It's odd to say that the GM has to override a diceroll in order to have something unexpected happen. But I think it's also pretty clear that the sports analogy doesn't apply to JimBob's game. However, I don't completely buy the idea that competition is definitional of games, or that RPGs are fully games in the normal sense.

That is JB is responding to a weak argument with a fallacious argument. I call a do-over.

Edit: Cross-posted. Interesting, meaningful choice is different from Interesting, unpredictable outcome.

@droog:

What's amusing about the Forge definition is that in this thread it's more that we're talking about Calvinball as "A potentially-dysfunctional Technique of Hard Core Gamist Narrativist play".

Except that I don't buy into the Gamist/Narrativist thing anyway.

Quote from: StuartExcept that I don't buy into the Gamist/Narrativist thing anyway.

Not to worry.

Quote from: James McMurrayOath?

"My oath!" is a 19th century exclamation meaning, "I swear that this is true." This has evolved into "fucking oath", to signify vigorous agreement with what someone just said.

Quote from: StuartYou 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".

No, I wouldn't do those things. The bishop moves along the diagonals - likewise, the fighter cannot cast spells. But can she take back that move where she didn't notice that your pawn could take her queen, it was really obvious, she should have seen it? The rules say no, but you may allow it this time just to keep the game going a little longer and make it interesting. Likewise, when the fighter forgets to get the thief to check for traps...

And you wouldn't move a piece for them "to help them out" because then you're removing their choices for them. And as I said, the GM is there to expand the number of choices the players have. If they like it when there's no choice about what the characters do, they can watch a movie. You might suggest a move, or give hints about a move, but you won't actually move it for them. "Fudging" is not "railroading".

Quote from: StuartAnd 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.

Yes. But more often when children play a ball game, or when the father plays the son in chess, the more skilled person will simply take it easier on the less-skilled person. The less-skilled person will be aware that the other is taking it easy on them in general, but not sure whether this particular throw or move is "taking it easy" or not. Likewise, the players know the GM fudges things to make them more interesting, but they don't know whether the GM fudged this particular dice roll or not. So we have something a bit like the "suspension of disbelief" when you watch a movie. You know that the good guys will win in the end, but it's still interesting to watch, because this particular action may not win. And yes, it's true that action movies are very predictable these guys, and there shoud be more movies where the good guys lose - if only because then they'd make a better analogy for the way roleplaying games should be. As GM, I don't guarantee that the good guys - the PCs, naturally - will "win". But I do guarantee that they'll have the chance to "win," and that they'll have the certainty that something interesting will happen along the way, and that their actions will affect the outcome.

QuoteLikewise, the players know the GM fudges things to make them more interesting, but they don't know whether the GM fudged this particular dice roll or not.

They don't always seem to know... especially if it's a new GM or a tournament / convention.  I definitely think they SHOULD know before the game starts and agree to it.  If they do, then sure, they've agreed to it.  I think a lot of players wouldn't agree to it though.  I wouldn't, and I think a number of other posters here wouldn't either.

All dice rolls on the table where everyone can see them.

Quote from: StuartThey don't always seem to know... especially if it's a new GM or a tournament / convention.  I definitely think they SHOULD know before the game starts and agree to it.  If they do, then sure, they've agreed to it.  I think a lot of players wouldn't agree to it though.  I wouldn't, and I think a number of other posters here wouldn't either.

All dice rolls on the table where everyone can see them.

Alright, here's a question for you:

What if you had someone GM for you that kept all their rolls hidden behind a screen and informed you of nothing more than what you needed to know to play?  Exactly what difference would it make what they were doing, so long as you had fun?  Do you need to know what the GM's doing to enjoy yourself as a player?

Because that "I was 11 and had a great time until I found out the ugly truth!" story really made me pull a double-take.

Quote from: StuartThey don't always seem to know... especially if it's a new GM or a tournament / convention.  I definitely think they SHOULD know before the game starts and agree to it.

I think you missed the parts where I said that I always discuss what sort of game to run with the players before running it. That's the Cheetoist way. "We play to have fun. To have fun, talk to your group about what they think is fun, and then give it to them."

If they want the GM to never fudge, that's fine. It's the same as if they want the GM to introduce more fursex. Fine by me. Someone else can GM, I'll be off doing something else.

Quote from: RedFoxDo you need to know what the GM's doing to enjoy yourself as a player?

Yes, if only because I've been a GM for most of my roleplaying career myself. I want to know what's going on, and I don't like it when the GM's procedures are hidden.

It's like being a passenger on a motorbike. It's all very fun and groovy until you've ridden a bike yourself.

QuoteAlright, here's a question for you:

What if you had someone GM for you that kept all their rolls hidden behind a screen and informed you of nothing more than what you needed to know to play? Exactly what difference would it make what they were doing, so long as you had fun? Do you need to know what the GM's doing to enjoy yourself as a player?

