There's always going to be a difference of opinion between the people who believe a GM's job is that of a Referee (playing the world consistently and interpreting the rules arbitrarily) and those that think the job is that of an MC (to be a type of entertainment performer who keeps everything moving, on track, and is solely responsible for everyone's fun).

A Referee can be entertaining too, through descriptions, memorable roleplaying of NPCs, etc. But a Referee does not steer things, they don't put the thumb on the scale one way or another.  They don't protect key NPCs until the proper Plot Beat allows for them to be killed, and they don't impede or make things easy for the PCs to make sure the BigBossBattle is drawn out just long enough and just dangerous enough to be a roller coaster ride, scary but safe.

Some players want a referee, some want an MC.  If a player wants one and gets the other things usually don't go well.

Fudging certainly exists, not sure what the "Nudge not Fudge" idiocy is about.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;957727A narrow-minded attitude, and one that will forever keep you inside the box.

Funny, looks exactly the opposite to me.  Putting the GM above all else, to direct things in accordance with his whim, locks you inside the box of the GM's desires and expectations.  Regarding the dice as absolute and submitting to the whims of fate rather than the whims of the GM is what will break you out of that box.

And when a roll leaves you saying "WTF does that mean?" or "How the hell do we continue after that happened?"?  Yeah, that's the sound of the lock being shattered.

Quote from: AsenRG;957633Again, neither of these is fudging

You just said what I said, except I made it sound way cooler.  

VS

Quote from: K Peterson;957758And, to use the OP's own words, that's another form of enslavement. A GM enslaved-to-plot, without the free will to just let things go where they will, and see the results of actions. A GM that can't roll with changes or interpretations.

Fudging, to me, is not freeing or an example of thinking outside of the box. It's a combination of wearing a strait-jacket while tap-dancing. Routine fudging becomes a burden to deal with, and a distraction to GMing.

No one loves the freedom to just let things go where they will more than me!  Similarly, I want to roll and see what happens just as much as the players.  And sometimes I like to surprise myself, the players, and the dice with pulling out a GM wild card... sometimes, that comes with fudging the dice rolls.

If fudging to you is wearing a straight-jacket while tap-dancing, then don't do it.  Obviously, you're not fudging in the right way.  What I'm suggesting should in no way become a burden or distraction.

VS

Quote from: Spinachcat;957799Gotta disagree Venger. Fudging is wankery.

Random results keep me surprised as the GM. Otherwise, its just Story Hour.  

Novels and movies are for passive absorption of someone else's creation. RPGs are active creation.

If the randomness is flinging the game into an asteroid, its up to the PLAYERS to save the ship.

And what's the worst that happens? A TPK? Those are rare enough and often make great stories.

Also, if the players know you fudge, then they know their choices don't matter. They know you will fudge for or against them, and that saps energy from the game table. Its why the Living Campaigns mostly suck. The whole thing is a fudge to keep PCs alive on a 4 hour XP railroad because it sells splatbooks.

What's worst about fudging is that is sucks away the joy of victory.

When the players succeed against all odds - even if only one of the PC survives -  they rejoice.

But if they even suspect their victory was pre-ordained because of "fun", then its a hollow moment.

Again, I'm not suggesting anyone dispenses with surprising random results.

I think I may know what's going on here.  For decades, a certain practice has been closely associated with something bad... like when people used to think of Germany, their heads filled with Nazis, concentration camps, etc.  Well, I'm here to tell you there's a lot more to Germany than Hitler.

In my original post, I tried to explain that fudging could be neutral or even positive if implemented in the right way.  Now, everyone seems to think my GMing advice has done a 180.  It hasn't.  I'm not advocating coddling players, continually saving PC bacon, or following a railroad story to its predictable, boring conclusion.  In fact, the complete opposite!

VS

Quote from: nDervish;957862Funny, looks exactly the opposite to me.  Putting the GM above all else, to direct things in accordance with his whim, locks you inside the box of the GM's desires and expectations.  Regarding the dice as absolute and submitting to the whims of fate rather than the whims of the GM is what will break you out of that box.

And when a roll leaves you saying "WTF does that mean?" or "How the hell do we continue after that happened?"?  Yeah, that's the sound of the lock being shattered.

90% whims of fate and 10% whims of the GM isn't being locked inside a box of GM desires and expectations.  Regarding the dice as absolute and always submitting to their demands is slavery, and I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I'm no slave.  I won't be enslaved by dice, players, scenario, rules, or anything else.  I AM a FREE MAN!!!

And for what it's worth, I never say "WTF does that mean?" or "How the hell do we continue after that happened?"  I'm the most creative Game Master in this or any other universe.  Sometimes, I try to free others and they run back to their chains.  Believe me, I understand.  The higher levels of GMing can be scary at times.

VS

Quote from: VengerSatanis;957919You just said what I said, except I made it sound way cooler.  

VS

If you refer to your "doing that intentionally is fudging", yes. Because I don't do it intentionally, unlike what another poster seemed to suggest.
If you refer to your OP, than no.

And I've got the benefit of saying it way clearer, so it's a tradeoff I'm willing to take:D!

Quote from: VengerSatanis;957923No one loves the freedom to just let things go where they will more than me!  Similarly, I want to roll and see what happens just as much as the players.  And sometimes I like to surprise myself, the players, and the dice with pulling out a GM wild card... sometimes, that comes with fudging the dice rolls.

If fudging to you is wearing a straight-jacket while tap-dancing, then don't do it.  Obviously, you're not fudging in the right way.  What I'm suggesting should in no way become a burden or distraction.

VS

The only way to do it right is to avoid it altogether.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;957926Again, I'm not suggesting anyone dispenses with surprising random results.

