>A GM that fudges every single die roll Can it be done?

>>48829839
Yes. It's called freeform.

You can play freeform while your players play a system, with them using the system to make their choices and limit their actions, while you have the freedom to make choices that are best for the narrative. It doesn't necessarily work for all groups, and some players feel cheated if the challenge isn't "real," but it can be done.

>>48829839
>what is paranoia rpg?

Sure. As long as you're fudging both ways, that's called keeping the story interesting.

Not with that die, it can't.

>>48829839
Certainly, as long as you can maintain the pretense of actually playing a game. It allows you to improv your way through a game with no knowledge of rules and no prep.

>>48831766
>It allows you to run a shit game.

Fixed.

>>48831966
It's not like most players that you get online can tell the difference.

File: 1241314932984.png (4KB, 184x211px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 184x211px

>>48831999

Well, yes, of course they can't tell the difference. *Every* online game is shit.

File: 1469139762475.jpg (87KB, 531x471px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 531x471px

>>48832140
So what you're saying is the method is perfectly fit for purpose?

>>48829839
I had a GM that rolled mostly for show. It didn't matter what he rolled since he just decided what would happen. And not in a railroady way, just what he felt made sense as we went.

It was kind of infuriating for me sometimes, but the game was fun and that's what matters.

It can be done, but I just don't think I'd find it particularly fun

>>48829839
I roll behind a screen for exactly this reason.