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: 6703516" data-attributes="member: 177">But, it was always their choice and responsibility.  The GM sets the challenges!  If the GM chooses to put in something overpowered, you die.  If he or she chooses to softball it, you live.  There's only a very narrow band in the middle (that's often very hard to actually hit) in which there's much question.  As players, we are largely putting ourselves in the GM's hands, whether or not they fudge.  If D&D were chess, the players would each have a piece, with fixed move patterns, as normal.  And the GM has an infinite number of pieces that can be added at any point in play, with any movement patters he or she wants, and he or she doesn't have to tell you how they move at the start of the game.  Pardon me if at that point I don't feel their changing the movement patterns of a piece is problematic.  This is a fundamental problem with arguments against fudging.  Only in the "tournament case", where the GM is handed an adventure by an outside agent, that should not be edited, does the GM does not hold major responsibility for how things turn out.  If you are going to argue against fudging, you should also argue against GMs deviating from the RAW encounter-building guidelines, or not playing adventures *exactly* as written, or making rulings rather than following rules, but we rarely see those arguments made.  If you accept that the GM has huge influence in the first place, then there's not much of a point to worrying about exactly where that influence is applied, so long as it is applied in a fair and reasonable manner.  That fudging is somehow fundamentally different from the rest of the GM's influence is an illusion.  In my humble opinion, that is.</blockquote>

Verification