Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9725458" data-attributes="member: 6790260">How is that possible?Seriously. If the encounter is too strong to be beaten, that isn't &quot;unfair to the players&quot;. It is fair that some things br genuinely beyond their ability. Fairness does not mean guaranteeing success! Fairness means applying the rules without fear or favor. The thing you are talking about is specifically ignoring the rules in order to show preference for one above another. It is definitionally unfair.Instead, what you're driving at here is that it is undesirable for players to face and unavoidable loss that the GM did not intend. That if the GM has screwed up and made the players believe something is winnable when it is not, then they would have a legitimate grievance and want it addressed. That doesn't make running that unwinnable battle unfair. It simply makes it not the thing the GM wanted to do, and thus the GM's signalling to the players was unintentionally harmful.Which, as stated above, is exactly the &quot;make it seem like the GM doesn't make mistakes&quot; thing. Instead of fairly presenting the combat, or admitting to fault and fixing it, fudging is the GM smoothing away their errors without anyone ever knowing an error occurred. Some players will absolutely want this, because any attention, any at all, called to the process of play will be harmful to their experience, so they would rather the GM play in an unfair but smooth manner, rather than having the certainty that the GM does not interfere with results even when the results are undesirable. The former is just as much a perfectly rational desire as the latter, even if the former is not a desire I share or even entirely understand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9725458, member: 6790260"] How is that possible? Seriously. If the encounter is too strong to be beaten, that isn't "unfair to the players". It is fair that some things br genuinely beyond their ability. [I]Fairness[/I] does not mean guaranteeing success! Fairness means applying the rules without fear or favor. The thing you are talking about is specifically ignoring the rules [I]in order to[/I] show preference for one above another. It is definitionally [I]unfair.[/I] Instead, what you're driving at here is that it is [I]undesirable[/I] for players to face and unavoidable loss that the GM did not intend. That if the GM has screwed up and made the players [I]believe[/I] something is winnable when it is not, then they would have a legitimate grievance and want it addressed. That doesn't make running that unwinnable battle [I]unfair.[/I] It simply makes it not the thing the GM wanted to do, and thus the GM's signalling to the players was unintentionally harmful. Which, as stated above, is exactly the "make it seem like the GM doesn't make mistakes" thing. Instead of fairly presenting the combat, or admitting to fault and fixing it, fudging is the GM smoothing away their errors without anyone ever knowing an error occurred. Some players will absolutely want this, because any attention, any at all, called to the process of play will be harmful to their experience, so they would rather the GM play in an unfair but smooth manner, rather than having the certainty that the GM does not interfere with results even when the results are undesirable. The former is just as much a perfectly rational desire as the latter, even if the former is not a desire I share or even entirely understand. [/QUOTE]

Verification