get “death” four times in a row, anything less than a disaster scenario is fudging the roll
it’s the exact same instinct that leads to “hmm, maybe this piss shit little goblin shouldn’t decapitate the barbarian in one hit because it happened to roll well”
Fudging rolls means stating the result of a secret roll was different than it was in reality
which is what you’re doing when you ignore it…? otherwise you wouldn’t be ignoring it
a band aid to poor planning
you think you can plan around your players’ actions?
But if you’re a thief and want to open a simple lock and nobody’s is trying to defenestrate you at the moment? No need to roll, failure is meaningless. You just killed a dragon? No need to persuade the king to help you.
this conversation is specifically talking about when you’re in a scenario where you logically need to make a roll, but where a bad roll coming up essentially ruins things for both the gm and players
I may discard the result and go with the gut feeling
this is fudging rolls
okay then, for you the game ends here:
your players will probably just work out that they aren’t going to die at all and start taking stupid risks that they shouldn’t
you can’t just not metagame
if you know a choice will result in a certain outcome, you can no longer make that decision neutrally
in fact, you literally can’t take a risk when you know what the outcome of a choice is, because there’s no risk to take
not even bothering to roll is barely a step removed from just telling your players “i’m not going to make the enemy roll to hit you because then you might die and you haven’t found your long lost brother yet”, and if you can’t see that that’s a garbage scenario for roleplaying i don’t know what to tell you
if you don’t even roll, then you’re robbing your players from the feeling of a near miss
also taken to its extreme, your players will probably just work out that they aren’t going to die at all and start taking stupid risks that they shouldn’t
and yeah, at that point you can punish them, but you’ve been responsible for them getting to that state in the first place, so you’re essentially punishing them for your own mistakes
don’t most people have dynamic ips?