| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rerun941 wrote: |
...
I'm not disagreeing, just offering a counter-point...
Having seen Star Wars at least 100 times over the last 33 years, I still get goosebumps and/or cheer when the Death Star explodes. Even though I know it's coming and I know it's just a movie.
Also, I've enjoyed many a published adventure module that GMs have run for me, even though I had played it before, or read through it and know how it's supposed to end. |
It's a good counterpoint, too. I own lots of movies, TV shows and books that I have seen or read multiple times and still enjoy.
But I don't enjoy them quite the same way aas I did the first time through.
An RPG is a bit differernt. It is supposed to be interactive. Players are supposed to have (or at least believe the have) an impact on the story. Few things kill a campaign faster than letting the players know that they really had no control over thier character and that things were going to go a certain way, eventually.
Now if you can "pull their strings" without ther players knowing it, thats differernt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
How do you know they were fudging? The GMs you are counting on your hand failed because they must have let on that they were fudging. The first rule of fudging is, you don't let on that you did it. |
Sadly, that isn't the first rule of fudging. It should be.
In my experience, most GM fuding is blantanly obvious. Usually the GM doesn't want to kill off one (or more) characters and does things ito prevent it that are practrically open cheating. Most fudging Ive seen has been in the Deus et Machina mold. Worst still, it was susually done under cicumstances where the PC deserved what happened to him, and the last second save ended up rewarding a reinforcing bad behavior, leading to the situation become habitual.
As far a fuding vs. impartialiaty, the advice is contradcitory. All fudging, by it7s very nature is bisased, and therrefore cannot be impartial. Good fudging is biased towards the players to make a better game expeience. So is most bad fudging. THat7s the problem. It is all to easy to attempt the fomer and do the latter. Most of the "bad fuding" I've seen has been by GMs who had the best intetnions.
Part of the problem with fudging is that most of the time, a good GM will see and head off many of the problems that lead to sistuations that warrent fudging,. That is where Gharkal has a strong point. In most cases, if the GM feels the need to fudge, then he probably messed soemthing up that lead to the need, and also he probably is going to mess up the fudging, too.
THe better the GM the lbetter he can pull off fudging, but the less likely he will find himself in that situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm feel bad for all the gamers out there that have been burned by bad GMing.
| garhkal wrote: | | And no game should be that way other wise you have things, like script immunity. Pcs feeling they have no control over what happens. Other pcs feeling 2nd fiddle. |
Agreed.
| Whill wrote: | | Interpret the Rules. No set of rules can cover every situation... Sometimes you'll also have to "fudge" the game results to strike the right balance and make the game challenging... Be fair and impartial. In your role as refereee, you're not trying to beat the players. You shouldn't fudge results just to frustruate them. Rather, interpreting the rules should be use to make the game more exciting. |
| garhkal wrote: | | Which to me is a direct contradiction. How can you stay impartial if you are interpreting the results to make things in YOUR opinion funner... The fact you and only you decide if X would be funner is not being impartial. |
I didn't quote the examples from the R&E book, but I'll paraphrase now since you asked the question.
The GM plans for a main villain to make a dramatic appearance at the beginning of the adventure, but to get away for the purpose of building up suspense for the final climactic confrontation at the end of the adventure. The GM designs the encounter accordingly. But one of the players gets a very lucky shot at the villain, say from a combination of the player rolling very well and the GM rolling very poorly for the villain. That might end the adventure right at the beginning, game over, here's your PC's CP award of 1, thanks for coming.
What player would think that a main villain dying at the beginning of the adventure would be fun? That would be extremely anti-climactic and unsatisfying for all. It would be appropriate to fudge the vaporized result to wounded, the villain gets away but with a grudge against the PCs, the players get a sense of acomplishment that they wounded a main antagonists but at the same time the PCs have regret that they didn't kill him. That fudge for the enemy actually increased the sense of drama and fun for the entire group the rest of the adventure.
Then let's say the player of the PC who shot the villain really gets into the adventure, demonstrating excellent roleplaying and teamwork, and coming up with ingeniously creative solutions to problems. Then at the climactic moment, he rolls really crappy, just barely missing the difficulty number, but by the book that failure would kill all the PCs and lhe villain would win. Sure, failure can certainly be dramatic, but let's say here it would just kill the adventure and the campaign. This would be a time where a minor fudge for the player would be appropriate.
