Quote from: MaddmanSo, I'm curious. If you don't consider the goal of a gaming session everyone having a good time, what *is* that goal? Why do you play if not for fun?

What is the goal of ANY game?  Whether it's Baseball, Monopoly, Blackjack, or an RPG -- the players want to have "fun".  

You can have any rules you want in the game, as long as everyone knows what they are before the game starts.

Can you imagine playing a game of Baseball where the Umpire sometimes doesn't call a player out unless they get 5 strikes?  Or a football/soccer game where the referee decides to let a player have another a penalty kick just because "it would be more fun/exciting"?

How is the pursuit of "fun" in an RPG any different from the pursuit of fun in any other game?  Other games follow their own rules. RPGs should too.

If the rules suck -- change them -- but let everyone know what they are before the game starts.  Otherwise you're playing Calvinball.

Quote from: StuartCalvinball.

FORGE JARGON ALERT!

RedFox: yes, that's an issue that's actually gotten a lot of discussion. Briefly, a lot of people see that sort of thing as being the same as fudging. That is, assuming you mean the GM has decided in advance that a failure is needed, and just keeps asking for rolls until one appears. If the GM decides in advance exactly how many rolls are needed, and just asks for a lot of them, then that's more like giving a really big negative modifier, which is a grey area.

Quote from: SosthenesThere's a slight difference between "judging" and "fudging". There are degrees here, not just a binary decision, at least until we find a perfect definition for every word and bit of terminology we're using in this discussion.

I think it's pretty simple. "Judging" is what the GM does before the dice are rolled. "Fudging" is what they do after the dice are rolled. No-one except rules lawyers has a problem with GM's judging things; they may argue over individual judgments, but that the GM must make some judgment isn't argued, as far as I can see. What is argued is whether, after the dice are rolled, the GM gets to over-rule them.

Quote from: SosthenesBut house ruling and fudging have one big difference: Rules apply beyond the current moment. A fudge just influences the current situation, the next might be ruled totally different.

That's certainly true. And I think that many house rules begin as a GM fudge. "Man, that didn't work... I'll change it. Next session, I'll let them know that it's a permanent change. A house rule."

Quote from: Sosthenes... players (or most people in other situations) like to have some kind of accountability. What is right now shouldn't be wrong tomorrow. Rules provide some kind of safety net, as you can rely on something.

That's also true. And in fact I would argue that a lot of GM fudging happens to reinforce that safety net, to give some consistency to things. The dice are random, and sometimes random results are stupid and make you go, "what the fuck?" Sure, random stupidity is realistic and plausible, but it's not fun. I knew a guy who broke his ankle stepping off a pavement curb, but I guarantee you no-one would play in a game where you had to make a roll just to step off a curb. "If you roll 000000001 on d1,000,000,000, then you break your ankle."

A lot of GM fudging is to avoid that kind of random, tedious, not-fun stupidity.

Quote from: SosthenesIf the whole session descends into some kind of creative anarchy, a lot of player won't enjoy that. I want to have some kind of reliable influence on the outcome of events, some tangible factors. That's where the probability mechanics of dice come into play -- or some kind of drama-doohickey resource management.

Certainly. And again, often the purpose of GM fudging is to allow players that influence, when the rules and dice fuck them. Maybe the rules say that the guy in my example above, stealthing across the city street, has to make twenty Stealth checks. He has 95% skill, and so has to roll under 95 on d100. He has a 64% chance of failing at least one of those checks. The adventure isn't meant to be Guy's Life In Prison, though, it's meant to be (say) Thrilling Espionage With Risk of Death or Prison. So if I make the guy roll twenty times and he fails, well....  

You go on to talking about "narrative railroading." I don't know about that, I've never done it. I just aim for what I call "a successful session." That means everyone had fun and/or fulfilment, and it was interesting and memorable. Sometimes that leads to some kind of "story", other times it's pretty meandering and doesn't really go anywhere. But I usually manage two of the four, fun, fulfilling, interesting, memorable. Were I to slavishly follow the rules and dice, I wouldn't get that.

