GMing: How to fudge NOT using the dice.

Honestly, I think a lot of things in gaming get WAY overthought. And, unfortunately, that happens too often in support of badwrongfunning someone else's game or play style/methods, or patting their own back for their superior game hygiene (which is, ultimately, the same result).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

But then, what if the situation is pre-written and thus not "illusionism" and the reputedly ogre-free path is actually a gambit by an unusually clever ogre to funnel ogre-fearing parties his way for a light repast? How does that fit in with player agency? Does it preserve it because it was prewritten and not "fudged" and play time? Sure, they may have been tricked, but if they had spoken to Lefty LaFave at the bar, he'd have told them all about the notorious tricks of Carleton the Crafty Ogre, but they chose not to talk to him because he smelled like sweat socks that have spent too much time in a 13 year old boy's hamper.

That's the point; they had meaningful ways to select the route avoiding (or as far as that goes, not avoiding if that's what they wanted). If its a blind choice with no way to gather further information, then their choice is meaningless.
 

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?

But then, what if the situation is pre-written and thus not "illusionism" and the reputedly ogre-free path is actually a gambit by an unusually clever ogre to funnel ogre-fearing parties his way for a light repast? How does that fit in with player agency? Does it preserve it because it was prewritten and not "fudged" and play time? Sure, they may have been tricked, but if they had spoken to Lefty LaFave at the bar, he'd have told them all about the notorious tricks of Carleton the Crafty Ogre, but they chose not to talk to him because he smelled like sweat socks that have spent too much time in a 13 year old boy's hamper.
If there are no meaningful choices, there also isn't any player agency.
 

That's the point; they had meaningful ways to select the route avoiding (or as far as that goes, not avoiding if that's what they wanted). If its a blind choice with no way to gather further information, then their choice is meaningless.
The issue of "no way to gather further information" could be doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Is player agency really upheld if a method of gaining further information is prewritten but so obscure that the PCs can't reliably find that nugget of information? Does that make it sufficiently distinct from illusionism in actual practice? Will it feel different to the players at the table? Or do they just know that some information they had implied "No ogres that way" while information they didn't find contradicted that and they get a bit frustrated that the ogres they wanted to avoid are in their path?

Or is illusionism, as a term, really doing some dirty work here in being critical of DMing methods that come up with prepped encounters that the DM doesn't want to waste? Because, pursuant to my comment about overthinking things, that's kind of what the issue of illusionism always seems to me to be targeting. It get couched in issues of player agency, but that's always kind of seemed like a legitimizing smokescreen to me.
 

The issue of "no way to gather further information" could be doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Is player agency really upheld if a method of gaining further information is prewritten but so obscure that the PCs can't reliably find that nugget of information? Does that make it sufficiently distinct from illusionism in actual practice? Will it feel different to the players at the table? Or do they just know that some information they had implied "No ogres that way" while information they didn't find contradicted that and they get a bit frustrated that the ogres they wanted to avoid are in their path?

Or is illusionism, as a term, really doing some dirty work here in being critical of DMing methods that come up with prepped encounters that the DM doesn't want to waste? Because, pursuant to my comment about overthinking things, that's kind of what the issue of illusionism always seems to me to be targeting. It get couched in issues of player agency, but that's always kind of seemed like a legitimizing smokescreen to me.
Again, I think that the definition of "player agency" can be distilled to "meaningful choice" and those meaningful choices exist on every level of play -- from the round by round tactical choices of combat, to the broad strokes Session 0 decisions of the campaign setup.

As it relates to Quantum ogres: player agency is preserved as long as meaningful choices are presented. those meaningful choices aren't limited to "whether to go left or right to avoid or encounter the ogres." It doesn't necessarily remove player agency for the ogre encounter to be predetermined as long as the play of that encounter involves meaningful choices (sneak around, bribe it with something to eat, kill it, whatever). Of course in a perfect world the players could choose to do anything and go anywhere, but a) GMs are human (for now) and b) there is a social contract at the table that inherently limits the available options.
 

The issue of "no way to gather further information" could be doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Is player agency really upheld if a method of gaining further information is prewritten but so obscure that the PCs can't reliably find that nugget of information? Does that make it sufficiently distinct from illusionism in actual practice? Will it feel different to the players at the table? Or do they just know that some information they had implied "No ogres that way" while information they didn't find contradicted that and they get a bit frustrated that the ogres they wanted to avoid are in their path?

There can absolutely be some disingenuous use of "options" there. If getting extra information requires doing some extremely specific thing that isn't a particularly obvious or logical, I think the GM is kidding themselves that they're actually providing meaningful choice (though as comes up with clues to mysteries in games, its probably more common that its simply error, i.e. assuming something the GM sees as an obvious thing to do is far from so obvious to his players).

Or is illusionism, as a term, really doing some dirty work here in being critical of DMing methods that come up with prepped encounters that the DM doesn't want to waste? Because, pursuant to my comment about overthinking things, that's kind of what the issue of illusionism always seems to me to be targeting. It get couched in issues of player agency, but that's always kind of seemed like a legitimizing smokescreen to me.

The question is, why shouldn't it be critical, at least in cases where the GM is not making it clear to his player he's doing it? We're not particularly complimentary to people who offer one thing and supply another anywhere else in life, I don't see why would should be here, just because what's being offered is "free" (because after all, its really not just because you pay in time not money). I don't think there's been much criticism of GMs who are using illusionism or fudging for groups who understand and are on-board them doing that; its ones who don't care what their players think or just take it as a given they'll be okay with it that.

Even if you don't consider player agency all that important, it should be a thing people opt-in to, not have to actively opt-out of, let alone not even be told what's going on.
 

Of course in a perfect world the players could choose to do anything and go anywhere, but a) GMs are human (for now) and b) there is a social contract at the table that inherently limits the available options.

I don't actually think that's generically "a perfect world"; it assumes every game is a sandbox, which excludes a whole lot of campaign premises, sometimes ones baked into the game at the get-go.
 


That was part b)

The problem is that conflates things like "PCs will generally stay together" with "Everyone is a soldier in the special squad", and I don't think they're the same thing; the first pretty much a social habit, while the second is a definition of what the campaign is about. Though it causes problems, I can have some sympathy for people who are bothered by a hardcore version of the first; not so much with people who are bothered by the second.
 

The problem is that conflates things like "PCs will generally stay together" with "Everyone is a soldier in the special squad", and I don't think they're the same thing; the first pretty much a social habit, while the second is a definition of what the campaign is about. Though it causes problems, I can have some sympathy for people who are bothered by a hardcore version of the first; not so much with people who are bothered by the second.
What is the "hardcore version" of "we generally stay together"?
 

Remove ads

Top