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

[Bullgrit]

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes."
-- Obi-Wan Kenobi

Bullgrit

 

[Reynard]

I like potato chips. I eat them pretty often.

I love coffee. I have coffee every day, sometimes more than once a day. If I don't drink coffee it is because I am sick or there just isn't any.

I don't like soda. It just doesn't appeal to me. Once in a while I will have a rum and coke or a root beer float, though.

I loathe lobster. It disgusts me. I never eat it, no matter how it is prepared. If i was starving, maybe, or if not eating it would truly offend someone I care about, I guess I would choke it down.

 

[Janx]

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.

Yet there is a world of difference in the kind of person who says "I will NEVER reconsider or change my mind"

Versus "I will NEVER be unwilling to reconsider or change ny mind"

Surely, you see a difference in mindset?

The alternative statements without using the word NEVER is as follows:

"I am unwilling to reconsider or change my mind"

versus "I am always willing to reconsider and change my mind"

It's not just the semantics of using the word NEVER. And I'm not looking up quotes on whatever the smurf Elf Witch said. I got the hunch some typos were made and whatever was quoted wasn't originally stated that well.

What I do know is, Shaman has a rigid stance on not fudging. And anybody who's on the pro-fudging side, is not really in the "yay, the law says I can fudge so let's get fudgy!" and it fact simply uses it as a tool when they need it. I would in fact suspect that pro-fudgers use it reluctantly and would prefer to not have the situation come up where they needed it.

That is to me, a flexible stance. Being prepared to consider an option and use it is the mark of a flexible person.

Now somebody could take a moral stance, and say that somebody who might be so flexible to consider murder as a possible solution is on the slippery slope to damnation. And conversly, somebody who strictly adheres to a non-violence ethic is being "rigid" but retains some moral high ground.

I see the world as a toolbox. I don't like laws and rules that restrict me from using tools. But I also accept that I should use the right tool for the job. However, I reserve Rule 0, that exceptions do come up that the rules/laws make things worse, not better. In which case, those situations are where one violates the rule/law/best practice for the purpose of handling the exceptional instance.

 

[enrious]

From the Urban Dictionary:

Pedantic:

1. A state of mind which is about caring a lot about formalities, often more than necessary. One may be called pedantic when he/she points out corrections in unimportant details.

2. The nitpickery of the english language that drives the less detail oriented insane...often mistaken as a tool to impress others when in fact it is annoying.

3. Ostentatious regarding one's intelligence. Using this word also makes you this word.

4. Someone who does things "by the book" to an extent that it overrides intuition.

5. Showing one's intelligence more than is necessary.

6. A tendency toward involuntary discovery of evidence suggesting widespread ignorance and/or ineptitude, esp. with regard to linguistic communication.

I'm sorry but I don't care how you try to spin the English language to making someone as rigid if they swear to be flexible, it severely fails the smell test.

That said,

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.

Is essentially "it" - it is stylistic and *that* has no right or wrong, only compatible or incompatible.

The fussin' and feudin' comes in when someone says that people of one style are lazy, incompetent, or whatnot and that form of extremism is ludicrous.

However, fundamentally, people should be worried about compatibility rather than the Holy Way of DMing/Gaming. In this, Jameson is IMO absolutely correct.

Also, "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."

I wonder if anyone truly disagrees with it? Because in order for someone to disagree, then they'd have to run an extreme game (nevermind the small bits of plastic generally at issue in this discussion) that I doubt on the face of it anyone truly runs.

Indeed, Jameson you said earlier that you would "brainstorm" ways to ameliorate the circumstance/situation described above (and one that may cause other DMs to fudge) - apart from degree, where is that any difference in kind of alteration to the game that is so vehemently denounced by the no-fudging crowd?

 

[Umbran]

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

Yes it is. Tautological, even. You have to be careful with tautologies, though, as they often reduce to what a mathematician or physicist would call a "trivial statement", and those usually don't carry as much meaning as you might think in the context in which they're stated.

Let us take the statement (1), "I will never do X." It is a commitment to not undertake a practice.

Let us then look at statement (2), "I will never commit to not doing X." It is a commitment to not undertake a practice of undertaking a practice. It is also inflexible, but one level up from the previous statement. If (1) is a rule, then (2) is a meta-rule - a rule about rules. You're both inflexible, but inflexible on different levels.

As a physicist, I want to talk here about a "phase space" - the set of all possible states or actions that might be taken. An adherent of (1) has eliminated more possible actions from his or her future than an adherent of (2). So, while both statements are inflexible absolutes, an adherent of (2) has more possible actions open to them, so the result is more flexible than adhering to (1).

So, in one sense the Shaman is right, and in another Elf Witch is right.

 

[enrious]

Yes it is. Tautological, even. You have to be careful with tautologies, though, as they often reduce to what a mathematician or physicist would call a "trivial statement", and those usually don't carry as much meaning as you might think in the context in which they're stated.

Let us take the statement (1), "I will never do X." It is a commitment to not undertake a practice.

