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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5653047" data-attributes="member: 8835">[MENTION=7358]JC[/MENTION], I would say inspired by EW's comment.  As we're out of the context of that conversation.[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], Semantics always get us, I just never pick the right words....back to JC and fudging.  Fudging die rolls is one way a GM can influence events.  Some people consider that cheating (not fair?).However, fudging is kind of like Rocks Fall.  It's pretty blatant manipulation that a GM has to be fully aware of what he's doing.If all die rolls are made in the open, the GM still holds the reins on the consequences.Let's that the one of the recent bad GM tales.  Players get arrested for not having a Pass and ultimately executed.The GM chose to make this town require a Pass for all people in itthe GM chose whether to make that commonly known or not to the PCsthe GM chose whether to make chances for the PCs to find outthe GM chose whether to instigate an encounter that required the Pass that the PCs did not havethe GM chose whether to bring in guards to arrest the PCsthe GM chose the guards severity of the offense for the PCs not having a Passthe GM chose how effective those guards would be at arresting the PCsthe GM chose the punishment level for the offensethe GM chose whether there would be opportunities for escape/leniencythe GM chose whether to actually execute the PCs or bring in an outside interventionNow as a judgement on the original tale, the way the OP told it, it was probably crap GMing.  But a good GM could have presented the game "fairly" and that same chain would make sense and be fair.As a GM, those several of those choice points can be seen as arbitrary.  Was it a consequence of failure that the PCs get executed, or whimsy that the GM decided to make having a Pass be a life or death situation.Furthermore, given that death was on the line, once the arrest attempt was made, avoiding it would most likely involve making the PCs become wanted criminals.  Did the GM have the right to force that lifestyle on the PCs?If a PC steals something, a concievale outcome is the PC can become an outlaw and that kind of game would be run.Is death or becoming an outlaw a fair outcome for a PC who does nothing wrong but apparently be ignorant for having a Pass?  Is this a case of the GM enforcing his intent (to run an outlaw campaign) on the players?Where I'm going with this, is the illusion of unbiased reaction and consequence for player action, is just that.  The GM is still influencing what the players are likely to do next, by deciding what will next intersect their path, and the kind and level of response to their action.You can literally let a PC get away with murder, simple by deciding that nobody found any solid evidence.  Or you can bring in 4 paladins to hunt down a level 1 anti-paladin who botched his first murder attempt against another nameless bad guy in the slum part of town.In the examples I've given, I feel they were instances of crap GMing.  the GM could have done a better job and chosen better responses for the situation.But I'd also like people, who think they are impartial judges, to take closer look at the decisions they actually make, and to see how other alternatives could have been equally valid interpretations.  I've seen more than a few threads where that doesn't seem to be considered.</blockquote>

Verification