Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fanboy2000" data-source="post: 5879772" data-attributes="member: 19998">Actually, it's &quot;rules set out in that agreement&quot;. Here is what it means:Potential DM: I want you to be a player in my game.Potential Player: Only if you promise to always roll in the open and not fudge any die rolls. Potential DM: O.k.If, during the game, the DM rolls a die in secret and fudges the roll, then he is not playing by the rules he agreed to verbally (well, assuming this didn't happen via email, text message, etc...). But you seem to already have an answer for that.Your argument, if I understand it, is that it's pointless to make a GM promise not to fudge rolls since a GM could simply find some other way to achieve what they want.I agree that a GM can achieve anything they want via methods other than fudging die rolls, but I think that's the point of such agreements. If the GM makes an encounter harder or easier by adding or removing monsters, then players may feel that's more fair than if they make it easier or more difficult by fudging die rolls.It's not the end result such agreements are about, their about the method used to obtain the result.Well, their are limits. For one thing, if the group (players + GM) agrees to play Shadowrun and the GM starts running Paranoia (I'd love to see what happens when the players catch on...) then the GM has broken the agreement. Sure, technically the GM can establish rules, but a wholesale switching of games without player input, could be a breech. Just remember that if the GM goes to far with this, he or she may not have any players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fanboy2000, post: 5879772, member: 19998"] Actually, it's "rules set out [i]in that agreement[/i]". Here is what it means: Potential DM: I want you to be a player in my game. Potential Player: Only if you promise to always roll in the open and not fudge any die rolls. Potential DM: O.k. If, during the game, the DM rolls a die in secret and fudges the roll, then he is not playing by the rules he agreed to verbally (well, assuming this didn't happen via email, text message, etc...). But you seem to already have an answer for that. Your argument, if I understand it, is that it's pointless to make a GM promise not to fudge rolls since a GM could simply find some other way to achieve what they want. I agree that a GM can achieve anything they want via methods other than fudging die rolls, but I think that's the point of such agreements. If the GM makes an encounter harder or easier by adding or removing monsters, then players may feel that's more fair than if they make it easier or more difficult by fudging die rolls. It's not the end result such agreements are about, their about the method used to obtain the result. Well, their are limits. For one thing, if the group (players + GM) agrees to play Shadowrun and the GM starts running Paranoia (I'd love to see what happens when the players catch on...) then the GM has broken the agreement. Sure, technically the GM can establish rules, but a wholesale switching of games without player input, could be a breech. Just remember that if the GM goes to far with this, he or she may not have any players. [/QUOTE]

Verification