Ruin Explorer
Legend
Interesting how close the figures are to the other poll. I suspect they'd be identical if players knew all the boredom and stupidity they'd been fudged out of!
...or if DMs knew how entertaining the things they've avoided with fudging can be.Interesting how close the figures are to the other poll. I suspect they'd be identical if players knew all the boredom and stupidity they'd been fudged out of!
...or if DMs knew how entertaining the things they've avoided with fudging can be.
I'm pretty sure that statement makes me not want to be associated with the term "DM".Pretty sure most DMs have a better idea on this than players do vice-versa...
Regardless of intent-the instrument of the "crime" was the story.
You PRIORITIZED having a certain thing happen in the STORY over other considerations. Why you did that is not important.
Much as a driver might prioritize driving fast over safety and yet argue that they didn't prioritize driving fast they prioritized the pizza just getting out of the oven when they got home. Well: the difference is academic--the driving
fast was the instrument of the pizza being warm.
"But officer I had no consideration of how fast I was going. Only WARM PIZZA!"
Sure, but the cop would totally be legit in saying you prioritized speed over safety even if
you "don't care about speed" for its own sake. Speed was the way to warm pizza so you
focused on it. In your example. A story event not happening was the way to get the reaction
you wanted so you fudged to ensure it.
You seem to be kicking against this for unknown reasons. It's not like prioritizing having a story thing
happen over challenge makes you a mass murderer or even a bad GM.
I am asserting you fudged because:
-a certain thing occurring or not occurring in the story (in this case: TPK from side of the road ogres)
was more important to you than
-the advantages of never fudging (ie not risking a threat to the feeling of challenge).
"...and that those people might not prefer it because they like more challenge is an entirely reasonable explanation for why"
To which I'd add, there are other possible reasons as well;
And your statement that this is fact:
"-that if players become aware the GM fudges they feel less challenged"
You may feel less challenged, others might feel less challenged, but not all will feel less challenged, therefore it is not a fact. I would be OK with 'it is a fact that some players may feel less challenged if they become aware that the GM fudges. Some may object on account of a perceived fairness or unfairness, often expressed as favoritism, for example.
Considering that you have him stating that he fudges solely based on his grandma, it cannot be because something occurred or did no occur in the story. Something happening in the story can be the trigger, but it can only be because of grandma. Grandma was the sole cause of the change. Story was merely the trigger.
Again, the cause was grandma, challenge was not even a consideration.
Maybe this will help you understand what is being done.
When I pass a homeless person I do not give that homeless person money, but it's challenging to resist giving some. (leaving the challenge and story the same). Now let's say I pass a homeless man who reminds me of my departed father and because he reminds me of my father, I give him $5 (changing both challenge and story).
The cause of the change there is my father (even though both challenge and story were altered, neither one was the cause).
I thought I was pretty clear why I have a problem with your statement. I find it offensive for somebody to presume to tell me why I do what I do.
First and foremost, the problem I have is in the statement you have above:
Your statement is that 'x' was more important to you than 'y.' In addition you specifically say "I am asserting you fudged because"
The "more important to you" and "you fudged because" are declarations of intent. You are presuming to declare why I, or somebody else, is doing what they are doing. In that you are wrong. I gave you a very specific and clear example as to why I did something that had nothing to do with the story. I didn't care what the impact was to the story or the challenge. And yet you continue to say "you fudged because."
You don't have the right to declare why somebody else did something. What, how, what the impact was, etc. That's fine. Not the why.
In the game situation: The DM fudges to protect the character from dying is very different the the DM that fudges to kill a character. The intent is important.
My intent in a metagame situation may have had no practical difference than if I had fudged to ensure the character was still alive for the next encounter because they are crucial to the next challenge. But the intent is still different. You stated that fudging "100% prioritizes the story over the challenge" and it does no such thing.
You are correct that the act of fudging has an impact on the story, and/or challenge. I, and several others have agreed with you on this point.
It doesn't always prioritize story over challenge, particularly if the DM in question fudges in favor of the monsters by adding to the to-hit roll, increasing hit points, etc.
You have said several times that it 100% does 'x'. This is also wrong, it is not 100%. It's not 100% of the reason that a DM might fudge, nor is the result 100% the same, because it depends on what the DM did.
In the same example, the DM's could just as easily be prioritizing the challenge and/or risk over the story. Maybe they realized the encounter was too easy, or maybe it was too hard, so they fudged. It impacts the story, but in that case they were prioritizing the challenge, and the intent, the why was that they were more concerned about the challenge than the story.
--
As to the second point, I should have asked "Is that bad? Is that good? Does it really matter?"
Because I still don't get the point of you continuing to tell people the same thing that we've already agreed to.
"Fudging potentially alters the story, challenge and/or risk." I don't think anybody disagrees with this. Point made.
But so what? Why do we care? What is the point that you are trying to make? If it's just that it always prioritizes one over the other, then that's incorrect. If it's something else, what is it?
Maybe you're trying to say that it impacts the perception of challenge in the players? It might. Not 100%. It's never impacted my perception of challenge. It doesn't seem to have impacted the perception of challenge for anybody I've played with that I can think of, although I really can't answer for anybody except myself.
My extended response in the last post is due in part to the fact that there are others involved in the thread, and some of those have implicitly said fudging is 'bad' or at the very least that they refuse to play in a game where the DM is willing to fudge. As a result, I was using our discussion to tie into the greater discussion and ask, is that a bad thing? In the future, I will separate responses directly to you from questions posed to the group as a whole to avoid further confusion.
Then ask.Because I still don't get the point of you continuing to tell people the same thing that we've already agreed to.
Maybe you're trying to say that it impacts the perception of challenge in the players? It might. Not 100%. It's never impacted my perception of challenge. It doesn't seem to have impacted the perception of challenge for anybody I've played with that I can think of, although I really can't answer for anybody except myself.
I'm pretty sure that statement makes me not want to be associated with the term "DM".
So you think DMs know less about what's going on with the RPG they're running than players? Curious.