As indicated above, fudging goes both ways, for and against players. Whichever way will help the adventure for all involved. If GMs constantly have to fudge to help the players, that means they have either failed to make an even somewhat balanced adventure, or they have failed to recognize that adventures should be challenging to be fun and just want to give everything to the players or help them succeed at impossible tasks. Boring. These GMs have failed.
The impartialness requirement of fudging two-fold. Fudging is also not supposed to favor one player or character over another. Sure some adventures might focus on one character over the others, but in my games all the PCs are stars so it will even out over the course of the campaign.
Yes, it is the GM's job to decide if the fudge will increase the fun for the entire group. Yes, you could call it an opinion, but I think a better word for it is a judgement. If the GM has a poor judgement of what would be fun for all, or a different opinion than the rest of the group, then that could be bad. There are ways for a good GM to prevent this. First, before the adventure or campaign, the GM and players should sit down for a discussion for what type of game they all expect to play and would like to play. Ideally, any player who wants to play in the GM's game will come to an agreement up front of what type of game to play. If the game doesn't sound like it would be fun to a player, then they shouldn't play it. Why would a player put themselves through that?
So having this discussion before playing does two things. First, it puts the players that choose to play all on the same page as the GM as far as what would be fun. So during play, the remaining players shouldn't have a different opinion than the GM. Second, if the GM is forced to make a judgement as to what would be more fun for the players, then would at least know the player expectations and be able to make a better judgement.
This up front discussion may not happen in convention play because there is no time for that. And you've usually already paid for the game by the time you get to the table, so you may not want to back out if there is any up front discusssion. garhkal, it has been my observation that most of the users of this forum are traditional gamers and not convention gamers. We are speaking from the experience of the vast majority of all Star Wars roleplaying. I'm glad I had the experience of convention gaming and that one of the two GMs I had was very good for multiple adventures. If he ever fudged, I didn't know about it and I had full trust in him.
| garhkal wrote: | | My first con i noticed 4 overt/obvious fudges... See a trend? |
Fudging is not effective if it allows something that by the dice is mathematically impossible to happen. Fudging is supposed to be a little nudge here and a little over there. An impossible event occuring is not a "fudge" but rather "divine intervention" and I'll venture that is out-of-place in most Star Wars games. If the GM told everyone he fudged, then he has lost the trust of the players. If the players just do the math and realize that what happened absolutely had to be a fudge, then the GM has also lost the trust of the players. It doesn't take a math wizard to avoid fudging for statistially impossible results.
But keep in mind that there is the Wild Die, and that Gamemaster Characters (like TIE pilots) can also have CPs. And important CGs may even have Force Points. These things can skew the math a bit to make the fudge more realistic or unnecessary.
| garhkal wrote: | | when every encountering of it i have had has shown its ugly head to be either cause the gm is showing favoritism or is more of telling a story we have little chance of changing (ETC), then it does cloud my judgement of how/if it should be used. |
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | You have not been the victim of fudging, but of bad GM:ing. |
Exactly. garhkal, all your examples of fudging have been where GMs have misused and abused it. That doesn't mean fudging in general is what ruined your game. It was the bad GMs that ruined your game. I'm sorry for your experiences, especially for the conventions ones you had to pay for.
| atgxtg wrote: | | Whill wrote: |
How do you know they were fudging? The GMs you are counting on your hand failed because they must have let on that they were fudging. The first rule of fudging is, you don't let on that you did it. |
Sadly, that isn't the first rule of fudging. It should be.
In my experience, most GM fuding is blantanly obvious. Usually the GM doesn't want to kill off one (or more) characters and does things ito prevent it that are practrically open cheating. Most fudging Ive seen has been in the Deus et Machina mold. |
True, the rulebook doesn't explicitely state that the first rule of fudging is to not let on that it is being done. But I stated it was the first rule because that is implied by the definition. One of the verb definitions of the word "fudge" is "to misrepresent; falsify". The "misrepesentation" is that you are presenting the fudged results as if they were legitimate results. You have "falsified" the results. All that means you are attempting to pass off the fudge as the real result, and that precludes anyone else knowing that you falsified anything. If you reveal to everyone that you are ignoring the true result of the roll and changing the outcome, then you didn't really fudge. If you attempt to pass off the misrepresenntation as the truth and a player sees through the falsification, then you have attempted a fudge but still failed to fudge successfully.
