1. In my experience, some players like to play human characters, and some do not.
2. I have never seen a player play a human character.
3. IME, good prepwork leads to good GMing, although I have known GMs who do run amazing games without doing any prep.
4. I run amazing games without doing any prep.
5. In my experience, and IMHO, fudging is beneficial to the game.
All of these statements are plausible. I find #2 a bit unlikely due to the fact that human characters are so popular, but, it's still plausible. Same with 4 and 5. I have some difficultly believing that someone could run amazing games without any prep simply because of my personal experience. Similarly, I have experienced games where fudging can work so, I can believe that one perhaps a bit easier.
But in no case should I state flatly, "No, you're wrong." because I have no real basis for saying so. I could question how 4 was achieved - what is that person doing differently from me to achieve his results. And, based on the answers he provides, I might decide that I don't believe him - either his definition of "prep" simply differs from mine (probably the most likely reason) or he has some ability which I lack which leads to a new decision about the plausibility of this ability (ex. poster claims to have perfect recall of every monster manual and has no need to reference any book. After being questioned about it, it turns out his recall is not perfect. Thus, I am going to strongly disbelieve his claim.)
1. I claim that, when playing D&D with you as the DM, I rolled a natural "20" on every die roll I make. However, I do not wish you to look at the die; you should simply take my word for it. It is my experience, in the game, that I am rolling these "20"s, and I expect you to believe it is so because I say that is my experience.
This fails the plausibility test because, after about five rolls, the odds of you rolling a twenty each and every time is so astronomical that it is no longer believable to any sort of objective observer. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
2. You DM, sequentially, for several hundred persons over a wide geographic area. In many of these cases, players stated a preference for foo, but when you introduced foo to the game, in exactly the manner they stated a preference for, in each and every case, the game ended with everyone unhappy specifically because of the foo. Each of these players expresses disgust with the effects of foo on the game, and leaves, never to return. Now, another group of players arrives, and they also express a preference for foo. Do you give them the same credence you gave the hundreds of previous players, or have you learned from your experiences? If you accept that they are telling you the truth, how does that relate to your previous experience? If they also leave in disgust, what about the next group of players who say they love foo? What about the next? The next? At what point do you stop assuming that the next group of "foo loving" players will know what they are talking about?
I make my arguement that in my experience, Foo doesn't work. Because I've tried foo and it never works
for me I suggest that we don't do foo. Perhaps a different DM with different styles can make Foo work, but, I accept my own limitations and I'm upfront about it. It doesn't matter if Foo is fudging or a comedy game. I've never been able to run what I consider a successful comedy game, despite trying a number of times. Does that mean a comedy game is impossible to run?
You're learning the wrong lesson from your experience if, in your experience foo doesn't work, you claim that it cannot work ever for anyone.
3. A poster gets into a long and complicated discussion on EN World, claiming repeatedly that he believes fudging is a bad idea that damages the game in nearly every case. Now he asks you if his statement of "In my experience, and IMHO, fudging is beneficial to the game" should be given the same credence as his statement of "In my experience, some players like to play human characters, and some do not." Do you conclude that these statements have equal claim to veracity? Or do you maybe....just maybe....learn from prior experience?
In this case, no. They are not equal. "Some people like to play human characters" is very plausible and easily verifiable. "Some people like fudging" is a bit harder to verify and probably less plausible. There are more factors in play here with fudging than with character race preferences.
However, at no point should our putative poster decide that it is impossible for fudging to be beneficial, since there is fairly ample evidence from a number of sources, including official game rules ranging back for thirty years and included in EVERY edition of the game. Essentially, our putative poster is deciding that because of his or her own inability to make something work,
no one can make it work.
Let me spin it around RC.
I could make the following claim:
- Sandbox games cannot work. I've never seen a successful sandbox game in play as either a DM or a player. They ultimately become aimless, pointless, meaningless jumbles of conflicting goals and will always die, not with a bang, but with a whimper as players and DM lose interest.
Does that mean that I'm right? After all, this is my experience. I've never seen a successful sandbox game based on how you describe a sandbox. Should I learn from my experience and refuse to accept anyone's claims that a sandbox is different?
