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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5106974" data-attributes="member: 177">Maybe yes, maybe no. That'd depend upon the group, and the outcome, now wouldn't it?  More to the point it may be that an unentertaining session might well equal a particular game outcome.The old saw seems to be about GMs using fudging to drive to a particular outcome, often because they have some "vested interest".Well, if your GM has a vested interest of they type that I think is being alluded to here (all unspokenly sinister) there's deeper problems to the dynamic at the table than fudging an occasional die roll.And, it seems to me from reading the threads that come up, the people who use fudges aren't using them to force a particular outcome, but to avoid a specifically undesirable outcome, which isn't the same thing - forbidding one specific end leaves myriad other ends still open, where driving to one specific end does not. Yes, that's what I mean.  My point is simply that it is not always a feature.  Sometimes it is a flaw.  You see, if I always wanted really completely unexpected results, I'd never do an adventure design - I'd just build a random encounter tables, and let the chips fall where they may.  That, sir, would be a narrative where nobody, GM or player, could predict where things would go.  Somehow, though, I think that'd fall well short of the ideal play experience for all but a small percentage of players.The fact that I (and I daresay most) don't do this means that sometimes there are some expectations that ought to be met.  Seems to me that (within reason) the tools used to accomplish that don't matter all that much.</blockquote>

Verification