Quote from: droogAm I making sense?

Yeah...I..

QuoteSomething wrong' with the system is a relative thing. It depends on what you want from that game. It's when you get mismatch of system and expectations that problems occur.

...get this part...and...

QuoteTake the issue of random, pointless death. It's a lot more likely to occur in Pendragon than it is in mid-level D&D (barring the contentious save-or-die situations), because the damage that can be done in a single blow can easily exceed any chr's full hit points. That being so, there will come a time when sheer bad luck kills a chr – no doubt about it. So playing PD 'properly' includes full cognizance of this factor.

... I think this part...so, what you are sayin' (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that if a game is played properly - fully understanding and accepting the nature of the game - fudging becomes unnecessary.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RInteresting. What exactly do you mean by this? Has your experience with certain systems led you to believe that there was something wrong with the system(s) that required you as the GM to fudge? Also what do you mean by the right way?

Droog already answered along the same line I would. Almost.

By right game, I mean system problems leading to the need to Fudge. The game, mechanically, cannot achieve what you'd like it to achieve, unless you extensively modify it. People who pick the wrong game. There are plenty of such folks and they're really mad when you point out that fact to them.

By right way, I mean user problems. You've picked the right game but you fuck up, either during play or during prep. This can happen to everybody, BTW. So it's not like I'm judging folks. We all have been there. But the more you know the system you use, the less this will occur. Especially, of course, if it's the right system.

If you're playing the right game and using it the right way, there's no reason to fudge. You get the expected results that everybody agrees with. Dice are rolled when they need to be rolled and produce the results you agreed they would produce.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIf you're playing the right game, the right way, you don't have to fudge. Ever.

While that's been my experience and that's how I try to craft systems, I think there is a notable exception.  There are people who want their games to have outcomes significantly different than those produced by the rules but stick to those rules so that they can fool themselves or their players into thinking that the odds produced by the system are in play while they fudge the game to produce very different odds.  It's a close cousin to the GM strategy of railroading the adventure in a way that the players don't notice.

Quote from: David R... I think this part...so, what you are sayin' (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that if a game is played properly - fully understanding and accepting the nature of the game - fudging becomes unnecessary.

Yes. That includes the whole game, of course. Death loses some of its sting in PD when you have a dynasty. It's not a perfect game even then, mind you. Chargen takes too long for a game with such high attrition rates. That's why I developed the multiple-chrs approach (it was also a conscious effort to reduce investment in individual chrs), which was based on a suggestion in the 4th ed. rulebook.

Let's take Sorcerer for another example. If you take an action that causes a Humanity check when you are at 1 Humanity, you should take it fully aware that you may be about to lose your chr. That's the point of the game, and fudging would be to lose the point altogether. Not unnecessary so much as futile.

The fact that I started fudging liberally in my RQ game after a certain point was a signal that the system no longer fit what the game had become. I changed the system – no more fudging needed. I could have also just gone with the sytem and one day said "Tough shit, Brett, your chr of twenty years has bitten the dust." Which would have been an equally valid choice, except that nobody wanted it.

I used to fudge a great deal of the time. When I started gaming, I was one of those who came to the hobby with preconceptions from  TV and movies. I would get personally frustrated as a player when I tried to do something I thought was exciting or creative and got stymied by a bad roll or the rules. Now, with the wisdom of experience, I see this was just a mismatch between my expectations (playing a hero in an exciting adventure), and those of the GMs I'd played with (a tactical game where the unit is "My Guy"). When I started GMing, I tried to give my players as much slack as I could.

Unfortunately, my fudging and leniency led to boredom and flippancy from my players. Since they expected that I would go easy on them, they many times ran amok. They knew I would cave, and let them off the hook. I didn't see a way to: A. have an entertaining game experience, and B. still have the risk that the "good guys" would fail or even die. This just didn't happen often in the media I was consuming. (Notice , I still kept confusing "games" with "stories".)

A few years ago, I found a boardgame, the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" game by Milton Bradley. Now, if you've never seen this thing, the board is a map of Sunnydale that looks a lot like the Clue board. One player controls evil creatures, the other players control Buffy et al. There are special spaces, help cards that can be picked up, etc. It's very simple, very tactical. In the basic scenario, Evil must kill or sire the Buffster, Good must slay the Master. Now, I thought this might be good for a few evenings giggles, but my regular gaming group became obsessed with it. Most revealing to me, out of the seeming randomness of the game came some incredibly exciting moments.

