I'm not sure if such an expansive, all-encompassing understanding of "fudging" that tries to blur the lines between different ways that GMs adjust play is particularly useful.So this whole thread goes back to a concept I floated in a thread maybe a year and a half ago of "Principled Illusionism."
The concept of "fudging" only really exists if you accept two key premises:
- The GM is the final arbiter and authority of all happenings in the game, regardless of any other mechanical interplay between players and game. In other words, Rule Zero / Rule 0 exists and is a "thing" in your game.
- If some nebulous yet "meaningful" interval of time has passed between the GM's creation of a piece of material/prep and the use of (or planned use of) of said prep in the current game session, said GM material must be considered inviolate and part of the game world, regardless of any extenuating circumstance. Even if said material would lead to boring/unsatisfying/tedious play, would largely thwart player/character goals and aims, will consume more in-session time in play than it should otherwise warrant, etc., that's just too darn bad.
I have no problem with Premise 1---I'm totally down with Rule Zero.
I have serious problems with Premise 2.
The Sly Flourish video above points to my position---what is "fudging," exactly? You're basically adjusting "game state" items during play. You're altering scene / situation / framing / NPC motivations / backstory, anything other than the numbers on the dice.
My take is, if you disregard Premise 2 as a thing, "fudging"/"illusionism" is really all that's left. Everything is literally just the GM making stuff up, whether it was 3 seconds ago or 3 decades ago. It's the GM making key decisions based on a multiplicity of factors, which may or may not involve prep / scene / situation / framing / motivation / backstory, regardless of whether any combination of those factors were decided 5 seconds or 5 months ago.
As the video alludes to, it comes down to motivation --- is it "Principled Illusionism" / "Principled Fudging", or is it "Reactionary / Emotionally Charged / Discriminatory / Retaliatory / Self Indulgent Illusionism"?
*Edit: One point of clarification---I agree with Sly Flourish that emotionally charged / reactionary "fudging" is almost universally a bad thing. My last qualifier of "Self-indulgent Illusionism" may not necessarily ALWAYS be bad, if done judiciously and with an eye to fun.
I'm not sure if such an expansive, all-encompassing understanding of "fudging" that tries to blur the lines between different ways that GMs adjust play is particularly useful.
Why does that particular action taken by a GM need a different descriptor than "the act of GM-ing"?
The most obvious answer is that those who call it "fudging" purposefully want to imbue a negative value judgment upon that action.
Right. particularly for players that enjoy the challenge of solving whatever the GM presents -- be it combat or a puzzle or an NPC -- "fudging" is generally off-putting because it means the situation CAN'T be solved. it only resolves when the GM says so.See my comment below you. Its one thing to adjust an error, even on the fly (though I think its an outright sign of poor technique that you hide it), its another to assume everything is made of clay, all the time. I don't think people are required to consider that latter principled GMing just because some people depend on it.
Here's a weaker version of Premise 2, let's call it 2-prime:So this whole thread goes back to a concept I floated in a thread maybe a year and a half ago of "Principled Illusionism."
The concept of "fudging" only really exists if you accept two key premises:
- The GM is the final arbiter and authority of all happenings in the game, regardless of any other mechanical interplay between players and game. In other words, Rule Zero / Rule 0 exists and is a "thing" in your game.
- If some nebulous yet "meaningful" interval of time has passed between the GM's creation of a piece of material/prep and the use of (or planned use of) of said prep in the current game session, said GM material must be considered inviolate and part of the game world, regardless of any extenuating circumstance. Even if said material would lead to boring/unsatisfying/tedious play, would largely thwart player/character goals and aims, will consume more in-session time in play than it should otherwise warrant, etc., that's just too darn bad.
I have no problem with Premise 1---I'm totally down with Rule Zero.
I have serious problems with Premise 2.
Right. particularly for players that enjoy the challenge of solving whatever the GM presents -- be it combat or a puzzle or an NPC -- "fudging" is generally off-putting because it means the situation CAN'T be solved. it only resolves when the GM says so.
I do not buy that "illusionism" is the definition of GMing or even the standard of play. Illusionism eliminates player agency, which is the primary defining factor of an RPG compared to other games.
Well, that's the question - does it actually do so? Or does it do so in all cases? To use the old example of the quantum ogres that will be encountered whether the PCs take the right or left fork in the road - if one direction is reputed to go to ogres and the other is supposed to be safe (for some reason), then maybe yes, it would foil the agency of the players trying to avoid the ogres. But if the choice of left or right is otherwise meaningless because of lack of information, does it really do so? Suppose the PCs want to encounter ogres as soon as possible to fill out their scavenger quest card (because they're racing against Team B: Shrek's Irregulars who already have ogre checked off on their list). Then isn't serving up the quantum ogres supporting their agency and choice to encounter ogres?I do not buy that "illusionism" is the definition of GMing or even the standard of play. Illusionism eliminates player agency, which is the primary defining factor of an RPG compared to other games.