The meaning of the word fudge itself means you try not to let on that you fudged.
| atgxtg wrote: | | Worst still, it was susually done under cicumstances where the PC deserved what happened to him, and the last second save ended up rewarding a reinforcing bad behavior, leading to the situation become habitual. |
The rules specifically state that a fudge in a PC's favor should only be used to reinforce good behaviors. Whatever the game defines as bad behaviors should never be rewarded in RPGs. Again, if that happens that is bad GMing.
| atgxtg wrote: | | [THe better the GM the lbetter he can pull off fudging, but the less likely he will find himself in that situation. |
I wholeheartedly agree with that. A good GM will not find himself in situations he is tempted to fudge very often, but when he does he'll not let on that he did. Not overly using fudging will help maintain the illusion that it is never happening.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Critias wrote: | To me there's a difference between "Ooh, d*mn. The heroic Brash Pilot PC spent his last Force Point to try and make that Piloting skill roll to maneuver past the very last obstacle, but the dice roll was just TERRIBLE for as good as it should have been, and right now that would mean the whole party dies in a horrible fireball. I'll pretend he rolled two higher than he did, so the campaign can keep going," and "LOLOLOL no one ever misses, or takes damage!" like you're describing.
One is fudging. One is rainbows and lollipops being handed out to the players, and done in so blatant a way that it (obviously) impacts upon the ability of anyone at the table to enjoy themselves.
|
To me, both are lollypopping things, as in both you are saving htem from dying from damage they otherwise would be taking.
Would you in that first case, let his 'crashing at high speed' flubbed up piloting roll stand if it was just him?
| Critias wrote: |
But in a game where I feel it's dramatically appropriate, and where it will obviously result in more fun -- for all involved, not just helping one player out -- I'm fine with giving them a point or two, here or there, if it's required. The Force works in mysterious ways, after all. |
And how is "Your deciding when it is dramatic" any different in the long run from your thoughts of my former gms being lolly-popping... Nearly EVERY gm i have played with over the 20 years or so, both in home games and especially at cons, says that for a 'euphemism for NOT KILLING THEM...
| atgxtg wrote: | | As far a fudging vs. impartiality, the advice is contradictory. All fudging, by it7s very nature is biased, and therefore cannot be impartial. Good fudging is biased towards the players to make a better game experience. So is most bad fudging. THat7s the problem. It is all to easy to attempt the fomer and do the latter. Most of the "bad fuding" I've seen has been by GMs who had the best intentions. |
And rarely in my experience to make things harder...
| atgxtg wrote: | Part of the problem with fudging is that most of the time, a good GM will see and head off many of the problems that lead to situations that warrant fudging,. That is where Gharkal has a strong point. In most cases, if the GM feels the need to fudge, then he probably messed something up that lead to the need, and also he probably is going to mess up the fudging, too.
THe better the GM the lbetter he can pull off fudging, but the less likely he will find himself in that situation. |
And too often i have seen a newbie gm start doing it, just once or twice.. to keep the 'game alive' then gets to where if he does not fudge to stop X from dying/losing the maguffin, then he is a poor gm. OR worse, the player(s) have a whine fit cause he did not fudge for them then whe he did all those times in the past.
| Whill wrote: | | The GM plans for a main villain to make a dramatic appearance at the beginning of the adventure, but to get away for the purpose of building up suspense for the final climactic confrontation at the end of the adventure. The GM designs the encounter accordingly. But one of the players gets a very lucky shot at the villain, say from a combination of the player rolling very well and the GM rolling very poorly for the villain. That might end the adventure right at the beginning, game over, here's your PC's CP award of 1, thanks for coming. |
Easy solution there, is his #2 just steps up to the #1 slot and plans get backs at the party.. I can say i have rarely had it so integral to the story a specific npc. And never have they been the single big baddie NOR have they shown up from the get go to where that one in a million lucky shot can kill.
i liken it to someone placing in a maguffin/clue/hint that the players need to survive/win the day, but eventually the gm just gives it to them cause they are continuing to roll poorly, cannot see it or are just that damn brain dead. Making something so integral that its loss destroys the game is to me as bad as making one (or more) players so integral to the game so if they die it is kaput. EITHER is to me wrong.