An example: In one memorable game, good was on the ropes. Xander had been sired as a vampire, Buffy and friends were cornered in the library, and the Master was holed up in the corner in his crypt. He was next to a magic item Xander had dropped when he died. If he got it things would get much worse for the Good side. I was playing Willow. I had two spells: The Spell of Disappearance, which allowed me to telport to anywhere on the board, and the Spell of Oblivion, which did mucho damage if I rolled well. We decided to take a desperate chance. I teleported next to the Master, blasted him with Oblivion, grabbed the magic item, and for good measure punched him for 1 extra hit point. Take that, you fiend! I was now trapped with the Master. The next player had Buffy, who held the Summon Good spell, which can, well, summon a good character to you. Duh. Buffy had a 50/50 chance of casting the spell. If she failed, Willow was toast. Buffy's player rolled... and succeeded. Willow blinked away to safety. Booyah! Nothing was fudged. Dice were rolled in the open. If any roll had failed (and the odds of failure were quite real), we would have lost the game.

Now, if this had been fudged in an RPG ("Buffy rolls...a 1... uh, it succeeds anyway... yeah that's the ticket..."), it might have been cool, but not nearly as much fun as the risk of really getting lunched and pulling it out anyway. It has made me reexamine the way I play, and my assumptions about what the players in my group expect.

In contrast, when I tried running the Buffy RPG, the blatant fudging mechanic of Drama Points frustrated my players no end. Off-the-table fudging they could accept, but on-the-table, open metagaming by spending points fudging they couldn't. Combats became bidding wars with Drama Points ("I'm down... no wait...I spend a point...'I Think I'm OK'").

Sometimes this approach does result in a frustrating or anti-climactic result. I'm far more likely now to let it stand, and let the players work their way through the trouble, than save their bacon for them.

Quote from: Leo KnightI used to fudge a great deal of the time. When I started gaming, I was one of those who came to the hobby with preconceptions from  TV and movies. I would get personally frustrated as a player when I tried to do something I thought was exciting or creative and got stymied by a bad roll or the rules. Now, with the wisdom of experience, I see this was just a mismatch between my expectations (playing a hero in an exciting adventure), and those of the GMs I'd played with (a tactical game where the unit is "My Guy"). When I started GMing, I tried to give my players as much slack as I could.

Interesting point. I esp like your Buffy example. Have to think about this more, then I'll come up with some questions

Regards,
David R

I personally disagree with fudging, but it does work for some groups. If you're going to fudge, let the players know. They'll know that things are working differently, and can react accordingly. The alternative is to have them notice it and either get lax, get ticked, or get bored.

A good alternative to fudging is to focus more on things that aren't life or death, or save the world type scenarios. If the stakes are lower, failure is more of an option because it doesn't immediately halt the ongoing plotlines. Instead of "Roll to hit, if you miss Joe's dead, and we have to drop all of his neat side stories" you get "Roll to hit, if you miss Joe's captured and we get to figure out how to rescue him."

Quote from: Consonant Dude[...]By right game, I mean system problems leading to the need to Fudge. The game, mechanically, cannot achieve what you'd like it to achieve, unless you extensively modify it. People who pick the wrong game. There are plenty of such folks and they're really mad when you point out that fact to them.

By right way, I mean user problems. You've picked the right game but you fuck up, either during play or during prep. This can happen to everybody, BTW. So it's not like I'm judging folks. We all have been there. But the more you know the system you use, the less this will occur. Especially, of course, if it's the right system.

If you're playing the right game and using it the right way, there's no reason to fudge. [...]

So, suppose me and my players decide we want a game where our characters kill things and take their stuff. We choose to play D&D. I confront the PCs with 10 orcs, and they win easily, and are triumphant. I confront them with 20 orcs, and they win again, but this time only just. Lastly, I confront them with 15 orcs, and the players have some bad dice rolls and the party is wiped out by the orcs. Or perhaps I confronted them with 30 orcs, and they were wiped otu desite good dice rolls. I was tempted to fudge the dice rolls of the orcs to save them, but didn't.

Is the system at fault here? Are the players? Is the GM? I don't see how anyone's "failed". I don't see that we were playing the wrong game, or playing the right game in the wrong way. It's just that in one case the dice fucked the party, and in the other, I threw them too heavy a challenge for them to handle.

I do not see that any system, or any game group, can ever possibly be exactly perfect for each and every situation which pops up in a game session. At some point the dice will fuck you, or someone will have a bad day at work and so not have as smart a tactical approach as they usually do, or a new player will come to the session and change the approach of the party to problems, or whatever. No game system, written by one or at most three people, can possibly anticipate every situation which will come up in dozens of sessions with hundreds or thousands of game groups. No GM or player can ever possibly play "the right way" every time.

So at some point, the GM or players will have to say, "fuck the rules" or "fuck the dice" or "fuck what I just decided, let's reverse that," and... "fudge".

