A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

You are arguing that the scale is unbalanced when it isn't. (Or at least negligibly so.) You are conflating harshness of chance with unfair, but chance can be harsh but fair. If you flip a coin,* you have roughly 50/50 odds. If you project Heads for 50 percent of the time, but get Tails for 80 percent of those times, then yeah that's rough, but that's not unfair. We may call that unlucky. But that doesn't make the process of chance unfair.

Extreme bad luck is unbalanced as all extremes are.

No. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, Max. The outcome is not determined randomly if you choose to bypass the dice resolution process in favor of another outcome.

I didn't bypass the dice resolution process. In fact, I used it with just a few exceptions which did not determine the outcome of the fight.

And there we go. An admission that the gameplay wasn't discovered. Thank you. Was that so hard?

Um, I never said that there weren't a very few instances where it wasn't discovered. I said that my way still allows play to be discovered, and in fact it does.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Possibly. But
One can be sympathetic to the playstyle while not being sympathetic to the duplicitous double-speak that some individuals perform when defending the GMing practice. I appreciate GMs who are honest and forthright about what they are doing and why they are doing it when it comes to fudging. It's especially grating when these individuals go to great-lengths to justify their fudging while being quick to berate players for "fudging."

But none of this discussion actually contributes anything meaningful to the prior discussion about "hidden backstory" or whatever it was we were kicking around.

I don't know, I think it is probably just an honest disagreement over playstyle rather than 'duplicitous double speak'. It could even just be some people are not as skilled at holding a consistent position in a conversation about gaming. I realize online, the worst crime imaginable is to contradict yourself in a thread, or demonstrate a lack of awareness about something. But given how low the stakes are here, it does't seem worth concerning ourselves over. To me it just looks like they like something and are trying to defend it. I don't think it is double speak as much as it is people trying to defend a preference under the pressure of people dissecting it on a gaming thread. To me that is a much more plausible explanation.

 

[Maxperson]

One can be sympathetic to the playstyle while not being sympathetic to the duplicitous double-speak that some individuals perform when defending the GMing practice. I appreciate GMs who are honest and forthright about what they are doing and why they are doing it when it comes to fudging. It's especially grating when these individuals go to great-lengths to justify their fudging while being quick to berate players for "fudging."

Quote the rule that allows players to fudge and I will allow that rule in the games that I run.

 

[Aldarc]

Quote the rule that allows players to fudge and I will allow that rule in the games that I run.

I'm done beating the dead horse with you, Max. You are welcome to continue beating it, but you'll do so alone.

 

[darkbard]

I'm done beating the dead horse with you, Max. You are welcome to continue beating it, but you'll do so alone.

I refer participants who reach Aldarc's current level of frustration with Max back to Max's post on 21 April, 2018, here, wherein he confesses that he deliberately "twists" (his term) what others are saying in an intellectually dishonest move: "For my part, once I get frustrated with someone who continually misrepresents what I am saying or doing with my style of play, I'll begin to toss back all the same "twistings" at that person to show that it can be done to their style as well. My hope is that they will see as they start defending what they perceive as an incorrect application to their playstyle, and come to the realization that what they are doing accomplishes nothing."

It was at that point that I decided to disengage from him during discussions like this; he seeks an exercise in "winning," not honest exchange.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I refer participants who reach Aldarc's current level of frustration with Max back to Max's post on 21 April, 2018, here, wherein he confesses that he deliberately "twists" (his term) what others are saying in an intellectually dishonest move: "For my part, once I get frustrated with someone who continually misrepresents what I am saying or doing with my style of play, I'll begin to toss back all the same "twistings" at that person to show that it can be done to their style as well. My hope is that they will see as they start defending what they perceive as an incorrect application to their playstyle, and come to the realization that what they are doing accomplishes nothing."

It was at that point that I decided to disengage from him during discussions like this; he seeks an exercise in "winning," not honest exchange.

Guys, going back combing over peoples posts to score points like this, does not paint you well. First off, I don't really care what a poster said in 2018 about something. Largely because the context of such remarks matters a great deal. Here, he seemed to be expressing frustration with someone he felt was twisting his words, so he says he does the same in return (not ideal behavior, but not a consistent policy of twisting words whenever he disagrees with someone). Second, we are just talking about fudging and how acceptable it is within the rules. There is the notion of rule zero, and most groups I've gamed with, pretty much regardless of what they are playing, would say this sort of thing is a fair GM power. Not everyone likes fudging, but most of the people I've gamed with wouldn't say a GM who does it is cheating (though a player fudging they certainly would). I get there is a sharp divide here over what powers the GM ought to have. But this isn't that uncommon of an idea. If you guys are trying to advocate for games where the GM has less power or power is distributed differently, I think you'd get a long further along if you didn't use these kinds of tactics (again, just want to point out, this whole thread was started by someone who singled out one of my posts, basically to humiliate me----that seems a pretty prevalent attitude among this crowd of posters).

 

[Maxperson]

I'm done beating the dead horse with you, Max. You are welcome to continue beating it, but you'll do so alone.

Translation: There is no such rule that allows it.

 

[Maxperson]

I refer participants who reach Aldarc's current level of frustration with Max back to Max's post on 21 April, 2018, here, wherein he confesses that he deliberately "twists" (his term) what others are saying in an intellectually dishonest move: "For my part, once I get frustrated with someone who continually misrepresents what I am saying or doing with my style of play, I'll begin to toss back all the same "twistings" at that person to show that it can be done to their style as well. My hope is that they will see as they start defending what they perceive as an incorrect application to their playstyle, and come to the realization that what they are doing accomplishes nothing."

Here's the relevant part.

"For my part, once I get frustrated with someone who continually misrepresents what I am saying or doing with my style of play, I'll begin to toss back all the same "twistings" at that person to show that it can be done to their style as well."

So what you are saying is that [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has been continually misrepresenting and twisting what I have been saying, since that was the criteria for my engaging in it. I disagree with you. He gets some things wrong about what I am saying, but I don't think he's maliciously twisting my words.

 

[darkbard]

Here's the relevant part.

"For my part, once I get frustrated with someone who continually misrepresents what I am saying or doing with my style of play, I'll begin to toss back all the same "twistings" at that person to show that it can be done to their style as well."

So what you are saying is that [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has been continually misrepresenting and twisting what I have been saying, since that was the criteria for my engaging in it. I disagree with you. He gets some things wrong about what I am saying, but I don't think he's maliciously twisting my words.

I'm not going to be drawn into arguing nonsense, Max. I'm out.

 

[Numidius]

Quote the rule that allows players to fudge and I will allow that rule in the games that I run.

Man, you're adamant.
I see your point.