Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2746493" data-attributes="member: 26473">Awesome! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> I'm really glad to hear that - that's exactly why I think it's so important to play it straight. I believe it's integral to a "quality gaming experience," though I've been told I'm wrong about that.And on that note...Excepting the part of the rules that says the GM is free to change the rules and offering pages of guidance on how to do it in ways that aren't game-breaking, of course.Attempting to redefine fudging as a house rule is a weak semantic trick, nothing more.It also misses the point, as the core rules specifically address the question of fudging already - it's described as "bending the rules." House rules don't bend the rules - they change them, or expand on them. Fudging is not a house rule - it takes place outside the rules of the game.The book has this to say as well:The book goes on to warn about pitfalls of fudging, saying, "With no element of risk, victory will seem less sweet," which seems to echo many of the concerns raised by other posters in the thread.Fudge at your peril, but please don't try to sell it as something it's not.You're right, of course.I never learned that arbitrarily ignoring the rules and lying to the players about the results of their actions was the "best" way to provide a "quality gaming experience." I mistakenly believed that came from effective encounter and adventure design, world-building, and roleplaying - in my misapprehension I thought it came from playing fairly, using the rules, and thereby ensuring that success or failure was authentic, the experience genuine.What a silly goose am I.By the way, DonTadow, contrary to what you may have been told, calling other people stupid does not actually make you look smarter.Good for you. Me too.See, some common ground, right there.It's not an either/or proposition - a game can be played by the rules and still be 'alive'.If you don't want to make the effort to actually respond to other posters, why not just bow out gracefully, instead of misrepresenting people's opinions?The "leader of the anti-fudging crowd" was funny, by the way - people who see 'factions' on the Internet are always good for a chuckle.Then please, by all means, educate me. How about offering two examples of how you fudged and how it "enhanced the gaming experience" for your players? Please, I'm always eager to learn new GMing techniques - dazzle me with your acumen.</blockquote>

Verification