My DM just told me he fudges rolls....

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think that holds true in most people's minds.

Generally, when somebody declares that X is wrong and they will NEVER do it, that person is rigid, because they have stated a position on which they will not budge. They have eliminated a possibility or choice for themselves. It usually strikes others as undiplomatic.

When a person says they might or may use it, they are retaining the option. They are in fact being more flexible in their stance.

Um, isn't that what The Shaman was pointing out? The Shaman said he would never do something (fudge rolls). Rigid. Elf Witch said she would never do something (commit to fudging or not fudging). Rigid.

In the world of communication, any time you give an absolute NO and NEVER, you are reducing options and holding a rigid stance.

And Elf Witch will never play in a game with no fudging, or run a game with no fudging. She's ruled that out, yeah? She said:

I will never commit to the I will always or I will never do something as a DM.

This is something she will never do. Which means, she reserves the right to fudge at all times. Which means, she's adapted that right in a very rigid way.

It's not a matter of "fudging happens all the time" or "I fudge to make the story better" or anything like that. The Shaman was pointing out that saying "I will never do commit to fudging or not fudging" is just as rigid as "I will never fudge" because it amounts to "I reserve the right to fudge, and I will never change that stance."

So, again, it's not a matter of frequency, it's a matter of position. She's adopted a "never" stance; she's adopted a rigid stance. It just has more options. It's good for her group, and I'm cool with her playing that way, but in no way is her stance less rigid than The Shaman's.

As always, play what you like

In other words, would you step in to do anything to make it to where the player doesn't have to roll up a new character, in that circumstance?

No, I wouldn't. I would be mindful of the presentation, and I'd do my best to quickly help the player get into the game again, brainstorm for new ideas, or the like. I wouldn't fudge, but I might put the game on pause and ask the players to assist in brainstorming.

Obvious exceptions, of course. If the friend is in danger of harming himself or someone else, or something like that, then of course I'll be more mindful of what I do. I'd probably just talk to them instead of gaming, though. If they were set on playing still, to get their mind off things, then we'd play, and I might fudge. Of course, that's because it's for safety reasons. I think that's fairly safe to say that it's an exception to the rule. I imagine most "I always reserve the right to fudge" people would stop fudging if a friend had a gun and threatened to kill himself or someone else if there was any fudging.

 

[The Shaman]

Um, isn't that what The Shaman was pointing out? The Shaman said he would never do something (fudge rolls). Rigid. Elf Witch said she would never do something (commit to fudging or not fudging). Rigid.


And Elf Witch will never play in a game with no fudging, or run a game with no fudging. She's ruled that out, yeah? She said:

This is something she will never do. Which means, she reserves the right to fudge at all times. Which means, she's adapted that right in a very rigid way.

It's not a matter of "fudging happens all the time" or "I fudge to make the story better" or anything like that. The Shaman was pointing out that saying "I will never do commit to fudging or not fudging" is just as rigid as "I will never fudge" because it amounts to "I reserve the right to fudge, and I will never change that stance."

So, again, it's not a matter of frequency, it's a matter of position. She's adopted a "never" stance; she's adopted a rigid stance. It just has more options. It's good for her group, and I'm cool with her playing that way, but in no way is her stance less rigid than The Shaman's.

Thank you for saving me the time of writing that out.

 

[Dausuul]

This is something she will never do. Which means, she reserves the right to fudge at all times. Which means, she's adapted that right in a very rigid way.

I am rigidly flexible! I am absolutely rigid in my commitment to flexibility! I will always be as flexible as possible and I have thus achieved total rigidity!

We will now meditate on whether words mean anything.

 

[Janx]

Um, isn't that what The Shaman was pointing out? The Shaman said he would never do something (fudge rolls). Rigid. Elf Witch said she would never do something (commit to fudging or not fudging). Rigid.


And Elf Witch will never play in a game with no fudging, or run a game with no fudging. She's ruled that out, yeah? She said:

This is something she will never do. Which means, she reserves the right to fudge at all times. Which means, she's adapted that right in a very rigid way.

ah, the trap of semantics.

"I will never eat cake and I condemn those who do" is a rigid stance.

"I will never not eat cake" is like a double-negative (actually, it probably is). Sure, it has the word Never in it. You got me.

But there is a difference in those 2 statements. The Cake hater has narrowed the field of choices. If he was a politician, you can bet his platform is the banning of eating cake. The are being restrictive in what they consider acceptable behavior.

The latter position is saying that they will avoid being restrictive. Sure, it uses the word never, but the implication is that they will not take a restrictive stance.

So, the use of the word NO and NEVER are indicators, but there's more to it.