Because that "I was 11 and had a great time until I found out the ugly truth!" story really made me pull a double-take.

First, I'd ask them to roll the dice on the table where we could all see them.  If they refused, I'd assume they wanted to fudge the dice rolls.  That means they're also likely to fudge other elements of the game as well.  I'd be more aware of railroading and more suspicious that the choices we were making in the game didn't really matter -- it was all a big illusion.

I might enjoy their skill as a storyteller, but I wouldn't take much satisfaction from solving puzzles, or combat tactics.  I'd probably try and focus on something I *did* have control over -- like the personality I roleplayed for my character.  I'd gradually pay less attention to the gameplay and more attention to the storytelling and improvisation.

Gradually, I'd start thinking that the system we were playing (I'm guessing traditional RPG) was less well suited to what we were doing than one of the new games created specifically for the job.

I'd suggest we give one of those games a try instead.  If we're going to do storytelling, let's do it.  I don't have a problem with storytelling games -- they're just different from RPGs... or at least what I think of an RPG.

QuoteThe difference is competition.

I disagree. When the players roll dice, it's virtually always because their PCs are locked in some sort of conflict (a definite form of competition) with someone or something in the game world. It could be the orc chieftain they're duelling to the death or the treacherous cliff that they're trying to scale, but the conflict/competition with some aspect of the game world is present.

That is why I apply the rules as universally and impartially as a good baseball umpire should.

Quote from: StuartFirst, I'd ask them to roll the dice on the table where we could all see them.  If they refused, I'd assume they wanted to fudge the dice rolls.

Well first of all maybe s/he just doesn't want you to see the roll results because it adds tension or is something you as a player should not be aware of (such as the results of NPC rolls to notice stealthed PCs, or random encounter table rolls, etc.)

I find it extremely telling that you automatically assume that they'll be "fudging."

...where did the bad GM touch you?

Quote from: RedFoxWell first of all maybe s/he just doesn't want you to see the roll results because it adds tension or is something you as a player should not be aware of (such as the results of NPC rolls to notice stealthed PCs, or random encounter table rolls, etc.)

I find it extremely telling that you automatically assume that they'll be "fudging."

...where did the bad GM touch you?

Ad hominem? This thread has been doing fine without it, thanks.

Quote from: YamoAd hominem? This thread has been doing fine without it, thanks.

What, a personal attack?  Where?

Quote from: RedFoxWell first of all maybe s/he just doesn't want you to see the roll results because it adds tension or is something you as a player should not be aware of (such as the results of NPC rolls to notice stealthed PCs, or random encounter table rolls, etc.)

I find it extremely telling that you automatically assume that they'll be "fudging."

...where did the bad GM touch you?

Nice try.  You do a poor Pundit impression.

If the GM won't roll dice for combat in the open, they're either fudging dice rolls, or keeping that option available.

Quote from: JimBobOz"My oath!" is a 19th century exclamation meaning, "I swear that this is true." This has evolved into "fucking oath", to signify vigorous agreement with what someone just said.

Ah, I guess it never made it to my neck of the woods (North Eastern Texas).

QuoteYes. But more often when children play a ball game, or when the father plays the son in chess, the more skilled person will simply take it easier on the less-skilled person.

I have toa ssume (again) that you had a somewhat sheltered upbringing, and that it explains quite a bit of the difference here. My grandfather taught me to play chess when I was 8. Whenever we could I'd play him. I lost every game until I was 13. I didn't quit, didn't whine to have the rules changed, I just kept playing, having fun, and learning. I finally won a game when I was 13, but he was on his death bed for cancer so I'm not sure if I actually won, won because his judgement was impaired, or won because he let me win. I do know that he was teaching me a lesson, and it's a lesson that stuck with me forever: you don't excel unless you're put in a position where you have to. The only reason I think he may have let me win is because of that lesson, but I honestly don't know. The idea that he might have or that it might have been because his judgement was impaired does cheapen the victory though.

Likewise with baseball. Where I played if you sucked you got picked last, they tried to hit the ball to you for the easy base, and you didn't get any favors. The first time I caught a ball hit to me I was ecstatic! I'd done it! Not because somebody let me do it, but because I had really done it! I wouldn't change those memories to mollycoddling for anything.

QuoteThe less-skilled person will be aware that the other is taking it easy on them in general, but not sure whether this particular throw or move is "taking it easy" or not.

Crap. If you know they're doing it, you suspect it all the time. And it cheapens the success when it finally comes, because you don't know if you really did it or not.

QuoteAs GM, I don't guarantee that the good guys - the PCs, naturally - will "win". But I do guarantee that they'll have the chance to "win," and that they'll have the certainty that something interesting will happen along the way, and that their actions will affect the outcome.

Not so. If you fudge, you're choosing when and where they are gauranteed to succeed or fail. It may not be the roll that the entire adventure rests on, but you've removed fate from the equation and cheapened the experience.