I don't believe in this mythical beast, the One True Perfect Game System - not even with the caveat, "for your group". Nor do I believe in his sibling, the One True Perfect GM, or their cousin, the One True Perfect Player. Ain't no such thing. Systems and people are imperfect; systems which are perfect for your group today will be imperfect for it tomorrow, because human beings are not static and unchanging. What works today won't work tomorrow.

Preach on, brutha man!

edit: that's sarcasm by the way (well, mostly anyway)

Quote from: JimBobOzIs the system at fault here? Are the players? Is the GM?

The players are at fault most likely.  Why didn't they avoid fighting the orcs, retreat when things started going badly, or dip into their reserves (eg. magic) when luck turned against them.  If their strategy is to just keep hacking away at orcs until they're finally cut down... well, eventually they will be.  If they were railroaded into fighting the orcs and had no real choice about whether to attack or retreat, then it's the GMs fault for creating a bad scenario.

Quote from: JimBobOzAt some point the dice will fuck you, or someone will have a bad day at work and so not have as smart a tactical approach as they usually do, or a new player will come to the session and change the approach of the party to problems, or whatever.

Then the players might actually lose.  Winning is only meaningful if losing is a possibility.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo at some point, the GM or players will have to say, "fuck the rules" or "fuck the dice" or "fuck what I just decided, let's reverse that," and... "fudge".

This depends on whether you're playing a game, or using a game system to try and tell a story.  If you're playing a game, there's no reason this would ever have to happen...

Quote from: JimBobOzI don't believe in this mythical beast, the One True Perfect Game System - not even with the caveat, "for your group". Nor do I believe in his sibling, the One True Perfect GM, or their cousin, the One True Perfect Player. Ain't no such thing. Systems and people are imperfect; systems which are perfect for your group today will be imperfect for it tomorrow, because human beings are not static and unchanging. What works today won't work tomorrow.

While Straw Men: The RPG is indeed the perfect game, if you can't find a copy of that you're still in luck.  There are lots of different games available -- RPGs and otherwise -- so if your groups interests and needs change, there should still be something that'll be right for you.

If Fudging works for you and your players, cool.  It's not reasonable to expect everyone to accept that sooner or later everyone has to fudge, or that somehow fudging and GMing are synonymous.  Lots of people play games, including RPGs, without needing to ignore dice rolls or rules that says one or more players doesn't win that night.  Unless you're playing with small children, that's usually not a problem.

Quote from: James McMurrayA good alternative to fudging is to focus more on things that aren't life or death, or save the world type scenarios. If the stakes are lower, failure is more of an option because it doesn't immediately halt the ongoing plotlines. Instead of "Roll to hit, if you miss Joe's dead, and we have to drop all of his neat side stories" you get "Roll to hit, if you miss Joe's captured and we get to figure out how to rescue him."

Well, I've been on about this in other threads and frankly, if "we get to figure out how to rescue him" is nearly as attractive as the alternative, then I find the game loses something for me. As I wrote elsewhere, not only do I enjoy the strategic dimension of a challenge in its own right, but I also like to see that dimension represented since it's something that my character would be concerned about. I.e., I doubt my character will be excited about his friend being captured, therefore the capture has to be something negative in "real world" terms as well--it has to genuinely threaten something I like about the game world--or I'm not really feeling the character's concern and motivation for trying to win the fight.

That leaves me, as a player, somewhat blasé about the outcome, and also rather alienated from my character. Now, there may be benefits to this alienation, too...but there is a cost as I outlined above. Basically, if the GM isn't careful, my reaction can turn into an "I'm just along for the ride" kind of thing. "You mean if we lose, we'll get another adventure whose outcome won't really have any consequences? Okay...roll dice...whatever..."

Note that I'm talking about a D&D-like paradigm (i.e., any rules for "adventure games"). If it's some hippy thing YMMV depending on how honest the game and the participants are about what's really going on.

Quote from: Leo KnightIn contrast, when I tried running the Buffy RPG, the blatant fudging mechanic of Drama Points frustrated my players no end. Off-the-table fudging they could accept, but on-the-table, open metagaming by spending points fudging they couldn't. Combats became bidding wars with Drama Points ("I'm down... no wait...I spend a point...'I Think I'm OK'").

Sometimes this approach does result in a frustrating or anti-climactic result. I'm far more likely now to let it stand, and let the players work their way through the trouble, than save their bacon for them.

