Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 3388024" data-attributes="member: 20239">I don't think codified fudging is necessarily &quot;gamist&quot; or &quot;storyteller&quot;.&nbsp; It depends on why you're including those mechanics in your game.&nbsp; If the purpose is to allow the story to ride over road-bumps created by unlucky dice rolls, then you're doing it for &quot;story&quot; concerns.&nbsp; If the purpose is to add an extra layer of granularity to the resource management portion of the game, one that creates a whole new layer of strategic thinking for the players, then the motivation is obviously &quot;gamist&quot;.So the real difference between codified fudging through action points or whatever and uncodified fudging is that the latter really can't be motivated by &quot;game&quot; concerns.&nbsp; If the players don't control it and don't know it's an option beforehand, then they can't incorporate it as part of their strategy and mastery of the game.&nbsp; Which isn't to say that uncodified fudging by the DM can only ever be motivated by &quot;story&quot; concerns.&nbsp; In my experience it's much more often motivated by interpersonal concerns (the DM feels bad about killing Jeff's character because Jeff just had a hard day at work) or time concerns (nobody wants to wait around for Jeff to roll up a new character, so the DM rules him at -9 and stable instead of -20 and a bloody smear on the floor) rather than true &quot;story&quot; concerns, but I would suggest that it's impossible (at the very least extremely illogical) for uncodified fudging to be motivated by &quot;gamist&quot; concerns.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ourph, post: 3388024, member: 20239"] I don't think codified fudging is necessarily "gamist" or "storyteller". It depends on [u]why[/u] you're including those mechanics in your game. If the purpose is to allow the story to ride over road-bumps created by unlucky dice rolls, then you're doing it for "story" concerns. If the purpose is to add an extra layer of granularity to the resource management portion of the game, one that creates a whole new layer of strategic thinking for the players, then the motivation is obviously "gamist". So the real difference between codified fudging through action points or whatever and uncodified fudging is that the latter really can't be motivated by "game" concerns. If the players don't control it and don't know it's an option beforehand, then they can't incorporate it as part of their strategy and mastery of the game. Which isn't to say that uncodified fudging by the DM can only ever be motivated by "story" concerns. In my experience it's much more often motivated by interpersonal concerns (the DM feels bad about killing Jeff's character because Jeff just had a hard day at work) or time concerns (nobody wants to wait around for Jeff to roll up a new character, so the DM rules him at -9 and stable instead of -20 and a bloody smear on the floor) rather than true "story" concerns, but I would suggest that it's impossible (at the very least extremely illogical) for uncodified fudging to be motivated by "gamist" concerns. [/QUOTE]

Verification