Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2746211" data-attributes="member: 14140">Now, please bear with me for a moment.it seems like what you are describing is not &quot;the extreme result&quot; but the &quot;expected result&quot;. you are a low generation vampire who has just ticked off a edler with 6th tier powers and he uses his clan focused power on you.So, are you describing something akin to &quot;wow, the orc cirtted and did 40+ damage with his axe swing&quot; being fudged away by the GM?orAre you describing &quot;the orc swings and does 10 damage&quot;, IE a likely and expected result,&nbsp; being fudged away?the former, from a pro-fudge pov, is a fine example of fudging.The latter is a bad example of fudging, fudging done wrong.you don't fudge, or don't fudge well, if you take away the likely, expected result. You don't fudge to take away &quot;the system works&quot;. you fudge to take away the blow outs&quot; the whacky way-out-of-proportion results, the ones which look more like a system breakdown than a &quot;what should have happened.&quot;I ran about ten vampire games over about 10 years and from my experience an 11th gen guy getting zapped by an elder with 6 dot dom is an EXPECTED &quot;you fail&quot; not a wild flukey &quot;you fail&quot; though depending on edition willpower might stall the fall for a brief second or two.So, while this may be the example you want to use to counter my &quot;toss the extreme&quot;, it really isn't. its an example of fudging to just totally remove the expected results.It would be an example of what I call &quot;bad fudging.&quot;as an example of my own, in that midnight game, the Gm once had a dragon spend a full round action to turn around while standing on the ground in an open field. he did this because had he had the varmint do its &quot;expected&quot; full round of attacks, a ranger PC would have died. I noticed it, but I don't think the others did. It was also &quot;bad fudging&quot;, even tho no dice were involved.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="swrushing, post: 2746211, member: 14140"] Now, please bear with me for a moment. it seems like what you are describing is not "the extreme result" but the "expected result". you are a low generation vampire who has just ticked off a edler with 6th tier powers and he uses his clan focused power on you. So, are you describing something akin to "wow, the orc cirtted and did 40+ damage with his axe swing" being fudged away by the GM? or Are you describing "the orc swings and does 10 damage", IE a likely and expected result, being fudged away? the former, from a pro-fudge pov, is a fine example of fudging. The latter is a bad example of fudging, fudging done wrong. you don't fudge, or don't fudge well, if you take away the likely, expected result. You don't fudge to take away "the system works". you fudge to take away the blow outs" the whacky way-out-of-proportion results, the ones which look more like a system breakdown than a "what should have happened." I ran about ten vampire games over about 10 years and from my experience an 11th gen guy getting zapped by an elder with 6 dot dom is an EXPECTED "you fail" not a wild flukey "you fail" though depending on edition willpower might stall the fall for a brief second or two. So, while this may be the example you want to use to counter my "toss the extreme", it really isn't. its an example of fudging to just totally remove the expected results. It would be an example of what I call "bad fudging." as an example of my own, in that midnight game, the Gm once had a dragon spend a full round action to turn around while standing on the ground in an open field. he did this because had he had the varmint do its "expected" full round of attacks, a ranger PC would have died. I noticed it, but I don't think the others did. It was also "bad fudging", even tho no dice were involved. [/QUOTE]

Verification