Let us then look at statement (2), "I will never commit to not doing X." It is a commitment to not undertake a practice of undertaking a practice. It is also inflexible, but one level up from the previous statement. If (1) is a rule, then (2) is a meta-rule - a rule about rules. You're both inflexible, but inflexible on different levels.

As a physicist, I want to talk here about a "phase space" - the set of all possible states or actions that might be taken. An adherent of (1) has eliminated more possible actions from his or her future than an adherent of (2). So, while both statements are inflexible absolutes, an adherent of (2) has more possible actions open to them, so the result is more flexible than adhering to (1).

So, in one sense the Shaman is right, and in another Elf Witch is right.

But in context, isn't there a "right" and "more right" aspect of the two arguments?

Or this way, "flexible" and "less flexible".

 

[S'mon]

So yeah, some DMs who fudge have already said that they'd alleviate an unfun/unfair/whatever situation that would result in a variety of effects detrimental to a game/campaign/whatever.

And you know, I suspect a lot of fudge-deniers (just seeing if S'mon is still reading this ) would do the same, but it's the manner that seems to be the issue.

I've occasionally had friendly NPCs raise dead PCs, but only when reasonably plausible. A PC IMC died recently, killed by elite-ified wolves outside the tower of Treona (from The Slaying Stone), a seer who wanted to hire the party to get the Stone. The module says Treona can raise dead PCs, but assumes the PCs will have to pay for the materials to have their comrade raised. I decided Treona would raise the PC cost-free, and that she had enough materials on hand to do so right away. A really adversarial GM would not have done that.

 

[enrious]

I've occasionally had friendly NPCs raise dead PCs, but only when reasonably plausible. A PC IMC died recently, killed by elite-ified wolves outside the tower of Treona (from The Slaying Stone), a seer who wanted to hire the party to get the Stone. The module says Treona can raise dead PCs, but assumes the PCs will have to pay for the materials to have their comrade raised. I decided Treona would raise the PC cost-free, and that she had enough materials on hand to do so right away. A really adversarial GM would not have done that.

First, that sounds pretty cool.

But let me stop you for a minute, please define "plausible" such that it differs from a lowering of hidden hit points, stats, or rolls of the dice.

Thank you.

 

[Janx]

Yes it is. Tautological, even. You have to be careful with tautologies, though, as they often reduce to what a mathematician or physicist would call a "trivial statement", and those usually don't carry as much meaning as you might think in the context in which they're stated.

Let us take the statement (1), "I will never do X." It is a commitment to not undertake a practice.

Let us then look at statement (2), "I will never commit to not doing X." It is a commitment to not undertake a practice of undertaking a practice. It is also inflexible, but one level up from the previous statement. If (1) is a rule, then (2) is a meta-rule - a rule about rules. You're both inflexible, but inflexible on different levels.

As a physicist, I want to talk here about a "phase space" - the set of all possible states or actions that might be taken. An adherent of (1) has eliminated more possible actions from his or her future than an adherent of (2). So, while both statements are inflexible absolutes, an adherent of (2) has more possible actions open to them, so the result is more flexible than adhering to (1).

So, in one sense the Shaman is right, and in another Elf Witch is right.

I think i'll side with the mathematical answer. More options = more flexible.

Shaman seems to vote for 1 and 1 is less flexible
Elf Witch votes for 2 and 2 is more flexible

Regardless how it is worded, the math bears out the answer in this case.

It really comes down to, how hard is it to say, "I really prefer using the dice results and not altering them (fudging). I don't expect to ever use fudging in my game." and be done with it.

That doesn't insult anybody, sticks to the truth that fudging won't happen in Shaman's game, but also acknowledges the unlikely and remotest possibility that some unforseen circumstance COULD come up where Shaman may need to consider fudging the outcome.

That is ultimately the problem with "I will NEVER" statements (type 1 statements). Its the presumption that the speaker has considered every possibily and that they cannot has misconsidered.

It's like the old saying, "never say never." When I see such a statement, I see arrogance and a lack of wisdom and diplomacy. Bear in mind, this site is chock full of such statements by myself. Now and then, when I make my Wisdom roll, I see the folly of such, and it is always easier to see it in others than oneself.

 

[S'mon]

No. I might go easy on a player because I was over-tough previously, though. Eg I heavily boosted the wolves in what was written as a fairly easy fight, had them all focus attacks on the squishiest PC (she did just Burning Hands them, mind you), had them action point, and had them keep attacking her after she was down, killing her before any other PC had even had their first action.

Oh yeah - and I had killed her previous PC 2 sessions previously, TPK'd by goblins in the first game she & the other players had ever played with me.

I have to say I felt a bit like Elf Witch described feeling when she fudged to keep a PC alive, I really didn't want to see that player lose a PC again. But I didn't fudge to keep her alive, and I didn't fudge to help the other PCs drive off the wolves. They had to pull through on their own, in a desperate fight where IME a lot of players would have broken and run, abandoning their comrade's corpse to the wolves. I think they had a little bit of good karma owed them then.