| Whill wrote: | | As indicated above, fudging goes both ways, for and against players. Whichever way will help the adventure for all involved. If GMs constantly have to fudge to help the players, that means they have either failed to make an even somewhat balanced adventure, or they have failed to recognize that adventures should be challenging to be fun and just want to give everything to the players or help them succeed at impossible tasks. Boring. These GMs have failed. |
And as i have indicated, rarely if ever have i seen it go the other way.. I would say 97% of the times i have seen fudging done (or like when asking on this site about death etc) has been done FOR the players sake.
| Whill wrote: | | But keep in mind that there is the Wild Die, and that Gamemaster Characters (like TIE pilots) can also have CPs. And important CGs may even have Force Points. These things can skew the math a bit to make the fudge more realistic or unnecessary. |
And in many of those cases it happens, the enemy spending those CP/FP would actually make those fudges MORE obvious or outlandish.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Critias
Ensign
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | To me, both are lollypopping things, as in both you are saving htem from dying from damage they otherwise would be taking.
Would you in that first case, let his 'crashing at high speed' flubbed up piloting roll stand if it was just him?
And how is "Your deciding when it is dramatic" any different in the long run from your thoughts of my former gms being lolly-popping... Nearly EVERY gm i have played with over the 20 years or so, both in home games and especially at cons, says that for a 'euphemism for NOT KILLING THEM... |
*shrugs* Okay. I've stated my opinion, and I really don't feel like arguing about it, since it really is just an opinion. I'll just say that pretty much every RPG rulebook I've ever opened includes a statement like "don't let the rules get in the way of a good game," and that in all my years of running games, I've never had any complaints about mine being cupcake sessions.
To me, this sort of thing is some of the absolutely silliest arguing one can get into, even for the internet, because obviously what you're doing works for you and your players, and what I'm doing works for me and mine. So have fun, and have a good one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | I would say 97% of the times i have seen fudging done (or like when asking on this site about death etc) has been done FOR the players sake. |
garhkal, all of your experiences with fudging are from a player's point of view, and players aren't supposed to even know it is happening. 100% of the times you have seen fudging, the GMs have failed because of the fact that you have seen it. For fudging to be successful, then players like you won't know it is occurring. If you don't know it is occurring, then you would not have any basis to be opposed to it based merely on your experience as a player.
The fact that you even know about it means it was unsuccessful fudging. If it was obvious to you that they were fudging all those times, then its obvious to us GMs that have used fudging successfully that your GMs were not good GMs, because good GMs can fudge without you knowing it happened. What you have experienced are bad GMs, and it sounds like a lot of them.
But if you want to blame your bad experience on the "evil" of fudging instead of them being bad GMs who couldn't do it right, then that is your choice. It doesn't seem to matter to you that some of us GMs have had had a contrary experience to yours. I have occasionally fudged in every campaign I've ever ran and all but 1 player in 1 adventure didn't have a good time. That's a pretty d@mn good record. So unlike in your experience, fudging, if used properly where you don't know it is occurring, can actually work.
I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion after you become the GM and run a very strict no-fudge game with no GM screen at all. If that ever happens please let us know about it. Perhaps you will have the solution for us fudging GMs that supposedly ruin the game for our players.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Last edited by Whill on Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:21 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | I would say 97% of the times i have seen fudging done (or like when asking on this site about death etc) has been done FOR the players sake. |
garhkal, all of your experiences with fudging are from a player's point of view, and players aren't supposed to even know it is happening. 100% of the times you have seen fudging, the GMs have failed because of the fact that you have seen it. |
Lets be fair here. In the examples Garhkal mentions are comparable to the situations of the OP of this thread. If I hit a STR 2D character with my heaviest sniper rifle (discussed under equipment sector here now) I cant say he soaked it, no matter how much I want to make the character live. Thats just bad GM:ing. If you fudge things it must be within the range of the plausible and believable.
BTW, I think about half of my fudges are for the benefit of NPC:s, when fluke dice would end a climatic battle too soon.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mdlake
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 21 May 2009
Posts: 65
Location: Montclair, NJ
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | Luke is central to the story of star wars. Just like R2 and C3P0 are. No luke, no story.
And no game should be that way
|
I'm sorry...what? No PCs, no game. It's a tautology, just as true as "No luke, no story." The PCs are therefore central to the game. Period. Maybe not central to the universe the game inhabits, but central to the game.
