Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2744471" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>huh? What if the "what the Gm would have liked" is to not have a campaign ending tpk? You seem to be implying that the Gm is fudging for no good reason, that the game is as good with the current result than with the the GMs fudge.In the vast majority of fudges i have seen, thats not the case.roleplaying and railroading, sure. unplayable dvd and tpk, not seeing the difference that much. Both generally mean no more doing this until you get a new one. About the only diff is we all probably have a lot more time and work spent into the characters and the campaign than we did buying the dvd.which would seem to make the tpk thing worse and more well served with a little fix.I have no knowledge of that game so i will have to wing it.In competitive games, its more common to take a bad result and typically that likely ends the game in short order, or at least, you often hope it doesn't turn into a long forgone conclusion slow death kind of things. That would be the case in tournament play of course.In friendly games, even "competitive" ones, it depends on the players and the atmosphere. Ches guys tend in my experience to be much more akin to the "you messed up so pay the price" kind of notion. However, i also play go, sometimes in tourneys, and at go clubs and I much prefer that atmosphere. At the clubs when you play you often play against stronger or weaker players and so its not as cutthroat. Its very common to see games in which after one player makes a blunder, the better player shows them the error, then puts it back, and they continue. its often considered sort of "uncivilized" or "uncouth" to have a great game spoiled by a careless error and both sides are frequently more than happy to take a step back and continue to play the game they are having fun at. Really, its less about winning than playing. an enjoyable game that has lasted one hour and shows promise of lasting another equally fun hour is seemingly preferable (to that crowd) to one that ends abruptly and abortively with a single brainfart spoiling it midway.Now, both of those are way different than rpgs in that RPGs are not competitive and MOST RPGs have a degree of randomness involved.I don't know about your arkham game but i would be the answer would depend more on the players and their outlook than on the game. On whether they are more like chess players or like go players.truthfully about the only time i would see "take the roll" as your only recourse is in tourney type setups.The disconnect between us is that you seem to be lumping fudging with "the Gms story" and maybe eve with railroading.I see it as recognizing that no system is perfect and that part of the Gms role is to handle the occasional rare system blow out. I also see dice fudging specifically as one small piece of dozens of far more serious "adjustments" to encounters and happenings and challenges and in those "the system" that a Gm makes session after session, so getting all flustered over that one bit is rather pointless.look, in my DND game, by the time we were six months in, I decided to toss in a Buffy rule and turn "monsters attack" rolls into "players evade " rolls 'cuz i had seven players. They took to it just fine. You see the rule presented later on in UA, though wotc got the math wrong. I think iirc i did it even for monster saves, letting the players roll "spell potency" instead of me rolling saves.  Saved me some time and effort, let me tell you and the players took to it quite nicely. That didn't impact my ability to mitigate system blowouts and "fudge" by any measurable quantity.So, if you wanna think whether or not the Gm fudges some dice results now and agai9n is some high powered control over "roleplaying vs railroading" or "playing vs storytelling" go right ahead.[/QUOTE]

Verification