Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2744488" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>when i find the mythical perfect game that always produces the right results, while still remaining easy for newcomers and quick in play, i might adopt that policy.but since i haven't found a perfect game system...fudging is IMX less required in those games. But a TPK once you run out of action pts is not more fun than a tpk when you have them, is it?my bet is the players didn't &quot;decide&quot; for the troll to crit him or for the group to roll 1s on its first four saves or to decide to have happen to them most of the flukey situations i typically see fudging done to deal with. So i don't get the whole &quot;fudging = trumping player decisions&quot;&nbsp; thing.do your players decide &quot;hey, lets have a tpk tonight?&quot;except that, with a die roll driven resolution its possible for good decisions and good tactics and good plans to get SCREWED (perhaps lethally so) by dice that really don't care about any of those things. Now,. if those results go in the players favor, the Gm loses an encounter quicker than normal. if those results go way out of whack against the players, then you could be looking at those tpks we hear about which costs the players and the Gm what is presumably a decent campaign.thats not an even exchange. IMO at least.BTW, iirc, MnM for instance, the new edition, awards hero pts to players when bad things happen and that includes &quot;rolling a 1&quot; in a combat. So, that game designer, at least, has recognized that dice don't always &quot;do the right thing&quot; and built that mechanic into his game system.Was he wrong for doing so?is he cheating?Again, &quot;fudging =&nbsp; rules lite action pts&quot;its easier and less work (and sometimes much more efficient) to take a decent system and handle the&nbsp; rare vital bumps ad hoc with Gm discretion (aka &quot;fudging&quot; to some, &quot;cheating&quot; to others and &quot;unraveling the space time continuum&quot; to others) than it is to try and create a flawless ruleset that wouldn't need such. Just as in some games its easier and more efficient to let the Gm handle encumbrance with &quot;i will let you know if you are being unreasonable&quot; than it is to tell the players to track weights down to the coins in their purse and provide charts for how much of what one can carry and how many rings can be worn.detailing the scraps i was carrying in midnight didn't ever play a role, mechanically or practically, in the 18 month play... so how was this a good thing to have done?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="swrushing, post: 2744488, member: 14140"] [/QUOTE] when i find the mythical perfect game that always produces the right results, while still remaining easy for newcomers and quick in play, i might adopt that policy. but since i haven't found a perfect game system... fudging is IMX less required in those games. But a TPK once you run out of action pts is not more fun than a tpk when you have them, is it? my bet is the players didn't "decide" for the troll to crit him or for the group to roll 1s on its first four saves or to decide to have happen to them most of the flukey situations i typically see fudging done to deal with. So i don't get the whole "fudging = trumping player decisions" thing. do your players decide "hey, lets have a tpk tonight?" except that, with a die roll driven resolution its possible for good decisions and good tactics and good plans to get SCREWED (perhaps lethally so) by dice that really don't care about any of those things. Now,. if those results go in the players favor, the Gm loses an encounter quicker than normal. if those results go way out of whack against the players, then you could be looking at those tpks we hear about which costs the players and the Gm what is presumably a decent campaign. thats not an even exchange. IMO at least. BTW, iirc, MnM for instance, the new edition, awards hero pts to players when bad things happen and that includes "rolling a 1" in a combat. So, that game designer, at least, has recognized that dice don't always "do the right thing" and built that mechanic into his game system. Was he wrong for doing so? is he cheating? Again, "fudging = rules lite action pts" its easier and less work (and sometimes much more efficient) to take a decent system and handle the rare vital bumps ad hoc with Gm discretion (aka "fudging" to some, "cheating" to others and "unraveling the space time continuum" to others) than it is to try and create a flawless ruleset that wouldn't need such. Just as in some games its easier and more efficient to let the Gm handle encumbrance with "i will let you know if you are being unreasonable" than it is to tell the players to track weights down to the coins in their purse and provide charts for how much of what one can carry and how many rings can be worn. detailing the scraps i was carrying in midnight didn't ever play a role, mechanically or practically, in the 18 month play... so how was this a good thing to have done? [/QUOTE]

Verification