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 is not your friend
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6041799" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Yes. I don't run a very exploration-oriented game, so the world (and the encounters within it) aren't pre-given. I frame situations and encounters in ways that seem like they will be interesting to me and the players in light of what's come before.</p><p></p><p>(This is what [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] upthread called my narrativist-drifted 4e.)</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-pathfinder/330383-underdark-adventure-demons-beholders-elementals-hydra.html" target="_blank">Here is an example</a> of changing the encounter composition mid-encounter: the player of the invoker declared a Perception check before moving to hide behind a stalagmite, clearly concerned that it might be a roper. He rolled a high check, and - for fun - I decided to stick a roper in there for him to avoid hiding behind!</p><p></p><p>For me this isn't fudging, though. I associate fudging with action resolution. Whereas what I've just described is scene-framing. Or, in the rope case, adjudication of a Perception check by introducing an amusing complication in response to it.</p><p></p><p>There was certainly no deceit of the players - they knew that I stuck the roper in in response to the check (and groaned appropriately). (I'm a pretty upfront GM - I don't use a screen, and I tend to declare most of my rolls to the players.) But for me that's what scene framing, and adjudication, are about - following the players' cues and always prodding and pushing, keeping up the pressure so that interesting choices are made, and consequently interesting things happen.</p><p></p><p>I should also say that my judgements here are coloured by the rules system I am using (4e). In classic D&D, for example, the line between scene framing and action resolution is less clear, because the action resolution mechanics include a whole lot of dungeon exploration and divination stuff that is meant to lock down the details of the dungeon prior to them actually being engaged as encounters. There is a strong argument that, in classic D&D, it <em>would</em> be cheating to introduce a roper into an encounter in the way I did if it hadn't been planned for, because doing so would undermine the integrity of the players' decisions about scouting, divining etc.</p><p></p><p>Again, I don't see that as fudging. It's the GM's job to adjudicate the actions of NPCs and monsters.</p><p></p><p>That's not to say that a GM may not make decisions that produce a boring or "weaksauce" game. But there is no deception of the players or suspension of the action resolution mechanics: the players know what actions the GM is choosing for the ogre.</p><p></p><p>When I choose actions for my NPCs and monsters, I'm guided by a number of overlapping considerations: what will display/reinforce their character and colour; what will keep the pressure on the players; what will <em>engage</em> the various players; what seems fun or interesting at the time, etc.</p><p></p><p>I think you give a good description here of some of the issues that arise when you try to take a system that offers only weak support for non-exploratory play (simulationinst or gamist with simulationist chassis) and try to drift it in a different direction - there is pressure to correct its infelicities so that it better delivers the desired experience.</p><p></p><p>I agree that Fate Points are probably a better stop-gap than fudging, although they can interfere with simulationist preferences.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6041799, member: 42582"] Yes. I don't run a very exploration-oriented game, so the world (and the encounters within it) aren't pre-given. I frame situations and encounters in ways that seem like they will be interesting to me and the players in light of what's come before. (This is what [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] upthread called my narrativist-drifted 4e.) [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-pathfinder/330383-underdark-adventure-demons-beholders-elementals-hydra.html]Here is an example[/url] of changing the encounter composition mid-encounter: the player of the invoker declared a Perception check before moving to hide behind a stalagmite, clearly concerned that it might be a roper. He rolled a high check, and - for fun - I decided to stick a roper in there for him to avoid hiding behind! For me this isn't fudging, though. I associate fudging with action resolution. Whereas what I've just described is scene-framing. Or, in the rope case, adjudication of a Perception check by introducing an amusing complication in response to it. There was certainly no deceit of the players - they knew that I stuck the roper in in response to the check (and groaned appropriately). (I'm a pretty upfront GM - I don't use a screen, and I tend to declare most of my rolls to the players.) But for me that's what scene framing, and adjudication, are about - following the players' cues and always prodding and pushing, keeping up the pressure so that interesting choices are made, and consequently interesting things happen. I should also say that my judgements here are coloured by the rules system I am using (4e). In classic D&D, for example, the line between scene framing and action resolution is less clear, because the action resolution mechanics include a whole lot of dungeon exploration and divination stuff that is meant to lock down the details of the dungeon prior to them actually being engaged as encounters. There is a strong argument that, in classic D&D, it [I]would[/I] be cheating to introduce a roper into an encounter in the way I did if it hadn't been planned for, because doing so would undermine the integrity of the players' decisions about scouting, divining etc. Again, I don't see that as fudging. It's the GM's job to adjudicate the actions of NPCs and monsters. That's not to say that a GM may not make decisions that produce a boring or "weaksauce" game. But there is no deception of the players or suspension of the action resolution mechanics: the players know what actions the GM is choosing for the ogre. When I choose actions for my NPCs and monsters, I'm guided by a number of overlapping considerations: what will display/reinforce their character and colour; what will keep the pressure on the players; what will [I]engage[/I] the various players; what seems fun or interesting at the time, etc. I think you give a good description here of some of the issues that arise when you try to take a system that offers only weak support for non-exploratory play (simulationinst or gamist with simulationist chassis) and try to drift it in a different direction - there is pressure to correct its infelicities so that it better delivers the desired experience. I agree that Fate Points are probably a better stop-gap than fudging, although they can interfere with simulationist preferences. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Fudging is not your friend
Top