Although I'm willing to shrug and say "different strokes..." when it comes to the question of whether an RPG should be a purely tactical exercise or a storybook or something in between, I have to object to the sentiment above. Especially since it crosses the line from "I prefer to play a certain way" to insisting "Everyone should play my way."
If you're really going to insist on treating situations FAIRLY, why stop at refusing to fudge dice? Why not also refuse to fudge stats: everyone starts with 12d of attributes, and no access to Force skills? Why not also force the PCs through the daily grind: toothaches, jury duty, customs inspections by officers with real expertise in finding smuggled merchandise, easily able to whip some punk with a base 2d attribute trying to slip something past? Why give the players any chance whatsoever to shoot their way out when caught? Why allow them to spend nebulous "experience" to succeed at a single action?
If you present players with a series of carefully balanced fights that they can win if they're smart, you're fudging, and doing it every bit as hard as a GM who sweeps fatalities under the rug. Players know it, too--or should, if they're being honest with themselves. Does being handed a challenge custom-tailored to your character's skill set really make you feel like the master of your own fate? Really?
A campaign that truly refuses all fudging goes like this: "Three unlikely heroes stumbled upon military intelligence that might have allowed the Doogen Pah to throw off the yoke of oppression. But they were caught at the border and executed. The end." Or: "A squad of rebel troops made a daring thrust deep into enemy territory, hoping to disrupt the enemy headquarters. But half of them died from a stray artillery shot, and, without their scout, the other half got lost, captured, and executed without accomplishing anything meaningful. The end." Or: "An isolated, undertrained Jedi was hunted down and killed. The end. His Jedi senses warned him of danger, but he was powerless to flee before an over-eager naval officer carpet-bombed the planet on which he was hiding." Or, with only a modest amount of bad luck: "A band of free traders came up with a plan to make a fortune. But the pilot blew his navigation roll, and the ship plunged into a star on its maiden voyage. Nobody ever found out what happened to them. The end. Roll up new characters, boys, while I think up another campaign idea."
Warrior-heroes like Alvin York or Horatius exist, sure. They are not only skilled but fantastically lucky. The vast majority of players don't have that kind of luck. Without fudging, their PCs are quite likely to die even if they're smart and skilled. Just ask all those clever Victorian Brits who died of malaria in the tropics, or the German casualties of WWII's eastern front, or the early global navigators that never came back. Time and chance happened to them all. And let's be honest: most players couldn't plan a daring commando raid with much chance of success in the first place.
I fudge. Not a lot, but I do fudge, mostly to keep the action moving at all when I run out of alternatives rather than to reach a desired conclusion. A bad roll would infest a PC with an evil spirit? No fudge. A bad roll would strand the PCs on a desert island for years, unable to affect the central plot? You bet I fudge. Yet my players would laugh at the suggestion that (A) I make things easy on them, or (B) their choices don't have significant consequences, and the campaign just reaches a predetermined conclusion. If anything, I tend to give out too little direction, and they feel lost. It's a weakness I'm prone to because I value player initiative, and hope to improvise to meet THEIR plans. They've suffered horrible consequences, too, just horrible consequences other than death from an unlucky roll. Death from spectacularly bad choices, yes, but rarely. More likely, they suffer public ridicule or witness some horror they helped create.
Obviously, this approach only works for players with a conscience. I realize some (Too many!) players insist on playing casual psychopaths who can only be brought to heel with frequent, regular character death, and for those, brutal adherence to dice may be a good thing. Insisting that no game should treat the PCs as special, or that dice-as-ultimate-authority is the only acceptable way to play, however, is indefensible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Speaking of the above.
What is the greatedst 'fudge' of the SW saga?
A thermal exhaust vent that, if you fire a 500 Cr. torpedo into it will blow up a combat space station 160 km across! 
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Or that Luke learns years of Jedi skills in a few days....
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | Or that Luke learns years of Jedi skills in a few days.... |
Not to mention flying an X-wing..
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tetsuoh
Captain
Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eh that last one can be wrote off - he knew how to fly the family ship.
he used to bullseye womp rats with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mdlake wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | Luke is central to the story of star wars. Just like R2 and C3P0 are. No luke, no story.