I will never let people of your demographic vote is a rigid and restrictive position.

I will never support barrng people of your demographic from voting is no really rigid.

Yes, from the sense that they won't budge from their stance, but no in the larger picture of what the stance represents, which is the enfranchising of a group of people.

That's the difference. That which condemns another group's preference is rigid. That which commits to condemning another group is not rigid.

Honestly James, I expected you to get that distinction. It is precisely why you put "As Always, play what you like" Because while you have a preference, you imply with that statement that you do not wish to condemn or insult others that have an oppositional preference.

While we've all probably been less diplomatic at times in any of these threads, Shaman's words in this thread were much more restrictive and in fact insulting to those who disagree with his stance. All because of his choice of words.

 

[enrious]

ah, the trap of semantics.

"I will never eat cake and I condemn those who do" is a rigid stance.

"I will never not eat cake" is like a double-negative (actually, it probably is). Sure, it has the word Never in it. You got me.

But there is a difference in those 2 statements. The Cake hater has narrowed the field of choices. If he was a politician, you can bet his platform is the banning of eating cake. The are being restrictive in what they consider acceptable behavior.

The latter position is saying that they will avoid being restrictive. Sure, it uses the word never, but the implication is that they will not take a restrictive stance.

So, the use of the word NO and NEVER are indicators, but there's more to it.

I will never let people of your demographic vote is a rigid and restrictive position.

I will never support barrng people of your demographic from voting is no really rigid.

Yes, from the sense that they won't budge from their stance, but no in the larger picture of what the stance represents, which is the enfranchising of a group of people.

That's the difference. That which condemns another group's preference is rigid. That which commits to condemning another group is not rigid.

Honestly James, I expected you to get that distinction. It is precisely why you put "As Always, play what you like" Because while you have a preference, you imply with that statement that you do not wish to condemn or insult others that have an oppositional preference.

While we've all probably been less diplomatic at times in any of these threads, Shaman's words in this thread were much more restrictive and in fact insulting to those who disagree with his stance. All because of his choice of words.

Thank you for saving me the time of writing that out.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I am rigidly flexible! I am absolutely rigid in my commitment to flexibility! I will always be as flexible as possible and I have thus achieved total rigidity!

I always wind up doing this... maybe it's because I'm a writer. Rigid:

rig·id
1. Not flexible or pliant; stiff.
2. Not moving; fixed.
3. Marked by a lack of flexibility; rigorous and exacting

Her way of doing things? The one that will never change? That's rigid. Not flexible. Here:

flex·i·ble
1.
a. Capable of being bent or flexed; pliable.
b. Capable of being bent repeatedly without injury or damage.
2. Susceptible to influence or persuasion; tractable.
3. Responsive to change; adaptable

Her view? Yeah, it's not this. It is incapable of being bent or changed (according to her, but I'm allowing for obvious exceptions). It is not susceptible to persuasion (she has said she will never change it). Her way of thinking is not adaptable, as it will always be as it is (according to what she's said).

We can talk of options that her view gives versus The Shaman's, but when speaking of just how rigid someone's view is, I think if both people are using the word "never", it's pretty clear.

Your second sentence ("I am absolutely rigid in my commitment to flexibility!") makes much more sense than your third sentence ("I will always be as flexible as possible and I have thus achieved total rigidity!"), in my mind. That is, she is absolutely rigid in her stance so that she can have more options. However, having more options or not does in no way directly relate to the rigidity of any view itself on said options, so your third sentence seems off.

At any rate, I think The Shaman was pointing out the fact that her (rather justified) vehement opposition to his view of was a little contradictory. That is, Elf Witch said the following:

I will never commit to the I will always or I will never do something as a DM. I believe a sign of a great DM is one that is flexible enough to realize that always and never can really suck the fun out of the game.

Her second sentence seems to strongly contradict her first sentence. By her view of never committing to not fudge, even if that's what the players prefer, she's essentially committing to a "never" view, which, by her own words: "never can really suck the fun out of the game."

It's not a matter of options, it's a matter of rigid views. I mean, if the GM says "I will never rule out using laser guns, spaceship, pop culture references, and inserting NPCs of real life celebrities into this campaign" is more flexible than one who doesn't, but the group may not want that. By committing to a view of "I will never do that," the group will have a more enjoyable play experience.

Of course, Elf Witch's statement might disagree with my statement, above, but I think that was the gist of The Shaman's point. I don't think The Shaman's view was too difficult to follow. Of course, this all leads back to a base play style issue. It can get clouded by this, or people can say "some people don't like fudging, and they're not worse GMs for not doing so" (even if Elf Witch disagrees), and that "some groups like occasional fudging, and they're not worse GMs for doing so (even if The Shaman disagrees).

