"Story v Rules"

[luke]

It's all a question of degree then. I think most of us would agree that story trumps rules in a push, whether that story is a creature of the GM or a more mature collaboration with the players. Luke, you don't have to fudge as much as you used to because the rules are so well designed. But I don't think you'd disagree with the assertion that they should be ignored when they mechanically get in the way. All I'm saying is that fudging is not a bad word, its a part of gaming.
emphasis mine.

Well, I dunno. I think my position has shifted quite a bit since designing BW for public consumption. The way you roll dice, the tone of the rules and the precise mechanics of those rules affects the story. I would say the effect is in equal measure to what the players bring to the table.

Once you start ignoring rules and making arbitrary calls then you are drifting away from the intent of the game and, in my opinion, into the dangerous realm of arbitrariness, whimsy and bullying.

I think playing by the rules of the game is key to having a satisfying experience for both players and GM. The GM's just another player at the table, giving him autocratic, rule-breaking powers is threatening the enjoyment of the other players. In fact, why shouldn't the players be able to fudge when and where they want to? Perhaps they want the "story" to go in another direction from the one the GM wants. Well, if the GM's fudging and the player's fudging, then who wins? In our play experience this lead to screaming matches and a lot of bad feelings.

But we turned it around. When you said you wanted to start an uprising of children, my jaw hit my lap. That wasn't at all what I intended. Nor even really wanted. But who am I to say no? Such an action is very much "in the genre". So how do we resolve that? Well, we roll some dice. As the GM, it's my job to set up the roadblocks and complications in the way of your plan -- instances in which we can bust out the task resolution and see what happens: Succeed, and you get what you want; Fail, and there are complications. Pretty cut and dried, but such a simple rule keeps the story moving.

But now that I think about this, I have a few questions:

Let's define story. What is it?

What are "rules"?

And lastly, what is "the game?"

-L

[Paka]

Let's define story. What is it?

What are "rules"?

And lastly, what is "the game?"

-L

The story is what happens when the players react to the conflicts their characters are in.

The rules are the agreed system and we could get into a social contract discussion but I'm going to spare us for now.

The game is the result, the dice, the fun, the screaming, the pizza and the character sheets.

I have found that as I've found games with strong foundations I need to fudge less and less. Dust Devils, Sorcerer, Riddle of Steel, Dogs in the Vineyard and Burning Wheel. I find that when the results make me really uncomfortable, it generally means it has the potential to be a really fascinating result.

[Angaros]

I'll try to give an answer to your questions later abzu. For now I'd like to state that I fudge in the games I GM (not a lot but I sometimes do) and I expect the players not to fudge. Why? Because our game is very traditional in the sense that the players control their PCs and I control the rest of the world. Even though many games I've GMed have been fairly balanced it's still a fact that I sometimes fuck up and make mistakes. Mistakes the players shouldn't have to pay for. Like when I throw too potent enemies at them or make a puzzle too damn hard leaving too few leads. I'm not saying everything in the world has to be adapted to the PCs level of competence (or the players level of competence) but it can't be way off either all the time. I've also been known to fudge if a player makes an honest mistake that proved to have potentially fatal consequences.

[Kaare Berg]

ooooh temting to enter rant mode here.

Fudging seems at first to suggest that there something wrong with the system, ref Rich's Rolemaster comments here (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=821&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) in the original thread. And orignially that was why I did the F thing.

Come the Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com), come BW, Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorceror, TROS and Heroquest this changed. Suddenly I could play the games I wanted without those annoying rules raising their heads. My fudging decreased. But this is just one aspect of fudging.

Like Luke I've had a distinct drift from telling my story, to telling a story more in thread with Judd's definition above. This drift has been gradual (sparked by lazieness of all things) over the past ten years, but post the Forge and the games above, it has accelerated.
Sometimes I take the extreme approach used by DitV, but in my BW campaign I have an overarching plot, a coming conflict between good and evil. I also have a desire to create a feeling like the one you get from watching LoTR. IMO I have to control the development of the story to some extent, so I fudge to control the otherwise uncontrollable flow the story. It sort of becomes a Zen Manipulation thing and most importantly it works for me and my players.

And Rich, it was a gimme :wink:

Small, yes, but still a gimme.

