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="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7753618" data-attributes="member: 5142"><p>Though I think you get to some really fantastic nuances in your argument, I also see other issues at play. </p><p></p><p>(1) Double-Standards for the Same Behavior: Where there is already a gross imbalance of power, this particular imbalance becomes noticeably irksome when it comes to "fudging" and the double-speak used to preserve it for GMs while also castigating players who engage in it. And when pushed, the appeal for many GMs becomes... </p><p></p><p>(2) "The Greater Good": I understand that there may be genuinely well and good intentions behind the idea of the GM fudging for "the greater good." But this amorphous defense casts too wide a net and becomes a lazy means of excusing nearly any and all fudging and a range of Social Contract-breaking behaviors. What I also find disturbing about this defense is the patronizing tone that often accompanies it: <em>"It was done for your own good."</em> It's the idea that "I, the GM" know better than the players how to produce a greater amount of fun for the whole, and that I can engage in duplicitous autocratic behavior for the sake of achieving said "greater good." But is it the greater good? How does the GM know this? I have not seen much retrospection from GMs on this matter. This "good" and the GM's success in achieving it is taken for granted. Sometimes when GMs fudge for "the greater good," they potentially take away from many awesome and amazingly exciting moments for players. Sure, if the player had killed the Big Bad now, it would have taken a lot of wind out of the story that the GM planned. But whose fun is being served when the GM railroads outcomes like this? I don't think it is necessarily the players'. It's fine to be honest and say that it was your interests and happiness that fudging serves and not the group's. You, the GM, were disappointed by what happened. I would appreciate more transparency and honesty about it all. </p><p></p><p>Let us imagine for a second any other game that required a referee, such as basketball or fußball. And that a singular ref decided to change the rules throughout play. They would lie about the results that the players and their opponents achieved. And they would hide behind telling the players, "I can assure you that this is all being done for the 'greater good' of your fun." Now, a sports game is not fully comparable to a tabletop roleplaying game, and I will readily admit that. But my point here, however, is that this would be inexcusable and infuriating behavior in other gaming contexts. And part of the key difference is that the GM exists as both referee and player opposition. And that would make the sports analogy even more infuriating. For example, imagine if your opponent in tennis was also the referee. Yikes. </p><p></p><p>Not quite. In these cases, the GM "imposes their will" within guidelines. It is not a blank check. There are mechanics and guidelines for a GM providing an Intrusion in Numenera. There is a mechanical player payoff for it. The GM is transparent about when it occurs. There are mechanics for the player to reject it. Hell, Numenera 2 was released this month, and it further introduces mechanics for Player Intrusions. But in my prior example, the GM had not changed a die roll or the results. What was the desired result? The player sought to hit the monster. The player hit succesfully. /golf clap. The fiction reflected that fact. Damage was dealt. The GM Intrusion did not erase that hit. What it did was add a further complication to the fiction that follows from the established fiction: i.e., following the successful hit, the axe remained lodged in the beast. </p><p></p><p>I am glad that this works for you and your players. If it works for you, then keep it up, and I wish you happy gaming. But I don't think that this a case of either/or. That strikes me as a false dichotomy, though it may be of benefit to you and your players, so I am glad that you find value in this approach. But I myself can't see much of a causal connection between "I want my players immersed in their characters" with "therefore, I prefer near absolute control as a GM and a separation of powers." While these issues may be casually connected via other related issues, GM Autocracy and Player Character Immersion do not seem causally connected. And there are many other systems where the GM has less absolute autocratic powers, but players are not regularly required to engage in the rules or break their immersion. Let's take this argument from the player side. I recognize your good intentions as a GM. You are concerned about my immersion as a player. But what I would be hearing as a potential player is that you feel that my character immersion and my ability to immerse myself in my character is dependent on your autocracy as a GM. You may not intend it to be taken this way, but this will be a potential implication that I would take away from this approach. </p><p></p><p>Okay, but please understand that I am naturally skeptical of it. </p><p></p><p>Agreed, but there is little reason to preserve the rules paradox for the sake of preserving it. There are ways to write what it attempts such that it not a paradox. </p><p></p><p>That's not true though. DMs can and are replaceable, and they have been in a number of games that I have played. We have deposed and replaced DMs. DMs have left, and a new DM rose to take their place. I have done this on occassion as well. And some games ended not because of the DM stops play but because particular players left or all of them left the DM. The DM is less of a special breed than most DMs imagine themselves to be. And the sooner we can kick these myths to the rear, the healthier our hobby can become.