Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6510096" data-attributes="member: 177">I am not sure that is factually correct.I myself noted that, not just as a matter of time, there is a matter of skill: we are not all game designers.  Individual game masters may not be capable of producing rules of appropriate quality.   I also noted that GM errors or misjudgments in preparation might call for a fudge at runtime, and such issues do not call for a fix in the rules at all, as the rules operate as desired, it is the content that is flawed.In addition, the system may perform better in an "unfixed" state with an occasional fudge than in a 'fixed" state.  "Fixing" the system has two basic paths - one in which the system becomes crufty with special cases, or one in which the core mechanic is altered so that the edge cases no longer happen, but he core no longer behaves in the same way as it did previously - and neither of those may be superior from the player's point of view.  And, there's always the issue of unintended consequences.  A systemic fix may have consequences less desirable for a given group than the results of a fudge.If fudging is not common, then the players do not lose incentive, as they cannot tell when it will happen.  In many cases, the GM does not announce the specific point at which it has happened, so that the players cannot detect any pattern (if any exists - if you are correcting an error in prep with a fudge, then there is no set pattern for the players to see. Also, as noted previously, "challenge" is not always the primary need.  Sometimes one needs valid challenge, sometimes one may need other things, and in those other cases, I really don't care about invalidating the challenge.  In cases (which may be momentary) where rules-challenge is not the primary need, then fixing the rules is not called for, and is, in fact, contraindicated. FATE-based games wind up as a good example of several of these points.  A goodly part of a session may consist of improvised elements that come about as a result of player action or GM inspiration at the table.  These are not pre-planned, and balanced stats for these elements simply do not exist before play, such that the level of challenge is not easy to plan.  Moreover, for most of these elements, "challenge" in a rules-based tactical combat sense isn't the primary goal.  While they do add to challenge, in general, but their primary purpose is to increase the complexity of the game situation, and for thematic purposes as well</blockquote>

Verification