Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8986245" data-attributes="member: 4937">We are?  I'm still uncertain whether or not we are completely talking past each other.I haven't changed my stance.  I was trying to clarify what you meant by "outcome" by exploring the fact that I would consider even small changes in the transcript of play to be changes in outcome.   I don't shorten fights that are effectively over.  I only shorten fights that are actually over.  If it is obvious that the party can win without expending resources - perhaps the enemy is paralyzed or cowering and can't resist - then I ask the party how they want the mop up to go with permission of the table I handwave to the end of scene.   If it could happen that the party takes further damage or has to expend some limited resources, the fight isn't over.  Sometimes intelligent foes try to flee and then the party has the option of pursuing or not.   If they don't pursue, the fight is over.  Depending on the circumstances, the foe may never be seen again or it might come back to haunt them.As for my stance, I don't have a count in my head of the number of times I've fudged.  Over 40 years of play, probably lots, though it's certainly not every session or even every third session.  But I do have a feeling that my fudging rarely made the game better and a few bad experiences where I felt it actively made the game worse.You keep trying to distinguish between the two and I still don't see how you do that.   That said, you keep claiming I'm shifting my stance back and forth, and I don't understand why.Wait.  That wasn't the sort of fudging that was going on here.  The sort of fudging that was going on here was to achieve a desired level of challenge, and this example it went wrong because of good luck by the monsters.There is no difference between those two assertions that I can see.Sometimes having drawn out the fireball or other major resource is in context sufficient attrition on the party but OK.  I don't get it.  Is this more fun?  My players generally don't out of character negotiate with reality, and in a game that didn't feature an actual narrative currency it would never occur to me to even try to do so.  Personally, as both a player and a GM I dislike the table atmosphere of "we are a group of script writers collaboratively working together on a script".  Both as a player and a GM, emersion is a high priority aesthetic of play.  Somewhat.  It's interesting that you claim to be both using techniques normally associated with Illusionism, but also playing with the curtain raised so that the players can see you are adjusting on the fly.  I've sat at a lot of tables but I have no direct experience with that style of play.</blockquote>

Verification