[Fourth Horseman]

Oddly enough my view of gaming has been significantly changed, well illuminated at least, by my legal education. I went to a very common sense law school where most of the professors emphasized that the law wasn't some immutable thing, that it wasn't so much the rule that was important but the outcome it produced. It used to be that legal scholars thought the law was something handed down by the divine, that it was immutable, and that it was the law interpreters job to simply "uncover" that law. Most legal scholars today say that that is and never was the case, rather, the law reflects the policy goals of society and how they would like them to be achieved. Some of these goals might be rather mundane, like keeping sidewalks clear of dog shit. Others go to fundamental notions of fairness, that people should be judged by the content of their character. The thing is, the goals of society shift, the policies it seeks shift, and the law must evolve with those goals.

To me gaming is something akin to a community. The GM and the players are the community, they enter into it for varying different reasons, some for the escapism, some to be creative, others just to kill time, but they still enter into it. A story is simply a conversation between the players and the GM about their goals for that community, and how it reflects the desires each member had upon entry. The rules? Yep, you guessed it I think they are akin to the law. And in my humble opinion they should be followed when useful and ignored when they impede the conversation.

Hell, all of this reminds me of one of my professors, he ran a very demanding class that required us to submit legal briefs every week on some legal question, the first couple of weeks of the class we were still in first year law student mode and would just spout off rules and precedent in our briefs without relating how the outcome would or should support a policy goal. To paraphrase him, he would tear them apart in front of the class saying, "crap, crap, crap--doctrine means nothing give me the goal and then look for the doctrine."

Now many of you out there who are into natural law might disagree with the picture I just laid out of the law. But if anything this constuct better applies to the gaming world, where it really can't be dispouted that there is only the community between the players and the GM.

That is just my humble opinion on what goes on in the great ether of gaming. Take it or leave it, but it is the point of view I bring to the table every week and I suspect that without thinking about it a lot of other people do too.

[Fourth Horseman]

Just to clarify the frame of reference I'm using if it wasn't clear above:

GM + players = community/society.

Plot points, character motivations, etc. = manifestation of policy goals for that community, i.e. what do you want to do?

Story = conversation about policy goals

Rules = Laws that mediate those goals (which can often conflict and therein lies the fun), and that determine the flow of the conversation.

Game = interaction between story and rules

Just as in real life, the rules/laws in and of themselves come to reflect the goals and outcomes. The differences and dividing line becomes blurred between each of these conceptual, and artifical, boundaries.

[Fourth Horseman]

So . . . one might ask how does my stance on the grand old question of fudging fit into my little construct?

I suppose one could point out that a GM fudging is a unilateral, arbitrary step when players can't fudge just as well. But that doesn't paint the full picture for me.

1. Did I mention that a gaming community is a democratic one? This is where we could get into a very long discussion about social contract, but I won't. Too put it bluntly every community needs a filter to mediate clashes between policy goals. Most would call that person a judge. We the players are akin to advocates presenting our goals, the judge measures them with the tools at his disposal the rules. And like any GOOD judge he will use his discretion to apply those rules to reach an outcome. Like any self respecting judge the GM will have some policy goals as well. And a good GM like a good judge will recognize where they conflict and be honest to the public, the gamers, about how those goals have affected his discretionatry application of the rules. its funny we lawyers call discretion what gamers would call fudging.

2. Like any good democracy, if you don't like what the judge is doing--tell him or sack him. Which translates into quitting a game you don't like in the gaming world, or replacing the GM if everyone agrees, or even ruining a GM's campaign in severe circumstances--actually that last bit is more akin to open revolt. You could also just be polite and bitch and moan that the GM is putting you in crutches when he exercises his duscretion in a way you don't like.

3. Did I mention that gaming is not only a democracy, but a direct democracy? Like any decent direct democracy the citizens should be able to legislate and judge certain matters directly on their own. This translates to player induced fudging in gaming. All the good systems have it, BW calls it artha and traits.

4. Fudging is a lot more widespread then we'd like to admit. There is low level fudging, setting obstacles where the rules aren't entirely clear, and high level fudging, ignoring the rules when they are clear and the outcome gets in the way of some agreed policy goal between the players and the GM.

Like life I think we have to admit that there IS going to be a bit of arbitrariness in this. As long as it is kept to a minimum and there is consensus at a table that the outcome is ok, I think we can all live with fudging. To say that the rules will cover every conceavable situation and deny that fudging exists, or is even desirable in certain circumstances, is dishonest at best and crippling at worst.

OK I'm finished. For now.