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: 5110553" data-attributes="member: 177">Yep.  It does seem that the divide is pretty narrow.  You don't alter the dice you roll, because if you do so it will be much easier for the players to arrange triumph for their characters?  Or you don't alter dice because it becomes much easier for someone (presumably yourself) to arrange triumph for the characters?Okay, here's an interesting slight difference in ways of looking at it, though maybe I'm looking at specific word choice too closely.  Fudging is not a temptation, to me.  It does not entice me.  It doesn't feel good to me.  I have never gotten a direct payoff from it.  It is for me a calculated action ultimately for the benefit of my players.You know for humans trying to lose weight, studies have shown that when people are on a diet that outright forbids desserts, subjects will tend to eat more desserts then when on a diet that allows them occasionally? Prohibition tends to create enticement.I then have to wonder if (and it is an "if") there's a bit of that dynamic in this debate - those who absolutely forbid fudging seem pretty hard line against it, as if a single fudge would destroy something major, or be a slippery slope to doom.  Those of us who allow it occasionally are more like, "Dudes, really, it's no big thing."  Can it be that those of us who allow it on occasion feel less of an urge to use it than those who forbid it think they'd feel?You asked earlier if some of us should reconsider the secret of our fudging.  I'd like to play that back at you - you might want to reconsider the prohibition against it, in light of the above observation. I have played M&M a couple of times (what I've see is a good game!), but I've not had an opportunity to read through the book, so I don't know the details of the system.  I'm going to guess that M&M's fudging works because 1) It is a different fictional genre, and there are certain expected tropes the mechanic specifically supports (Dammit, you can't kill the villain yet!  He isn't done monologuing!), and 2) it probably isn't unrestricted: the GM Fiat probably happens for certain types of rolls and/or there is a cost associated with the Fiat.  this wouldn't be so much a GM Fiat as it is the villains having a resource pool they can call on, or the like.  I would not be surprised if, on the whole, M&M's GM Fiat is actually a losing game for the villain.  If so, then the point of the transparency isn't just to serve honesty and protect the social contract, but to specifically point out that the PCs are gaining an advantage.Could you fit something like that onto D&D?  Certainly.  Given how rarely D&D game calls for it, I return to the work vs benefit point.</blockquote>

Verification