Seriously. This is a pretty simple play style issue. It's not a trust issue, it's not one group or GM being better or worse based solely on this view. It's just a different approach to Fun. Which, of course, we all know is subjective. Just go have Fun. As always, play what you like

ah, the trap of semantics.

No, The Shaman was commenting on her mindset, not the options that her mindset fosters. Big difference there.

While we've all probably been less diplomatic at times in any of these threads, Shaman's words in this thread were much more restrictive and in fact insulting to those who disagree with his stance. All because of his choice of words.

I think his wording was more insulting, but Elf Witch said "I believe a sign of a great DM is one that is flexible enough to realize that always and never can really suck the fun out of the game." You know what that means? That means that me and the Shaman would be a better GM for having that mindset. We're worse GMs for not having it. That is potentially pretty offensive, and it's definitely a rigid mindset.

It's like the difference between playing "only core" and "anything goes" in 3.X or 4e. Some people will say (or imply), "if you play core only, it's because you're easily overwhelmed by options" or the like. I've played core only, and as someone who designed his own 350-page RPG based around player options, I can easily shrug this criticism off.

It's not about options, it's about the rigidity of the viewpoint. See the difference? It's not semantics, it's context of The Shaman's statement. As always, play what you like

 

[Dausuul]

A commitment to maintaining options is not rigidity. I'm sorry. It's not. You're twisting the dictionary definition of the word beyond all recognition.

More to the point, you're allowing the argument to devolve into a silly semantic quibble, in which "rigid" is taken to imply "bad" and therefore both sides must avoid the "rigid" label at all costs. Here's the counter-argument you should be making: "For some groups, a rigid commitment to not fudging is more fun than knowing the DM has the option to 'adjust' the outcome."

Rigidity is not inherently bad. If your bones suddenly became flexible, your quality of life would not be improved thereby. The question is, for you and the other people in your gaming group, which is best: A rigid commitment to not fudge, a rigid commitment to always fudge in certain situations, or giving the DM the option to fudge or not as seems best to her? There is no one answer that's right for everybody.

 

[JamesonCourage]

A commitment to maintaining options is not rigidity. I'm sorry. It's not. You're twisting the dictionary definition of the word beyond all recognition.

The options make the game more flexible, yes. The commitment itself is rigid if it will never change, as Elf Witch said, and as The Shaman pointed out.

More to the point, you're allowing the argument to devolve into a silly semantic quibble, in which "rigid" is taken to imply "bad" and therefore both sides must avoid the "rigid" label at all costs.

No, I'm not. I said: "By committing to a view of "I will never do that," the group will have a more enjoyable play experience." That doesn't -in any way- mean or imply that "rigid" is "bad", and I'm not sure how you got that out of my post.

Here's the counter-argument you should be making: "For some groups, a rigid commitment to not fudging is more fun than knowing the DM has the option to 'adjust' the outcome."

Um, I think I'll stick to my arguments (since it essentially included this). But thanks.

Rigidity is not inherently bad. If your bones suddenly became flexible, your quality of life would not be improved thereby. The question is, for you and the other people in your gaming group, which is best: A rigid commitment to not fudge, a rigid commitment to always fudge in certain situations, or giving the DM the option to fudge or not as seems best to her? There is no one answer that's right for everybody.

Thus, I said:

It can get clouded by this, or people can say "some people don't like fudging, and they're not worse GMs for not doing so" (even if Elf Witch disagrees), and that "some groups like occasional fudging, and they're not worse GMs for doing so (even if The Shaman disagrees).

Seriously. This is a pretty simple play style issue. It's not a trust issue, it's not one group or GM being better or worse based solely on this view. It's just a different approach to Fun. Which, of course, we all know is subjective. Just go have Fun. As always, play what you like

Yeah. I said it's a play style issue. I don't know if you're disagreeing with me to be argumentative, or if you've just misunderstood me. But, my views are in the thread, if you want to go read them. As always, play what you like

 

[The Shaman]

No, The Shaman was commenting on her mindset, not the options that her mindset fosters. Big difference there.

Thanks for trying, [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] , but at this point I think the horse is gonna stand there until it dies of thirst.

An inflexible commitment to flexibility is an inflexible commitment - it really shouldn't be that hard to grasp, and yet here we are.

 

[JamesonCourage]

An inflexible commitment to flexibility is an inflexible commitment - it really shouldn't be that hard to grasp, and yet here we are.

Indeed. Here we are.