And no game should be that way
|
I'm sorry...what? No PCs, no game. It's a tautology, just as true as "No luke, no story." The PCs are therefore central to the game. Period. Maybe not central to the universe the game inhabits, but central to the game. |
I'm with you on this one mdlake. The PCs are what the game is about. TO be fair it's about the actual players not the characters so if they enjoy a high risk, single diceroll can make a TPK then sure that's the GM style to shoot for.
I'll fudge if I'm the one at fault, for instance I threw in an encounter to spice things up and miscalculated how powerful to make the foes but my fundging tends to be the rolling of less dice rather than the adjusting of the final result.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tetsuoh wrote: | eh that last one can be wrote off - he knew how to fly the family ship.
he used to bullseye womp rats with it. |
Ah, I didnt know they had their own starfighter...
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
garhkal, all of your experiences with fudging are from a player's point of view, and players aren't supposed to even know it is happening. 100% of the times you have seen fudging, the GMs have failed because of the fact that you have seen it. For fudging to be successful, then players like you won't know it is occuring. If you don't know it is occuring, then you would not have any basis to be opposed to it based merely on your experience as a player. |
Point taken Whill.. I guess those 'gm's were messin up.. So what do you suggest. Frozen mackrels at 3 paces!
| Whill wrote: |
The fact that you even know about it means it was unsuccessful fudging. If it was obvious to you that they were fudging all those times, then its obvious to us GMs that have used fudging successfully that your GMs were not good GMs, because good GMs can fudge without you knowing it happened. What you have experienced are bad GMs, and it sounds like a lot of them. |
So to be (in your words) a good gm, one has to fudge? Is that what i am hearing?
| Whill wrote: |
I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion after you become the GM and run a very strict no-fudge game with no GM screen at all. If that ever happens please let us know about it. Perhaps you will have the solution for us fudging GMs that supposedly ruin the game for our players. |
If you see all the threads i ave posted on both this site and over on the Holonet named "Should they live or die" or "death destruction and mayhem" (or other linked names), i DON'T fudge nor use a screen, and i have gmed for almost 17 years of the 22 or so i have been in the game.
YES i have had some players who were 'used to gms fudging' so as not to kill them off, get peeved at me. I have also had many compliments on my keeping it 'real and competitive'...
| Mdlake wrote: |
I'm sorry...what? No PCs, no game. It's a tautology, just as true as "No luke, no story." The PCs are therefore central to the game. Period. Maybe not central to the universe the game inhabits, but central to the game.
Although I'm willing to shrug and say "different strokes..." when it comes to the question of whether an RPG should be a purely tactical exercise or a storybook or something in between, I have to object to the sentiment above. Especially since it crosses the line from "I prefer to play a certain way" to insisting "Everyone should play my way." |
Sorry for phrasing it the way i did. BUT i have seen great ideas for games ruined cause X or Y pc was 'so integral to th campaign' NOTHING bad could (or would) happen to them, or it would fall apart so quickly. And that sentiment was not just mine. Several of those players who had the gm 'do that' to their character lost interest in the game. So yes, i do see an issue when it comes to making pc's central to the story. YES i do realise no players, no game. BUT that is afar cry from a character being central to a film.
| mdlake wrote: | | If you present players with a series of carefully balanced fights that they can win if they're smart, you're fudging, and doing it every bit as hard as a GM who sweeps fatalities under the rug. Players know it, too--or should, if they're being honest with themselves. Does being handed a challenge custom-tailored to your character's skill set really make you feel like the master of your own fate? Really? |
You have obviously never read any of the threads i have posted in the game master area. I rarely make a 'combat/other situation' tailored to the group. I have it tailored to the setting/area and what I believe the person(s) should have. If that means a newbie starting out is going to get overwhelmed, then they better remember the first rule of combat. Runaway! 
| mdlake wrote: | | They've suffered horrible consequences, too, just horrible consequences other than death from an unlucky roll. Death from spectacularly bad choices, yes, but rarely. More likely, they suffer public ridicule or witness some horror they helped create. |
With some of the gamers i have played with, those 'horrible consequences' would phase them about as much as someone trotting out ''random innocent civilian #102 and shooting them....
| Quote: | | Ah, I didnt know they had their own starfighter |
They didn't. The air speeder they did have (T16 iirc) has from what i remember, the same controls as an Xwing...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
