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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 3530742" data-attributes="member: 9225">Lethality is the example (with the orcs), not the point.Now that I've clarified we're not talking about lethality, feel free to revise your response. We're not talking about chess, actually.Sure. That's fudging enabled in the system.I'm skipping over your next points as they either don't address RPGs at all or address game systems that are basically forms of formal fudging.Nah, it's the same thing. It just has a different ritual attached to it and makes people feel better because it's written down in the text.Of course, I'm not referring to any such thing. I'm talking about the fact that people can utilize the fudging function built into narrative mechanics for all kinds of things, including things that not everyone at the table likes. This even happens in groups of reasonable people. Eventually there's some kind of compromise, but this compromise still treads upon somebody's autonomy, even when you mark off points.I'm sure it does if your group sucks and you have *no* intermediary communication between nothing and leaving.Here's a simple test to demonstrate the difference:Actually, the way you describe it you'd just end up with the defeat of whoever could field the highest unanswered bid. This would normally result from the order of play, which would end up being fairly arbitrary. This is a common problem with bidding systems.Strawman, as we are not of course talking about fiat as a property of one side of a competition, unless you think of the GM as some kind of enemy or competitor, which is pretty much not what traditional GMing is all about.</blockquote>

Verification