Topic: Fudging rumination -
Started by: Silmenume
Started on: 8/28/2004
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 8/28/2004 at 10:22am, Silmenume wrote:
Fudging rumination -
This is mostly an open rumination but -
As Fudging as it has commonly employed refers to Fortune mechanics - is there any milage to be had viewing fudging as jumping midstream from Fortune to Drama resolution mechanins?
What Social Contract elements might be violated and why?
Can this ever be functional?
Can this methodology shift be employed regarding Karma resolution mechanics (K -> F)?
Seen in this light is it "cheating"? And if so, why?
Is there a finer line to Drama resolution mechanics than is currently drawn?
Or is this just another way of saying, "That's not black! Its just an absence of light!"
On 8/30/2004 at 2:52pm, Jaik wrote:
RE: Fudging rumination -
I play under a GM using D&D 3.5. The games tend to be location-based, almost modules, with a lot of consideration given to figuring out the right amount of Challenge, not party-killing tough, but not gee-that-sure-was-easy either. It's a tough balance to strike, especially given our group's tendency to have characters with an extreme variance of effectiveness.
About 2 years ago it was mentioned that this GM "fudges" in a way new to me. Big enemies are invulnerable for the first couple rounds of combat. The GM simply doesn't make any note of damage for a while. He feels that this promotes a better fight, as we use our heavy hits early on and end up scraping the bottom of the barrel to get the win.
I see this as a straight Drama mechanic. "This should be a cool fight and it won't be cool at all if the big bad villian drops like a rock 2 rounds into the fight. Better make him look good." From a Gamist perspective, this almost ensures a tough fight that will challenge players and characters alike.
The problem is that now I know about it. I'm going into a fight expecting a good old challenge with tactics and spells and maneuvers, then I suddenly realize that this is a big fight and it all becomes a let-down. Why bother? Why try, when nothing I do will matter, at least not for another couple of rounds? Granted, I could try to outfox the GM by using piddly stuff until I think he's actually counting damage, then bring out the big guns, but just knowing about the "fudge time" kills te experience for me.
Extra side note, what would this be called? I almost want to say Force because the GM is deciding what I "do" in that I do no damage to the villain, but I'm still attacking and possibly even hitting according to the rules. Ron's recent post puts Illusionism, my second candidate, under the Force umbrella, so that's out. Cheating? Lying? Gamist deprotagonization?
On 8/30/2004 at 3:55pm, Sean wrote:
RE: Fudging rumination -
Fudging rolls is a technique. You have to ask what it's being used for to judge it.
Some Gamists don't like fudging because they're trying to use a rule-set to win. Some Simulationists don't like fudging to the degree that they think the rules are a kind of 'physics' for 'how things really work' in the game world.
Why don't Narrativists like fudging? My guess is that the Narrativist only has broader issues like 'personal ethical integrity' and 'the integrity of the game we're playing' to fall back on here, and the Social Contract problem that all uses of fudging face.
All games have a social contract that says 'we're playing this game here' and of course the game has certain rules. So in that sense a violation of the rules is a violation of the social contract. But there are a substantial percentage of players who will say things like 'our GM fudges rolls sometimes, but he always gives us a fun experience and a good story'. I have at least one player from my last D&D game who gave me a lot of shit for not fudging rolls to make the story come out the way people thought it 'should' come out.
In other words, some people find fudging functional, and even complain when it is absent.
Now - is fudging a jump from Fortune to Drama? Yes. Realizing this, you can apportion 'roll fudges' among players and GM alike out in the open - call them 'Hero Points', say - so that all members of the group are empowered to drive play in certain directions, in situations where people using a system without such a mechanism would often fudge. But then it's not 'fudging' any more, because it's integrated at the level of system and therefore at the level of social contract for a group that's decided to play with that system.
On 8/30/2004 at 4:18pm, Alan wrote:
RE: Fudging rumination -
Sean wrote: Why don't Narrativists like fudging? My guess is that the Narrativist only has broader issues like 'personal ethical integrity' ...
Nah, a person who prefer narrativist play has no problem fudging a roll in certain circumstances. While GMing dnd3e, I recall fudging dice rolls many times to avoid killing the PCs in trivial situations. We were playing participationist sim, but I wanted the PCs to be the protagonists. As a player in the same system, I've cheated for the same reasons.
On the other hand, if one uses a conflict resolution technique, rather than task resolution, the fortune mechanic changes the character's "plot" vector, rather than determining his success, competence, or restricting his ability to contribute further. If the conflict roll coincides with a moment of addressing premise, then it feels like a turning point - the uncertainty is welcome because it amps up the significance of the decision.
I've GMed five or six games designed to support narrativism and the only one I might have fudged in is The Riddle of Steel, in a situation unrelated to anyone's SAs. For that game, I later learned just not to ask for rolls in such situations.
On 8/30/2004 at 4:22pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Fudging rumination -
Hiya,
Um, Alan, correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're agreeing with Sean about Narrativism and fudging, insofar as a system focuses on task resolution.
If that's correct, then playing toward a Narrativist agenda with a system that facilitates a non-Narrativist approach, or most especially is focused on task resolution, adopts fudging as a corrective (and perhaps a problematic one).
That's been the take I've been presenting for a while now, anyway.
We've had a few fudging discussions here at the Forge already, but most of them flounder a little. Perhaps it's important to distinguish between ignoring rolls with everyone's consent vs. announcing the effect as different from what the dice say, without acknowledging that one is doing so.
Best,
Ron
On 8/30/2004 at 4:29pm, Alan wrote:
RE: Fudging rumination -
Ron Edwards wrote:
Um, Alan, correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're agreeing with Sean about Narrativism and fudging, insofar as a system focuses on task resolution.
On second read, I guess I am. I first took what he said to imply a narrativist player is somehow more ethical than a player with another agenda preference. That's a misread. Sorry Sean.