Are you a fudging fudger?

[catsclaw227]

<stuff from the most recent post>

Dude, can you quit attacking me? Did I do something to harm you?

 

[pawsplay]

Slight qualifier there: I think "If a system consistently doesn't produce interesting results, don't play it in the first place" is good advice. "If a system occasionally doesn't produce interesting results, don't play it in the first place" is crummy advice. Much better to say "If a system occasionally doesn't produce interesting results, tweak and bend that sucker to something that works better for your group."

I love RPGs, but I love them while seeing them for the imperfect beasts that they are. It's perfectly commendable to find satisfaction and delight in adhering to each of a given system's little quirks and oversights, but even a tried-and-true Julia Child recipe can stand up to some seasoning to taste.

And I think we're ready to break out the root beer and Cheetohs. Interesting discussion.

 

[Umbran]

Thus, I have no worries about a sudden rain of fish, falling 1973 Oldsmobile, or Carmen Miranda song-and-dance number irrupting due to a random toss of dice.

Two words: Wild Magic.

And I once ran a session inspired by the Leslie Fish song "Camen Miranda's Ghost is Haunting Space Station Three".

 

[pawsplay]

Not a jab at you, but at the argument. No personal offense was intended.

Having a rule against fudging will not keep DM caprice away. Nor does having fudging create caprice. If caprice exists, it will be expressed no matter how many behavioral rules you have in place. By definition, caprice ignores rules!

Thus, the whole thing is a fiction, used to scare people into behaving a particular way - that's a boogeyman.

So are you saying I'm summoning the boogyeman? What I said was:

A sufficiently foamy system lends itself to predictable encounters without any fudging required at all, whereas GM caprice can turn a staid game of 4e into a Kafka-esque nightmare of totalitarian PC abuse. Using fudging to make pitch corrections is, in my view, sacrificing too much of the imaginary world in service to a desired outcome.

Unless I'm mistaken, we both seem to be saying:

- The GM's authority can be abused.
- Extremes of playstyle are possible with or without fudging.
- Everyone is entitled to select a playstyle that appeals to them.

 

[Umbran]

Slight qualifier there: I think "If a system consistently doesn't produce interesting results, don't play it in the first place" is good advice. "If a system occasionally doesn't produce interesting results, don't play it in the first place" is crummy advice. Much better to say "If a system occasionally doesn't produce interesting results, tweak and bend that sucker to something that works better for your group."

I think there's some solid wisdom there.

It's perfectly commendable to find satisfaction and delight in adhering to each of a given system's little quirks and oversights, but even a tried-and-true Julia Child recipe can stand up to some seasoning to taste.

Hm. Given that statement, something relevant in video form:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2znsOygJY]YouTube - Julie & Julia - Watching Julia Child[/ame]

 

[Barastrondo]

And I think we're ready to break out the root beer and Cheetohs. Interesting discussion.

It has been! I appreciate it, thanks.

 

[Piratecat]

Hey, folks -

It's totally fine not to agree with someone. It's not okay to then be a jerk about it or attack them (and that goes for everyone, of course.) Please don't be inappropriately aggressive or rude when talking about a subject you find contentious. It makes your moderators cranky, and everyone knows how that ends.

Thanks.

 

[Umbran]

Unless I'm mistaken, we both seem to be saying:

- The GM's authority can be abused.

My point is just that whether or not the authority can be abused has nothing to do with fudging. The whole point of GM abuse seems to me to be orthogonal to the issue at hand. The implication that there's a link between them is what's irking me.

- Extremes of playstyle are possible with or without fudging.

Sorry, but I don't see that in the quote at all. I will agree with it, however.

- Everyone is entitled to select a playstyle that appeals to them.

Again, not in that quote, but I certainly agree with it.

 

[pawsplay]

I was just saying fudging can be a tool of abused authority, not that fudging somehow causes misuse of authority. Barastrondo was talking about using fudging to correct defects in the system, I was stating my preference to avoid that approach, since I see problems with good resolutions as having more to do with design approaches by the game designers and the GM than on random outcomes. Maybe this wasn't explicit, but I was saying that a GM should be worrying about appropriate challenges. Barastrondo was saying that he is more concerned about appropriate results. I am much more concerned by a GM saying, "You encounter 10,000 orc minions wearing Hello Kitty T-shirts" than I am by a string of bad rolls.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I am much more concerned by a GM saying, "You encounter 10,000 orc minions wearing Hello Kitty T-shirts" than I am by a string of bad rolls.

As long as they are not wearing Hello Kitty backpacks we are good to go!