Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Are you a fudging fudger?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5113043" data-attributes="member: 3820"><p>I think we're largely in agreement here, save for maybe how we're using "fair"; I think our definitions are closer, but that any differences are products of a group's different social contracts. One of the things I enjoy about my group is a heavily compatible aesthetic, which means that, for instance, if the dice dictate something that doesn't feel "right" to me, I have a good feeling of whether it would feel "right" to the entire group. So, for instance, a purely correct mechanical call might lead to the group all sitting about with that puzzled/irritated "really?" look on their faces. They've been ripped out of the game, or rather forced to look at the "game" part instead of the in-character situation.</p><p></p><p>Now admittedly these are very group-specialized skills, things I wouldn't want to rely on at all with a group of people I don't know as well. House rules, as it were, much like knowing not to ever use the word "psionics" in-character in a D&D game if I don't want my wife to get very irritated and disconnected from the setting. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Here I think that heavily depends on just how the players are perceiving the imaginary world in the first place. To use the example of the players acting on bad info, it actually sacrifices something of the imaginary world when a fluke in the ruleset dictates that the knowledge they successfully gained in-character is invalid, for reasons that don't exist in the game world, but that do exist in a mathematical quirk. So, it can vary.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree to some extent. At the same time, though, I personally think that a game system has to earn your trust as much as a GM does, and that not all instances of trusting your GM more than a system are misplaced. I say this as a player as well, mind; I trust my buddy Jeff to provide a better estimation of his world and the risks we take in that world than I trust whichever edition of D&D he's using at the time, and I trust him to be fair about it. </p><p></p><p>Another good example might be the common GM advice of "if failure would not present any interesting results, don't call for a roll in the first place." That's absolutely a rule that requires trust in your GM's definition of interesting, but I think it produces better games. Not for everyone, of course; I do understand that "sometimes the only consequence is that something interesting happens on success and nothing interesting happens on failure" is a verisimilitude issue that's interesting to some players. I like the other approach, though. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. Part of the willingness to trust the system (and thence the dice) implicitly is finding the right system for us: for me running, that's something where I'm comfortable with things like my threat assessment capacity, and something where I think the system is focusing on the right things. Good die rolls might not just be the key to the game moving forward, it might be the key to whether you're doing anything tonight or not, even as the rest of the group moves forward. I'm not quite as against the practice as is my <a href="http://www.justinachilli.com/blog/2010/3/4/youll-do-nothing-and-like-it.html" target="_blank">esteemed coworker</a>, but I do agree with him on a basic level. We all have bad memories of friends sitting on the couch disgusted after a long workday, missing out on the ability to participate giant climactic fights because of two stinky d20 rolls in a row. It wasn't our bag.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No doubt they are. They make good cautionary tales. But I've also seen cautionary tales from when a GM trusted a ruleset too much and got bad results, or even from people falling out of the hobby because they ran into a game that took the game more seriously than the players. Ultimately, I figure I work well allowing myself a little wiggle room if necessary, and trusting myself to do a decent job of defining "necessary." If I screw up a session, my wife <em>will</em> let me know.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Barastrondo, post: 5113043, member: 3820"] I think we're largely in agreement here, save for maybe how we're using "fair"; I think our definitions are closer, but that any differences are products of a group's different social contracts. One of the things I enjoy about my group is a heavily compatible aesthetic, which means that, for instance, if the dice dictate something that doesn't feel "right" to me, I have a good feeling of whether it would feel "right" to the entire group. So, for instance, a purely correct mechanical call might lead to the group all sitting about with that puzzled/irritated "really?" look on their faces. They've been ripped out of the game, or rather forced to look at the "game" part instead of the in-character situation. Now admittedly these are very group-specialized skills, things I wouldn't want to rely on at all with a group of people I don't know as well. House rules, as it were, much like knowing not to ever use the word "psionics" in-character in a D&D game if I don't want my wife to get very irritated and disconnected from the setting. Here I think that heavily depends on just how the players are perceiving the imaginary world in the first place. To use the example of the players acting on bad info, it actually sacrifices something of the imaginary world when a fluke in the ruleset dictates that the knowledge they successfully gained in-character is invalid, for reasons that don't exist in the game world, but that do exist in a mathematical quirk. So, it can vary. I agree to some extent. At the same time, though, I personally think that a game system has to earn your trust as much as a GM does, and that not all instances of trusting your GM more than a system are misplaced. I say this as a player as well, mind; I trust my buddy Jeff to provide a better estimation of his world and the risks we take in that world than I trust whichever edition of D&D he's using at the time, and I trust him to be fair about it. Another good example might be the common GM advice of "if failure would not present any interesting results, don't call for a roll in the first place." That's absolutely a rule that requires trust in your GM's definition of interesting, but I think it produces better games. Not for everyone, of course; I do understand that "sometimes the only consequence is that something interesting happens on success and nothing interesting happens on failure" is a verisimilitude issue that's interesting to some players. I like the other approach, though. Sure. Part of the willingness to trust the system (and thence the dice) implicitly is finding the right system for us: for me running, that's something where I'm comfortable with things like my threat assessment capacity, and something where I think the system is focusing on the right things. Good die rolls might not just be the key to the game moving forward, it might be the key to whether you're doing anything tonight or not, even as the rest of the group moves forward. I'm not quite as against the practice as is my [URL="http://www.justinachilli.com/blog/2010/3/4/youll-do-nothing-and-like-it.html"]esteemed coworker[/URL], but I do agree with him on a basic level. We all have bad memories of friends sitting on the couch disgusted after a long workday, missing out on the ability to participate giant climactic fights because of two stinky d20 rolls in a row. It wasn't our bag. No doubt they are. They make good cautionary tales. But I've also seen cautionary tales from when a GM trusted a ruleset too much and got bad results, or even from people falling out of the hobby because they ran into a game that took the game more seriously than the players. Ultimately, I figure I work well allowing myself a little wiggle room if necessary, and trusting myself to do a decent job of defining "necessary." If I screw up a session, my wife [I]will[/I] let me know. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Are you a fudging fudger?
Top