"Fun" and "fulfilment" do not mean automatic character success at everything. "Fun" means that the players should get along well, share a few jokes, and laugh in joy at their triumphs, and in rueful appreciation at their fuck-ups. "Fulfilment" means they got something out of the session, that what happened, or what their character did, seemed to mean something, it wasn't just stupid or arbitrary.

I don't know about "narrative railroading." I present the situation: someone is making a choice, and the characters have a reason to care what choice they make. I just say, "okay, there are these ten different things happening in the world. Some of them may be connected, some not. Some of them relate to your characters, what your guys love and fear and hate. So maybe you'll want to get involved in one or more of those ten things. If you do nothing, certain things will end up happening. If you interfere, then you'll shape the course of events, for good or ill. Or you can just walk away, and make your own things happen, entirely unrelated to all that. It's up to you."

Sometimes all that leads to what you might call a "narrative", sometimes not. I'm not aiming for that. I go session by session. I don't aim for some spetacular cimax ten sessions down the road, who the fuck knows if the group will still be together then! Session by session.

I don't fudge stuff to keep the characters alive and successful. I fudge it so that nothing stupid and annoying happens, and so that things will be fun, fulfilling, interesting and memorable.

My last campaign ended because one PC killed another. The campaign began with Aelwyn (a PC) saving the life of her infant half-brother, Osric. Years (14 sessions) later, Osric was their enemy. They had defeated Osric, he lay on the ground clutching his bleeding neck. Another PC, Godmund, said, "we must slay him, that he will not return to trouble us." Aelwyn said, "no!" and tried to protect him. Godmund came forward with his axe, saying, "step aside," as he raised it. He brought the axe down, and Aelwyn flung herself in front of fallen Osric. Sacrifical dodge, GURPS calls it. The dice roll - a critical success! The axe-blow strikes Aelwyn instead, killing her.

Was this PC success, or failure? One killed another by accident. But the campaign had begun with Aelwyn saving Osric's life - it seemed appropriate that it should end with her saving his life, too. This made the session perhaps not fun, but certainly fulfilling, interesting and memorable.

But here's the thing - I fudged the dice roll when Osric was struck in the neck. According to the dice, he died straight away. But giving the player-characters the choice as to whether he should live or die - their enemy, their relative - that made the game's events more interesting. "You strike, he dies," was not as interesting as, "he falls, clutching his neck. If you help him, he may live. If you leave him, he will probably die. Or you could finish him off..."

The GM is there to give the players choices, whether the GM speaks them out or not. A "game" is an activity undertaken for amusement with elements of both choice and chance in it. If it's all choice, or all chance, it's not really a game anymore. In a roleplaying game, the dice give us chance, while the GM gives us choices. If everything is left to chance then the choices we make are meaningless; if everything is left to choice then with no chances of true success or failure, our choices are again meaningless. The GM's there to balance up the choices and chances so that it all has a bit of both.

That's not "narrative railroading," that's just GMing.

Quote from: droogFORGE JARGON ALERT!

That's Bill Watterson jargon.

I actually have no idea what The Family might use that term to mean, but I imagine it's not the same meaning that you'd expect from reading the comic.

Quote from: Elliot WilenRedFox: yes, that's an issue that's actually gotten a lot of discussion. Briefly, a lot of people see that sort of thing as being the same as fudging. That is, assuming you mean the GM has decided in advance that a failure is needed, and just keeps asking for rolls until one appears. If the GM decides in advance exactly how many rolls are needed, and just asks for a lot of them, then that's more like giving a really big negative modifier, which is a grey area.

I will say that that particular bit bugs the hell out of me.  It's frustrating and obvious when someone makes you roll fifteen times to cross the street with any degree of stealth, or whatever.  After a little bit of this I start getting frustrated and going like, "Come ON, man!  Gimme a freakin' break!"

It was most obvious when the GM in question had me rolling against a drive skill to start a car, then back up, then change gears into forward, etc.  He often does this in survival / horror games.

Quote from: StuartCan you imagine playing a game of Baseball where the Umpire sometimes doesn't call a player out unless they get 5 strikes?  Or a football/soccer game where the referee decides to let a player have another a penalty kick just because "it would be more fun/exciting"?