I think I may know what's going on here.  For decades, a certain practice has been closely associated with something bad... like when people used to think of Germany, their heads filled with Nazis, concentration camps, etc.  Well, I'm here to tell you there's a lot more to Germany than Hitler.

VS

Sorry, Venger, but that's bullshit on the level of claiming that the only reason someone might dislike narrative mechanics is his previous GM sucked;)!

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: AsenRG;957930If you refer to your "doing that intentionally is fudging", yes. Because I don't do it intentionally, unlike what another poster seemed to suggest.
If you refer to your OP, than no.

And I've got the benefit of saying it way clearer, so it's a tradeoff I'm willing to take:D!

The only way to do it right is to avoid it altogether.

Sorry, Venger, but that's bullshit on the level of claiming that the only reason someone might dislike narrative mechanics is his previous GM sucked;)!

No, that's a false equivalency.

VS

Quote from: Justin Alexander;957948Oh. I didn't realize.

Haha.  Sure, why not?

VS

And this blog post is about Rule Zero:  http://vengersatanis.blogspot.com/2017/04/rule-zero-final-arbiter.html

VS

Quote from: VengerSatanis;957926Well, I'm here to tell you there's a lot more to Germany than Hitler.

Scheisse porn and sausages?

Quote from: VengerSatanis;957926In my original post, I tried to explain that fudging could be neutral or even positive if implemented in the right way.

There appears to be a disconnect between the ideas in your head and what you wrote.

Don't blame the readers if we don't understand what you wrote.

Go back and rewrite it until we understand WTF your point might be.

I absolutely did not see how you offered ways where fudging either neutral or positive.

And I've bought your stuff so I normally get what you mean to say.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;957928I AM a FREE MAN!!!

You are Number 6.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;957928I'm the most creative Game Master in this or any other universe.

That's not a mirror you're looking at. That's a picture of me!

Quote from: VengerSatanis;957956No, that's a false equivalency.

VS

The only false thing is your opinion  on fudging possibly being a good thing.

Quote from: Spinachcat;958078There appears to be a disconnect between the ideas in your head and what you wrote.

Don't blame the readers if we don't understand what you wrote.

Go back and rewrite it until we understand WTF your point might be.

I absolutely did not see how you offered ways where fudging either neutral or positive.

And I've bought your stuff so I normally get what you mean to say.




You are Number 6.




That's not a mirror you're looking at. That's a picture of me!

Also, all of the above.
Including the last sentence, of course;).

Quote from: VengerSatanis;957926I think I may know what's going on here.  For decades, a certain practice has been closely associated with something bad...

Try again.  It seems pretty clear to me that the refutations of your article here have been focused on fudging itself being bad, regardless of the purpose it's supposedly meant to serve.  Nobody has complained about fudging "in the wrong way" being a problem.  On the contrary, you seem to be the only one who thinks a "right" way exists.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;957926In my original post, I tried to explain that fudging could be neutral or even positive if implemented in the right way.

I think you need to work on your clarity, then.  I just re-read the original blog post and I don't see anything there about how fudging can be "implemented in the right way", unless, by "the right way", you mean "when the dice say something I don't like, I ignore them" - which is exactly what I was talking about in my last reply, with the whims of the GM being all that matter.

Or maybe you were thinking about your reference to the asteroid field and how that's too important a result to be left to chance?  I've got a simple solution for situations like that, and it's one which doesn't rely on fudging:  If something is truly too important to leave to chance, then don't consult the dice.  Apply Rule Zero instead and just declare the result without rolling.  (But, then, I find that situations which are too important to be left to chance are exceedingly rare in actual practice anyhow.  As in most campaigns come and go without seeing one, and I can't think of a campaign I've ever run that's seen two of them.)

Regarding my explanation that fudging could be neutral or even positive if implemented in the right way, I just re-read my blog post and uncovered the following...

If there's an asteroid field in the way, I'm not just going to sit idly by and let the ship's autopilot muddle through as best it can.  No, I'm going to grab the wheel and steer, maneuvering in whatever manner I see fit.  I believe that's what Game Mastering is all about.

Similarly, issues crops up throughout a campaign.  Maybe it's a problem with continuity, realism, story, pacing, etc.  The last three encounters all turned into fights for various reasons, and I roll the dice, coming up with a negative reaction roll.  Is it going to be yet another battle to the death?  Well, that's for me to decide, ultimately.  Same goes with little things in combat - when the dice are supposed to matter most... and they do.  Nevertheless, I have the final say.  The ogre may have too many hit points, those orcs might have too few, Percival misses his saving throw by one, and so on...

Granted, I could have gone much further and come up with more examples, but I wanted a thought-provoking discussion, not a dissertation on the subject - for that I expect to be well paid.  Speaking of which, where was this call of "Bullshit" when people were reading and reviewing my book How to Game Master like a Fucking Boss?  It's full of that kind of 'do as though wilt' defiance in the face of finger-wagging conformists!

Over the last couple of days, I've looked even deeper into the practice of "fudging" in RPGs.  One person believed that altering a Troll's hit points before the game even began was fudging.  Some think it's fudging to take a 2 out of 20 on an attack roll and say the PC got his sword lodged in the wood frame behind his opponent.  Or that a 19 out of 20 decapitates some dude and his head flies off and lands at his friend's feet, splashing blood around and causing him to slip and fall.  What about some kind of arcane check that just barely passes (or fails) and the GM decides the PC's understanding is correct - but in a parallel universe; and things work slightly differently here?

According to many gamers, some or all of the above can be described as "fudging."  Is the GM cheating when he does any of that?  How can he cheat when the rules (specifically rule zero) give him carte blanche to do as he will?

I'm surprised that so many creative GMs (more creative than myself, apparently) just can't see any possible way that periodically nudging reality could be a useful tool in the GM's toolbox.

VS