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
Fudging for fun and profit.
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="Cadfan" data-source="post: 5106635" data-attributes="member: 40961"><p>I don't think this argument works. I think the point is that the DM is not an impartial arbiter if he's already setting up the preconditions in which he will (allegedly) impartially arbitrate.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I don't any of the following as being all that different from one another- at most, a difference in degree and not type:</p><p></p><p>1. Fudging a die roll to avoid a PC death or other unsatisfying event (not all pc deaths are unsatisfying, yadda yadda, if any passer-bys which to launch into a tirade on this point please fork the thread)</p><p></p><p>2. Fudging a die roll to ensure a PC setback you predict will be fun</p><p></p><p>3. Secretly granting a bonus or penalty to a die roll that isn't justified by the rules, but which is logical and helps avoid a PC death or other unsatisfying event</p><p></p><p>4. Secretly granting a bonus or penalty to a die roll that isn't justified by the rules, but which is logical and helps ensure a PC setback you think will be fun</p><p></p><p>5. Designing an encounter in advance so that certain outcomes are likely, for example, by including lots of places to hide so that a stealthy PC can succeed</p><p></p><p>6. Designing an encounter in advance so that certain setbacks are likely, such as including bright light to make a stealthy pcs life more difficult</p><p></p><p>7. Making a decision on the fly so that a PC can succeed, or is more likely to succeed, such as filling a previously unmapped room with hiding places so that a fleeing PC can hide or ambush his pursuers</p><p></p><p>8. Making a decision on the fly so that a PC can suffer a fun setback, such as a previously unmapped room being filled with a bathing opera star who screams at the PCs arrival with volume that shatters glass, alerting every guard in the area but giving him someone to sweet talk</p><p></p><p>9. Publicly announcing, in advance of it coming up, that a particular roll will get a bonus or penalty for a plot reason you've invented that will help create an outcome you think will be fun</p><p></p><p>10. Publicly announcing, at the time of the roll, that there will be a bonus or penalty for a plot reason you've invented that will help create an outcome you think will be fun</p><p></p><p>11. Publicly announcing, in advance of it coming up, that an entire rule will be altered for a plot reason you've invented that will help create an outcome you think will be fun</p><p></p><p>12. Publicly announcing, at the time of the relevant event, that an entire rule will be altered for a plot reason you've invented that will help create an outcome you think will be fun</p><p></p><p>The difference between these, to me, seems to be how seamlessly they fit into the game. Some show more or less of the man behind the curtain, others preserve the illusion of the Great Oz.</p><p></p><p>I think there's a lot of reasons to view numbers 10 and 12 as the worst, actually. No matter what the DM is exercising editorial control, but RPGs work on the illusion that the DM is being neutral. Numbers 10 and 12 are the ones that makes it most obvious that the DM is altering "the game," and since it happens at the time of the die roll, it makes it seem as if the DM is doing so without forethought.</p><p></p><p>Number 9 is less bad because it implies the DM considered matters in advance and came up with a situational rule, which is normally the DM's job.</p><p></p><p>Numbers 5 and 6 are least objectionable, and probably completely unavoidable. There are actually some DMs who claim not to consider PC abilities when designing encounters, but I'm not sure I believe them. In-game outcomes would be awfully strange if PC abilities were in no way considered during the creation of an encounter. But even 5 and 6 can become bad if the players start to get a feeling that the DM is using this ability unfairly.</p><p></p><p>Numbers 7 and 8 are amongst the least objectionable, though I've had some DMs object to them on the grounds that no one should ever have unmapped regions that the PCs might encounter. I've never quite grasped that objection.</p><p></p><p>Anyways, this has gone on long enough and I haven't even started to get into my dislike for the attitude that says that a DMs suspension of disbelief is important... let me stick all that and bottom line this:</p><p></p><p>All of the examples are the DM exerting editorial control. They have different degrees of utility and subtlety. At least for me, what matters most is preserving the illusion and believability of the gameworld, and letting interesting things happen at the table. Each of these are good or bad to the extent that they accomplish these goals.</p><p></p><p>But editorial control itself is inevitable and inescapable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 5106635, member: 40961"] I don't think this argument works. I think the point is that the DM is not an impartial arbiter if he's already setting up the preconditions in which he will (allegedly) impartially arbitrate. Personally, I don't any of the following as being all that different from one another- at most, a difference in degree and not type: 1. Fudging a die roll to avoid a PC death or other unsatisfying event (not all pc deaths are unsatisfying, yadda yadda, if any passer-bys which to launch into a tirade on this point please fork the thread) 2. Fudging a die roll to ensure a PC setback you predict will be fun 3. Secretly granting a bonus or penalty to a die roll that isn't justified by the rules, but which is logical and helps avoid a PC death or other unsatisfying event 4. Secretly granting a bonus or penalty to a die roll that isn't justified by the rules, but which is logical and helps ensure a PC setback you think will be fun 5. Designing an encounter in advance so that certain outcomes are likely, for example, by including lots of places to hide so that a stealthy PC can succeed 6. Designing an encounter in advance so that certain setbacks are likely, such as including bright light to make a stealthy pcs life more difficult 7. Making a decision on the fly so that a PC can succeed, or is more likely to succeed, such as filling a previously unmapped room with hiding places so that a fleeing PC can hide or ambush his pursuers 8. Making a decision on the fly so that a PC can suffer a fun setback, such as a previously unmapped room being filled with a bathing opera star who screams at the PCs arrival with volume that shatters glass, alerting every guard in the area but giving him someone to sweet talk 9. Publicly announcing, in advance of it coming up, that a particular roll will get a bonus or penalty for a plot reason you've invented that will help create an outcome you think will be fun 10. Publicly announcing, at the time of the roll, that there will be a bonus or penalty for a plot reason you've invented that will help create an outcome you think will be fun 11. Publicly announcing, in advance of it coming up, that an entire rule will be altered for a plot reason you've invented that will help create an outcome you think will be fun 12. Publicly announcing, at the time of the relevant event, that an entire rule will be altered for a plot reason you've invented that will help create an outcome you think will be fun The difference between these, to me, seems to be how seamlessly they fit into the game. Some show more or less of the man behind the curtain, others preserve the illusion of the Great Oz. I think there's a lot of reasons to view numbers 10 and 12 as the worst, actually. No matter what the DM is exercising editorial control, but RPGs work on the illusion that the DM is being neutral. Numbers 10 and 12 are the ones that makes it most obvious that the DM is altering "the game," and since it happens at the time of the die roll, it makes it seem as if the DM is doing so without forethought. Number 9 is less bad because it implies the DM considered matters in advance and came up with a situational rule, which is normally the DM's job. Numbers 5 and 6 are least objectionable, and probably completely unavoidable. There are actually some DMs who claim not to consider PC abilities when designing encounters, but I'm not sure I believe them. In-game outcomes would be awfully strange if PC abilities were in no way considered during the creation of an encounter. But even 5 and 6 can become bad if the players start to get a feeling that the DM is using this ability unfairly. Numbers 7 and 8 are amongst the least objectionable, though I've had some DMs object to them on the grounds that no one should ever have unmapped regions that the PCs might encounter. I've never quite grasped that objection. Anyways, this has gone on long enough and I haven't even started to get into my dislike for the attitude that says that a DMs suspension of disbelief is important... let me stick all that and bottom line this: All of the examples are the DM exerting editorial control. They have different degrees of utility and subtlety. At least for me, what matters most is preserving the illusion and believability of the gameworld, and letting interesting things happen at the table. Each of these are good or bad to the extent that they accomplish these goals. But editorial control itself is inevitable and inescapable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Fudging for fun and profit.
Top