How is the pursuit of "fun" in an RPG any different from the pursuit of fun in any other game?  Other games follow their own rules. RPGs should too.

The difference is competition. When the Red Sox play the Yankees, then the refs will apply the rules. When the neighbourhood kids are whacking the ball down the street, then yes, sometimes they'll decide to let one kid have 5 strikes instead of 3. If my girlfriend and I sit down to play chess, then we'll just play, following the rules, and each play as well as we can. If I had a six-year old son, I would not play too hard.

When a game's done for competition, we apply rules strictly. When it's done for fun, then we apply rules to make the game more fun and interesting.

Even in competitive games, we have rules to ensure an even competition. The Red Sox do not play the local elementary school's team, and if they go visit, then they're not going to throw curveballs against those kids. We have leagues of different levels, weight classes and so on - to ensure even competition. But what is "even competition"? It means, "we don't know exactly what's going to happen next." We play games to find out what'll happen in the game. We try to keep the outcome uncertain. Sometimes, to do that, you have to give the kid 5 strikes instead of 3 or not play as hard, or fudge a dice roll.

Unless of course you think that the Red Sox should play hard against those Little Leaguers...

Quote from: droogFORGE JARGON ALERT!

Calvinball is forge jargon? I always thought it was the game Calvin and Hobbes play where Calvin makes up the rules as they go along. So what you're saying is that if the Forge uses a word as an example (an incredibly fitting one in this instance) that the word immediately becomes Forge Jargon and cause for shouting at folks in a derogatory manner?

Sweet! All I gotta do is convince "The Forgies" that "RPGPundit" is an excellent general example when you want to say something tries too hard, and "dice" are the best possible example of a general random number generator. That oughta wreak havoc with the anti-Forgites here.

Quote from: RedFoxI will say that that particular bit bugs the hell out of me.  It's frustrating and obvious when someone makes you roll fifteen times to cross the street with any degree of stealth, or whatever.  After a little bit of this I start getting frustrated and going like, "Come ON, man!  Gimme a freakin' break!"

It was most obvious when the GM in question had me rolling against a drive skill to start a car, then back up, then change gears into forward, etc.  He often does this in survival / horror games.

Somebody wants a good slappin'!

He should have just made it so that none of your choices matter.

Quote from: JimBobOzI don't fudge stuff to keep the characters alive and successful. I fudge it so that nothing stupid and annoying happens, and so that things will be fun, fulfilling, interesting and memorable.

Why not do this -- every time you are about to pick up the dice, just ask yourself:  "Am I okay with any of the results from this roll?"  If not, don't pick up the dice.

QuoteBut here's the thing - I fudged the dice roll when Osric was struck in the neck. According to the dice, he died straight away. But giving the player-characters the choice as to whether he should live or die - their enemy, their relative - that made the game's events more interesting. "You strike, he dies," was not as interesting as, "he falls, clutching his neck. If you help him, he may live. If you leave him, he will probably die. Or you could finish him off..."

That's not exactly fudging a dice roll.  If it was D&D and they reduced him to 0 (or even -40) hp, then whether he's "dead" or just "mortally wounded" they've still defeated him.  He's not jumping up and continuing to attack them.  You've just dragged it out a bit for some roleplaying.  I actually think rules for critical injuries and mortal wounds are missing from a lot of RPGs, and are a nice addition for exactly this sort of thing.

I think the real issue is letting the players know what's going on.  If they understand when you're moving from "regular combat" to "roleplaying" modes, they'll be very cool with it.  If they figure out that you're just screwing around and changing numbers, dice rolls, and maps... a lot of people will feel cheated.  And rightly so.

Quote from: James McMurraySomebody wants a good slappin'!

Fucking oath.

"If you want me to fail then fine, just say that I fail. Don't make me roll twenty times for it, though. We ain't got all day. Okay, I fail. What happens?"

Oath?

Quote from: JimBobOzThe difference is competition. When the Red Sox play the Yankees, then the refs will apply the rules. When the neighbourhood kids are whacking the ball down the street, then yes, sometimes they'll decide to let one kid have 5 strikes instead of 3. If my girlfriend and I sit down to play chess, then we'll just play, following the rules, and each play as well as we can. If I had a six-year old son, I would not play too hard.

