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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Everybody Cheats?
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="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7753599" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>The issue behind people's dislike of fudging is not that the number has changed. It's that the GM is imposing their will over the game, when in theory they otherwise don't have that capability. That the actions of the player and the luck of the die aren't the deciding factor, but the GM is. It's a question of how much power the GM has, more than it is the mechanics of that power. People get hung up on fudging, but if the GM tells you after you complain that before they made the roll they determined that under these particular circumstances there was a bonus applied to the roll, and that's why it occurred, people have less of an issue with that. It's no longer fudging.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand. there are players that don't want the GM to have the power to make any such judgements. The rules state when a modifier is applied or not, and if those conditions aren't met, then the roll is not modified.</p><p></p><p>In story now games, the GM can absolutely still impose their will. It has to be done in a different way, and it might be more difficult, but the underlying problem can still exist. The GM intrusion you describe is essentially the same thing. In Cypher there is a mechanic to reject that intrusion, but the GM has still altered the results to their desire. In Apocalypse games, the players can't necessarily reject it, they have to find a way to work with it. Is it fudging? Cheating? Rule Zero? I don't know, and I don't think it matters. Many of these games seem to be designed to reduce the influence of the GM, as if it's a bad thing. They have rules, such as the ability to reject a DM "intrusion" to further reduce their power or influence on the game. Certainly there are ways to design a game that don't require a GM at all. But even without control of the rules, the GM will still have an influence on the game and the narrative.</p><p></p><p>I haven't played enough of those games, nor often enough, to claim any sort of mastery. All I can say is that they aren't the kind of game I enjoy. I really enjoy the AD&D-style approach of a GM that has near absolute control. Not so I can exercise superiority, but because I like the particular separation of powers. One of my goals is to allow the players to be immersed in their characters, and whenever they have to engage the rules, they are no longer immersed in their character. So if I'm in charge of the rules, then they can spend more time immersed in their characters. I love world building, I love writing rules, I love writing complex, inter-weaved narratives. All of these are things I can do without reducing the player's immersion and full control of their character within the game. The Gygaxian AD&D model is the best fit I've found, and more importantly, it's the model that seems to work best for the players in my campaigns. </p><p></p><p>I enjoy the theory, and probably drive my players a bit crazy with it from time-to-time. But there's a difference between idealistic theory and what works well. I get it, there are plenty of folks who feel that rule zero or fudging are unnecessary, bad game design, lazy GMing, whatever. But this is, after all, a game. And as such the most important thing is that the participants are enjoying it. And for a large amount of the RPG population, these methods are not a problem. And that's really the only thing I object to, the idea that one approach is "right" and the other is "wrong" when the reality is that it really just depends on the participants.</p><p></p><p>And no, I don't think it's smoke and mirrors for propagating his power. While I don't always agree with all of Gary's specific rulings, overall in interviews and chats with him it's clear that he saw the purpose of the GM to be a fair and impartial referee within the game to provide a place for the players to explore and enjoy. The idea that Rule Zero or fudging might be used from time-to-time is dependent upon that responsibility.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7753599, member: 6778044"] The issue behind people's dislike of fudging is not that the number has changed. It's that the GM is imposing their will over the game, when in theory they otherwise don't have that capability. That the actions of the player and the luck of the die aren't the deciding factor, but the GM is. It's a question of how much power the GM has, more than it is the mechanics of that power. People get hung up on fudging, but if the GM tells you after you complain that before they made the roll they determined that under these particular circumstances there was a bonus applied to the roll, and that's why it occurred, people have less of an issue with that. It's no longer fudging. On the other hand. there are players that don't want the GM to have the power to make any such judgements. The rules state when a modifier is applied or not, and if those conditions aren't met, then the roll is not modified. In story now games, the GM can absolutely still impose their will. It has to be done in a different way, and it might be more difficult, but the underlying problem can still exist. The GM intrusion you describe is essentially the same thing. In Cypher there is a mechanic to reject that intrusion, but the GM has still altered the results to their desire. In Apocalypse games, the players can't necessarily reject it, they have to find a way to work with it. Is it fudging? Cheating? Rule Zero? I don't know, and I don't think it matters. Many of these games seem to be designed to reduce the influence of the GM, as if it's a bad thing. They have rules, such as the ability to reject a DM "intrusion" to further reduce their power or influence on the game. Certainly there are ways to design a game that don't require a GM at all. But even without control of the rules, the GM will still have an influence on the game and the narrative. I haven't played enough of those games, nor often enough, to claim any sort of mastery. All I can say is that they aren't the kind of game I enjoy. I really enjoy the AD&D-style approach of a GM that has near absolute control. Not so I can exercise superiority, but because I like the particular separation of powers. One of my goals is to allow the players to be immersed in their characters, and whenever they have to engage the rules, they are no longer immersed in their character. So if I'm in charge of the rules, then they can spend more time immersed in their characters. I love world building, I love writing rules, I love writing complex, inter-weaved narratives. All of these are things I can do without reducing the player's immersion and full control of their character within the game. The Gygaxian AD&D model is the best fit I've found, and more importantly, it's the model that seems to work best for the players in my campaigns. I enjoy the theory, and probably drive my players a bit crazy with it from time-to-time. But there's a difference between idealistic theory and what works well. I get it, there are plenty of folks who feel that rule zero or fudging are unnecessary, bad game design, lazy GMing, whatever. But this is, after all, a game. And as such the most important thing is that the participants are enjoying it. And for a large amount of the RPG population, these methods are not a problem. And that's really the only thing I object to, the idea that one approach is "right" and the other is "wrong" when the reality is that it really just depends on the participants. And no, I don't think it's smoke and mirrors for propagating his power. While I don't always agree with all of Gary's specific rulings, overall in interviews and chats with him it's clear that he saw the purpose of the GM to be a fair and impartial referee within the game to provide a place for the players to explore and enjoy. The idea that Rule Zero or fudging might be used from time-to-time is dependent upon that responsibility. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Everybody Cheats?
Top