I find this part interesting. Drama points as a fudging mechanic. This is probably linked with Sett's girlie man thread in some way, but for the moment, I can't articulate the connection....maybe later.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Leo KnightA few years ago, I found a boardgame, the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" game by Milton Bradley. Now, if you've never seen this thing, the board is a map of Sunnydale that looks a lot like the Clue board. One player controls evil creatures, the other players control Buffy et al. There are special spaces, help cards that can be picked up, etc. It's very simple, very tactical. In the basic scenario, Evil must kill or sire the Buffster, Good must slay the Master. Now, I thought this might be good for a few evenings giggles, but my regular gaming group became obsessed with it. Most revealing to me, out of the seeming randomness of the game came some incredibly exciting moments.

I've heard really good things about that game!

I use to play RAGE the CCG, and we'd narrate what each new card someone played meant in the game world.  The randomness of the cards (we had a massive communal deck that everyone drew cards from) mixed with the player's different strategies made it a lot of fun.  We were definitely playing competitively, but you'd want to go for the really cool win, with a big battle, a cool spell, or a huge monster -- rather than the easy win you might if you were only focused on winning and not enjoying the emerging narrative as well.

Quote from: David RI find this part interesting. Drama points as a fudging mechanic. This is probably linked with Sett's girlie man thread in some way, but for the moment, I can't articulate the connection....maybe later.

I don't know if it will help, but if you have time, look at this thread from rpg.net, paying special attention to the arguments that Zoran Bekric gets into. (I've linked to the printer-friendly pages so that it's easy to search.)

Quote from: JimBobOzSo, suppose me and my players decide we want a game where our characters kill things and take their stuff. We choose to play D&D. I confront the PCs with 10 orcs, and they win easily, and are triumphant. I confront them with 20 orcs, and they win again, but this time only just. Lastly, I confront them with 15 orcs, and the players have some bad dice rolls and the party is wiped out by the orcs. Or perhaps I confronted them with 30 orcs, and they were wiped otu desite good dice rolls. I was tempted to fudge the dice rolls of the orcs to save them, but didn't.

Is the system at fault here? Are the players? Is the GM? I don't see how anyone's "failed". I don't see that we were playing the wrong game, or playing the right game in the wrong way. It's just that in one case the dice fucked the party, and in the other, I threw them too heavy a challenge for them to handle.

In one case, you used the wrong game. In the other, you played the game wrong. The latter is easy to correct with experience. I'd be tempted to fudge if it's real important and I fucked up bad.

In the former case, I say why use the system in the first place? You need to switch to the system that meets your expectations or modify it. I mean, odds are odds. Why play that system in the first place if you don't like how it works? Why play odds that you can't accept, or rules that don't suit you in the first place?

Quote from: JimBobOzI do not see that any system, or any game group, can ever possibly be exactly perfect for each and every situation which pops up in a game session. At some point the dice will fuck you,

They never fuck you. Ever. The odds are there and the group presumably accepted them. Don't roll the dice if you don't want to. Or use a system that does not involve randomizers.

Quote from: JimBobOzor someone will have a bad day at work and so not have as smart a tactical approach as they usually do

Then don't use a game requiring tactical approaches. Again, there are plenty. I use them when I don't want to go tactical. But if we go tactical, we accept we might make mistakes. Just like when we roll dice, we know we might succeed or fail. I mean, if you don't want this stuff in the first place, don't use a system like that.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo game system, written by one or at most three people, can possibly anticipate every situation which will come up in dozens of sessions with hundreds or thousands of game groups.

Systems are pretty simple at their heart. Most of them at their core are systems to determine whether a conflict is won or loss. People make it a lot more complicated than it really is.

The bottom line is: is something in contention? Do we need to determine if I failed or succeeded by using the system?  

Quote from: JimBobOzNo GM or player can ever possibly play "the right way" every time.

That's probably true. But it will be directly tied to fudging occurances. People who fudge a lot are playing the wrong way (or the wrong game) a lot.  

Quote from: JimBobOzI don't believe in this mythical beast, the One True Perfect Game System - not even with the caveat, "for your group". Nor do I believe in his sibling, the One True Perfect GM, or their cousin, the One True Perfect Player. Ain't no such thing. Systems and people are imperfect; systems which are perfect for your group today will be imperfect for it tomorrow, because human beings are not static and unchanging. What works today won't work tomorrow.

I see what you are saying but again, I think you complicate things a lot, because systems take a lot of pages and still leave a lot of stuff out. But at the heart of it all is conflicts and consequences.

To take an extreme case, if you don't like PCs dying, don't use a system where PCs can die. Or add a homebrew rule that players can veto death, or some kind of drama point mechanic. Make your goals clear, keep the focus there.

I like for my systems to work as I intend. I prefer to concentrate on all the rest of the stuff like plots, dialogues, etc...