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7753618, member: 5142"] Though I think you get to some really fantastic nuances in your argument, I also see other issues at play. (1) Double-Standards for the Same Behavior: Where there is already a gross imbalance of power, this particular imbalance becomes noticeably irksome when it comes to "fudging" and the double-speak used to preserve it for GMs while also castigating players who engage in it. And when pushed, the appeal for many GMs becomes... (2) "The Greater Good": I understand that there may be genuinely well and good intentions behind the idea of the GM fudging for "the greater good." But this amorphous defense casts too wide a net and becomes a lazy means of excusing nearly any and all fudging and a range of Social Contract-breaking behaviors. What I also find disturbing about this defense is the patronizing tone that often accompanies it: [I]"It was done for your own good."[/I] It's the idea that "I, the GM" know better than the players how to produce a greater amount of fun for the whole, and that I can engage in duplicitous autocratic behavior for the sake of achieving said "greater good." But is it the greater good? How does the GM know this? I have not seen much retrospection from GMs on this matter. This "good" and the GM's success in achieving it is taken for granted. Sometimes when GMs fudge for "the greater good," they potentially take away from many awesome and amazingly exciting moments for players. Sure, if the player had killed the Big Bad now, it would have taken a lot of wind out of the story that the GM planned. But whose fun is being served when the GM railroads outcomes like this? I don't think it is necessarily the players'. It's fine to be honest and say that it was your interests and happiness that fudging serves and not the group's. You, the GM, were disappointed by what happened. I would appreciate more transparency and honesty about it all. Let us imagine for a second any other game that required a referee, such as basketball or fußball. And that a singular ref decided to change the rules throughout play. They would lie about the results that the players and their opponents achieved. And they would hide behind telling the players, "I can assure you that this is all being done for the 'greater good' of your fun." Now, a sports game is not fully comparable to a tabletop roleplaying game, and I will readily admit that. But my point here, however, is that this would be inexcusable and infuriating behavior in other gaming contexts. And part of the key difference is that the GM exists as both referee and player opposition. And that would make the sports analogy even more infuriating. For example, imagine if your opponent in tennis was also the referee. Yikes. Not quite. In these cases, the GM "imposes their will" within guidelines. It is not a blank check. There are mechanics and guidelines for a GM providing an Intrusion in Numenera. There is a mechanical player payoff for it. The GM is transparent about when it occurs. There are mechanics for the player to reject it. Hell, Numenera 2 was released this month, and it further introduces mechanics for Player Intrusions. But in my prior example, the GM had not changed a die roll or the results. What was the desired result? The player sought to hit the monster. The player hit succesfully. /golf clap. The fiction reflected that fact. Damage was dealt. The GM Intrusion did not erase that hit. What it did was add a further complication to the fiction that follows from the established fiction: i.e., following the successful hit, the axe remained lodged in the beast. I am glad that this works for you and your players. If it works for you, then keep it up, and I wish you happy gaming. But I don't think that this a case of either/or. That strikes me as a false dichotomy, though it may be of benefit to you and your players, so I am glad that you find value in this approach. But I myself can't see much of a causal connection between "I want my players immersed in their characters" with "therefore, I prefer near absolute control as a GM and a separation of powers." While these issues may be casually connected via other related issues, GM Autocracy and Player Character Immersion do not seem causally connected. And there are many other systems where the GM has less absolute autocratic powers, but players are not regularly required to engage in the rules or break their immersion. Let's take this argument from the player side. I recognize your good intentions as a GM. You are concerned about my immersion as a player. But what I would be hearing as a potential player is that you feel that my character immersion and my ability to immerse myself in my character is dependent on your autocracy as a GM. You may not intend it to be taken this way, but this will be a potential implication that I would take away from this approach. Okay, but please understand that I am naturally skeptical of it. Agreed, but there is little reason to preserve the rules paradox for the sake of preserving it. There are ways to write what it attempts such that it not a paradox. That's not true though. DMs can and are replaceable, and they have been in a number of games that I have played. We have deposed and replaced DMs. DMs have left, and a new DM rose to take their place. I have done this on occassion as well. And some games ended not because of the DM stops play but because particular players left or all of them left the DM. The DM is less of a special breed than most DMs imagine themselves to be. And the sooner we can kick these myths to the rear, the healthier our hobby can become. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Everybody Cheats?
Top