Do you "save" the PCs?

[Raven Crowking]

It may be that any given GM's game is improved by judicious use of fudging as one of the many tools available to the DM in running the game, but, as the man said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Now, the above is, of course, only IMHO and IME. YMMV, as they say. You can decide that the size of the "GMs who successfully fudge" set is extraordinarily large, if you like. Nobody's stopping you.

Again, Raven Crowking accepts that a particular GM's makeup of strengths and weaknesses might make fudging the best option for that GM.

<snip>

You might be an exception; if so, you have beaten the odds IME and IMHO.

You will, I hope, note that the estimation of the size of the set is IMHO and IME. I could go back and find more quotes to this effect, but I hope that is sufficient.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

What about that is so hard for you to understand?

That you know for certainty what these odds are. You're basing it only on yor own limited experiences. And when I say limited, I don't mean relative to other gamers. I mean as a subset of all gaming that is done on a daily basis, you have experience with a tiny sliver of it.

Given the great deal of push-back you've received in this thread from gamers just as experienced as you, perhaps it's time to revisit your estimate of these odds. They appear to be off by quite a bit. And as such, you have a garbage in - garbage out problem. Your conclusions are flawed because your premise is flawed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Rejected. You're not basing it on data. You're basing it on preconceived biases.

Not at all.

What I know is:

1. Everyone in your group DMs.

2. You DM 80% of the time.

3. You fudge.

Because you DM 80% of the time, I can infer that your players allow you to DM 80% of the time, and also that you agree to DM 80% of the time.

This in turn suggests that, out of the possible options, your players agree to your DMing, i.e., you are (for whatever reason) their "best choice". If you were not, they would choose to have someone else DM more often.

I can also infer that you do not mind DMing, or presumably you would not do it. They would be forced to have someone else DM more often.

However, as I know nothing about the DMing styles of the other players in your group, I have no way of knowing what factors differentiate your style from theirs. I cannot, therefore, make a rational guess as to why you are choosen beyond those obvious inferences: They like you, you like to DM.

You say that your players prefer fudging. If this is true (and I have no reason to suppose otherwise), it follows that they likely prefer fudging no matter who DMs. In this case, your willingness to fudge is unlikely to be the deciding factor, as every DM in the group is likely to have the same quality.

(Or, at least, it seems unlikely to me that a person who prefers fudging as a player is liable to refuse to fudge as DM. I may be wrong in this.)

Conversely, your players may not ask for fudging in general; this may be something that is only asked from you. Should this be the case, it leads to an entirely new set of inferences, some of which may be considered flattering, and some of which may not be.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

That you know for certainty what these odds are.

Well, the reason that you are having a hard time understanding that is because I have said, repeatedly, that I do not know with certainty what those odds are. All I know is what I believe to be the case. Which, as I have also said, is subject to observer bias.

you have a garbage in - garbage out problem. Your conclusions are flawed because your premise is flawed.

That is certainly a possibility.

As I said upthread, I would never ask anyone to discount observer bias when deciding how to process my arguments, or anyone else's arguments.


RC

 

[Umbran]

Nope.

Doesn't apply to any specific "you"; just to general odds.

Except you also included an expression of those odds. The set of people who defied them was

"...so close to empty that it makes little practical difference whether there is an empty set or a set in which .00000000001% of games fall."

So despite how you've claimed that one might defy the odds, as a practical matter you've said that there are effectively none who do.

That is very different than being inclined to outright denial. Well, in my universe, anyway.

What about that is so hard for you to understand?

Because you yourself contradict it as a practical matter! The out of the odds is a technicality you clearly indicate you feel won't actually ever apply. There is a point where you must be held to what you say, you know, where claims of using dramatic hyperbole are no longer an excuse. You've been on-message for the entire thread, and this is merely the clearest single statement of your point.

 

[Fifth Element]

However, as I know nothing about the DMing styles of the other players in your group, I have no way of knowing what factors differentiate your style from theirs. I cannot, therefore, make a rational guess as to why you are choosen beyond those obvious inferences: They like you, you like to DM.

That really is the limit of what you can infer, I agree. Yet you infer more.

But if it helps you to understand that not everyone likes the same things you do, I'll give you a little more. The player who DMs second-most in the group (probably about 10%) is the fudgiest of fudgy DMs. At times it seems he doesn't care that the game even has rules. Pure fiat a lot of the time.

Of the other three, I'd say two of them fudge about as much as I do, and one somewhat less. Though he still fudges.

