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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 3531325" data-attributes="member: 22882">Fair enough - albeit it's a GOOD example, because it's generally the thing people care most about in-game.I'll scrap the initial points regarding lethality, but as the rest of the post addresses the isssue as an example, it needs little revision.Why not?  It's a game, it has a system, it's been rather extensively studied.  Figuring out where and how another game differs is a useful exercise.  Of course, I get the impression you hold tabletop RPGs outside the broad continuum of games in general, whereas I do not.I suggest you re-read them, then.Chess is example 1).  OK, you don't want to talk about chess.  The other part of example 1), collaborative storytelling games, is *not* formal fudging, because you can't *fudge* a system that's nonexistent.I can't say I'm terribly surprised you excise Final Fantasy from a list of RPGs.  You're welcome to your view of the series, but point 2) actually has little to do with the game it originated in - it just happened to be a subtraction based defense system I figured more people would be familiar with than HERO.  You can, however, get the same results in HERO - certain values of certain types of Defense make *any* offensive action taken by certain characters irrelevant, regardless of randomness.  It's not even terribly uncommon due to the way offense and defense are costed; if your attacks are all energy based and your target has excellent RED, you may simply not be able to hurt him under any circumstances.I'll address the narrative mechanics from 3) below, because you seem to have a very skewed idea of what these are.Buzz is saying he considers the range of results possible within D&D 3.5 acceptable to him and his group - including the outliers.  That matches example 4), although example 4) discusses tactical wargames rather than RPGs.  In a group where the results of the rules are acceptable to all, regardless of the type of game, no fudging is required.  Note that this is how essentially all games other than RPGs are played (albeit sometimes with house rules).Because it's written down in the text, it's incorporated into the rules.More, it's incorporated into the rules in a formal, limited way.  It has a precise function in the game, provides a resource to expend to achieve that function, and encourages the player to manage that resource over the time period in which it refreshes.As well call 'spells' the same thing as fudging; after all, they can break the basic rules of the game (and the rules of reality as we know it, no less!)If you're marking it off with points, it at the very least becomes a function of resource management.  It is a part of the game that is every bit as tactical as deciding whether or not you take a 5-foot step or a Withdraw (to name one familiar, 3.5 example).  How you can equate managing a resource provided by the system with stepping outside it to make an arbitrary and unlimited decision continues to amaze me.Ultimately, nothing else a player does can enforce a different result.  He can ask the GM to do something different, even plead, bribe, rant or browbeat if he's of a particularly histrionic bent, but within the traditional RPG setup he has no actual, formal recourse.Provided you have a decent GM, that's not a problem - but it's very different from a narrative mechanic formalized within and limited by the rules of the game.  You seem to operate under the misconception that narrative mechanics allow the players (or the GM) to act in an unlimited fashion, just as a GM can in the traditional RPG setup.  That's not accurate.Wrong.  That would only be true if the Narrative Points were completely unlimited (you know, like GM fiat).  What you would instead have is the tactical challenge of deciding WHEN to employ this powerful, but limited, trump card.If you could play a Narrative Point to say "I win," then you'd be correct.But that would be a rather poorly designed competitive game.Competitive games are an analogy, not the point.  Feel free to revise your response. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> (FWIW, however, I believe competitive RPGs to be a viable and underdeveloped market and hope to see that market explored in the future.)Actually, after reading:I've also observed many RPG sessions as a non-participant; unlike a lot of people here, I truly adhere to the rpg.net maxim that "No gaming is better than bad gaming," and frankly I prefer it to mediocre gaming, too.  Since I hang out with a fair number of gamers, that often puts me in an observational role.In that role, I have observed something similar: many GMs *do* make questionable rulings, including in complex systems, and complex systems do not reduce fudging.  I would contend that questionable rulings and fudging fall under different categories, but you're correct in relating the two.  Both, IMX, come from an attitude that the GM is above the rules of the game.That's a perfectly valid playstyle.  It does allow for the vaunted 'openness' tabletop RPG enthusiasts often tout as the games' greatest strengths (admittedly, it's not the only way to achieve that result, but it's by far the simplest and most consistent to implement).  Provided you have a decent GM, its drawbacks are slim.However, it is not universal or necessary to have a good time with an RPG or RPG-like game.A system that does not require judgement calls at all must provide a simple, rigorous framework for all activities within the game's scope.  Every game other than a tabletop RPG has this responsibility from the outset.  Good ones step up to the challenge by limiting the scope of play; great ones do so by providing a solid framework that is flexible in an explicit way.I accept that not all tabletop RPGs will live up to that.  I can perhaps buy that one has yet to arrive that does.  I cannot, however, endorse the idea that it's impossible - or that designers should not make the attempt.EDIT: Reading another response gave me a somewhat better idea of where you're coming from - even if I completely disagree, I at least get that you're not engaging in 100% sophistry <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  So, edited for snark.</blockquote>

Verification