Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Fudging for fun and profit.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 5106319" data-attributes="member: 23935"><p>It is a great question and is forcing me to put coherent thought to my prejudice. Like others in the thread, I am a no-fudge roll in the open DM.</p><p></p><p>Why is moving the editorial control from design to implementation bad? There are bound to be a few answers to that question.</p><p></p><p>TO me, the most important reason it is bad is it moves the DM from impartial arbiter of action to a role with vested interest in the outcome of the encounter. Why is that bad? I think that's bad because of all the game roles, designer, DM, or player, the DM has the most covert control over the course of the session. The design is written down and can be reviewed by the DM and others. The player's actions are announced and interpreted by at least one other individual, the DM. No such oversight applies to the DM. The DM operates with as close to perfect knowledge of the situation, ramifications, and consequences to action as possible. If the DM is acting as an impartial arbiter then the events and consequences for player choice evolve 'naturally'. If the DM has a vested interest in a preferred outcome or solution then there is a likelihood that the situations the character find themsleves in with be guided and thus strip some player types of the feeling of success.</p><p></p><p>I view D&D as allowing the players to mold a story with the characters in an encounter backdrop. Once the DM becomes vested in a particular outcome or at least in the absence of a particular outcome, the set of player stories becomes more limited. The extreme case of this control where it leaves the realm of the covert action is known as railroading.</p><p></p><p>The designer can build a scenario with preferred methods of attack and expected outcomes based on the encounter elements and guessed player strategies, but not knowing the actual player choices.</p><p></p><p>Players can provide tactical responses as they see fit based upon their abilities and imperfect knowledge of the world, but not wholly knowing the environment.</p><p></p><p>The DM should attempt to resolve the action as fairly and consistently as he can since he sees the whole picture.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As a secondary point, the designer has the luxury of time to consider his choices to much more relaxed degree than the DM in the middle of the session. The DM is more likely to make mistakes or make poor on-the-fly design decisions as he take editorial control.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 5106319, member: 23935"] It is a great question and is forcing me to put coherent thought to my prejudice. Like others in the thread, I am a no-fudge roll in the open DM. Why is moving the editorial control from design to implementation bad? There are bound to be a few answers to that question. TO me, the most important reason it is bad is it moves the DM from impartial arbiter of action to a role with vested interest in the outcome of the encounter. Why is that bad? I think that's bad because of all the game roles, designer, DM, or player, the DM has the most covert control over the course of the session. The design is written down and can be reviewed by the DM and others. The player's actions are announced and interpreted by at least one other individual, the DM. No such oversight applies to the DM. The DM operates with as close to perfect knowledge of the situation, ramifications, and consequences to action as possible. If the DM is acting as an impartial arbiter then the events and consequences for player choice evolve 'naturally'. If the DM has a vested interest in a preferred outcome or solution then there is a likelihood that the situations the character find themsleves in with be guided and thus strip some player types of the feeling of success. I view D&D as allowing the players to mold a story with the characters in an encounter backdrop. Once the DM becomes vested in a particular outcome or at least in the absence of a particular outcome, the set of player stories becomes more limited. The extreme case of this control where it leaves the realm of the covert action is known as railroading. The designer can build a scenario with preferred methods of attack and expected outcomes based on the encounter elements and guessed player strategies, but not knowing the actual player choices. Players can provide tactical responses as they see fit based upon their abilities and imperfect knowledge of the world, but not wholly knowing the environment. The DM should attempt to resolve the action as fairly and consistently as he can since he sees the whole picture. As a secondary point, the designer has the luxury of time to consider his choices to much more relaxed degree than the DM in the middle of the session. The DM is more likely to make mistakes or make poor on-the-fly design decisions as he take editorial control. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Fudging for fun and profit.
Top