The Red Sox and Yankees are playing baseball.  The kids are being kids.  You and your girlfiend, and even you and your imaginary son, are playing chess. Regardless of how hard you play, I doubt you'd say:  "Dear, why don't you get to move your bishop in ANY direction this turn?"  or more accurately for the example of fudging, just move one of their pieces for them "to help them out".

And if the kids get more swings at the ball -- they know it.  Nobody is trying to trick them into thinking they're hitting it in 3 strikes when they're not.  It's not like the kid swings at the air and someone makes a *crack* sound and the catcher throws the ball into the outfield.  "Run Billy, RUN!  YAY! You hit the ball! Run Billy!"  Poor, confused Billy slowly drops his bat and starts off towards first base... but slows before he gets there as he realizes how patronizing it all is.  He starts crying and runs home instead.

Why would you do that to Billy?

Quote from: James McMurraySo what you're saying is that if the Forge uses a word as an example (an incredibly fitting one in this instance) that the word immediately becomes Forge Jargon and cause for shouting at folks in a derogatory manner?

I think we may be on the same wavelength, Mr McMurray.

By the way (from the Provo Glossary):

QuoteCalvinball
A potentially-dysfunctional Technique of Hard Core Gamist play, characterized by making up the rules of a game as it is played, especially in the immediate context of advantaging oneself and disadvantaging one's opponents. "Tagged you! Tags mean you're out!" "It's Tuesday! Tagging doesn't work on Tuesdays!" Most so-called "rules-lawyering" is actually Calvinballing. The term is taken from the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes; see also The Unofficial Official Rules of Calvinball.

Quote from: StuartWhy not do this -- every time you are about to pick up the dice, just ask yourself:  "Am I okay with any of the results from this roll?"  If not, don't pick up the dice.

Because sometimes the dice inspire me. I use the dice to determine what happens in individual actions and events, and to complement the imaginations of the group.  Dice + imagination > imagination alone. You know how sometimes people talk about using tarot cards to determine NPC personalities, or runestones to decide what'll happen during the session? Well, I see the dice as the same sort of thing, but one event at a time.

Quote from: StuartThat's not exactly fudging a dice roll.  If it was D&D and they reduced him to 0 (or even -40) hp, then whether he's "dead" or just "mortally wounded" they've still defeated him.

No, it's fudging a dice roll. The rules said that he was dead. But defeating someone in a battle, and he happens to die - there's not really any choice there. It's just you or him, and you weren't trying to kill him, just defeat him. By letting him still be alive, I made his life and death a decision of the player-characters. Instead of the dice deciding, the players decided. I decided to let them make the decision - I fudged the dice roll.

Quote from: StuartI think the real issue is letting the players know what's going on.  If they understand when you're moving from "regular combat" to "roleplaying" modes, they'll be very cool with it.  If they figure out that you're just screwing around and changing numbers, dice rolls, and maps... a lot of people will feel cheated.  And rightly so.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. At the beginning of the campaign, one of the things players had mentioned was that in previous games they'd played, they didn't feel they had any influence over the game world. Either they were railroaded down some inevitable path, or the characters were too small to make a difference. So I said, "okay, I will create a game world, and run game sessions, so that what your characters decide and do makes a difference." They said that sounded good. I describe that in Tiwesdæg Clíewen - creating.

Nobody felt cheated. They wrote lengthy game journals, and still speak of the campaign fondly. Players feel cheated when their choice is removed. We see for example here RedFox talking about a GM who wanted his character to fail, so made him roll a zillion times. RedFox wasn't given a choice, because of the way the GM was fudging against him.

My fudging increased the choices the PCs had. Instead of "he dies, who gets his stuff?" it was, "he falls, do you help him, let him die, or kill him?" Because each PC had a different opinion on that, something interesting and memorable happened.

The GM should always act to allow players and their characters choices, and make those choices actually mean something. Sometimes, the dice help with that - by coming up with things the GM would never have thought of by themselves - and sometimes, the dice hinder that.