I hope that helps you in believing whay I say about my players.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Your conclusions are flawed because your premise is flawed.

Look, if every single one of my experiences with anything goes one way, and I have a lot of those experiences, I'm going to believe my experiences over what you tell me the experiences of someone else have been.

If you tell me what your experiences have been, I'll need to make a judgment as to whether or not I believe you that your experience contradicts mine.

But if you tell me what someone else's experiences have been, it's not even close. I don't make any decision whatsoever as to whether or not you're being truthful, and don't need to, because there are so many other explanations for the disparity. I will simply assume you're wrong, and will continue to do so until I have better evidence from another source than the evidence I already rely on, which is my 100 percent consistent experience.

Everybody makes decisions on this basis every single day. It's incredible that you're implicitly claiming otherwise and disparaging this method of weighting evidence, which, quite literally, people could not live without.

You either don't understand these ubiquitous "weight of evidence" standards, or you're pretending not to because you think it scores you "I Win the Internet" points. Either way, it says something about you. (Of course, one of those possibilities can be corrected. The other, by this point in your life, probably can't be.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

you have a garbage in - garbage out problem. Your conclusions are flawed because your premise is flawed.

I just want to touch on this again.

Logic is what it is, and it is neither the be-all or end-all of processing observation to premise. If my conclusions are flawed, it would not be because my premise is flawed, but because my observational set is too small.

But my premise is not based solely upon my observational set; it is also based upon observation of human nature and the philosophy of ethics. And nothing in this thread has offered a reasonable counter to either principle, IMHO.

(Again, I caution you to take observer bias into account here.)

Any time a person is in a position of authority, however great or meager that authority is, it is important that the individual does not abuse that authority to whatever extent it may exist.

If, say, I were to open an RCFG forum on my website, I obviously could close threads because I was "losing" in an argument; but doing so would be an abuse of authority. It would damage whatever (miniscule) trust I would have engendered with whoever would be desperate enough to post there.

As a DM, I could choose to strike players who made choices I didn't like with "bolts from the blue", but that would be an abuse of authority as well. It would damage the trust I had with my players. (And, depending upon how you parse the 1e DMG, you could claim that Gygax recommended that, too.)

I have suggested alternatives to fudging through deceit; these were deemed by some to be unacceptable for diverse reasons. Some of these reasons were compelling, and came close (IMHO) to answering my initial objection; others (again, IMHO) fall completely flat.

Likewise, there are rational arguments made as to why fudging increases the potential for distrust between players and GM. Some very thought-provoking responses have been made to those rational arguments, but IMHO no argument has been made that shows them to be based on faulty premises or faulty logic.

You can come at the game from whatever angle you like. Obviously. I am no authority on your game, and, as I said upthread, I don't know why anyone in particular should care what my personal opinion is, unless it strikes a chord with them in some fashion.

My personal opinion is that the vast majority of GMs who believe fudging improves their game are incorrect. AFAICT, I have a right to hold that opinion. AFAICT, I even have a right to share it -- that is not OneTrueWayism, although it might make some certain others more comfortable if it was.

I have given my reasons, and my reasoning, in exhaustive detail. I have tried to be clear as to why I don't find the counter-arguments to my reasoning compelling. If you believe that the reasons or the reasoning are false, you should obviously not let my conclusions guide you, hamper you, or bother you. You should, perhaps, simply shake your head and pity me for the fool I am.

Or, if you find them compelling, they may be of some use to you.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because you yourself contradict it as a practical matter! The out of the odds is a technicality you clearly indicate you feel won't actually ever apply.

Hey, Umbran, I tried to address it as "general advice". Do you remember your response to that?

So, let me see. I can't say that fudging is bad, in general (no specifics) or you jump in and ask me if I work for the Pentagon now.

I can't say that fudging is bad, and give the odds of it being good within my experience, and in my opinion is an empty set or close thereunto (nowhere do I claim that my estimation of the odds is necessarily accurate outside my experience), or you jump in and accuse me of OneTrueWayism.

I guess what you are trying to say is "Thou Shalt Not Say Fudging Is Bad".


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

That really is the limit of what you can infer, I agree.

With that set of data, yes. I am glad that you no longer feel that inference is somehow based upon bias.

Yet you infer more.

Using additional data, yes. About many things, almost all of the time, every day. We all do.

But if it helps you to understand that not everyone likes the same things you do, I'll give you a little more.

Thank you. You confirm my earlier inference that your fudging cannot be the factor that makes you the prefered GM. Your level of fudging might contribute to why you are preferred over those whose level differs, however.



RC