« Roleplaying and Security Clearance | Main | Award Season »
March 14, 2005
RPG.Net Thread of the Week: Fudging Rolls
Here's something that's always bugged me. It's an age-old tradition for the GM to roll dice in secret and to occasionally ignore the dice if it suits the story/campaign/whatever. Yet if players *know* that the GM may fudge the occasional roll, they'll always be wondering if he's fudging rolls every time he rolls (especially if the roll is an important one). Thus, there is no trust between players and GM; the players wonder if the GM is simply randomly chucking dice and making up results and the GM wonders if the players believe him when he rolls then announces the result.Last several sessions I've run, all of my rolls have been out in the open. All of them. Even rolls that reveal too much (i.e. rolls for monsters sneaking up, etc.). I'd rather have players put up the firewall than roll in secret anymore. The result? Our game has been better. Much more tense, more gripping...more like a *game*, and less like amateur theater hour with token dice-tossing. And the power of GM (myself) has been *reduced*, cuz now the dice rule, baby. No more players thinking, "Hell, we'll go for it. It's not like he'll let us die or anything..."
Thoughts?
And then five pages of reasonable discussion broke out. RPG.Net has developed this really keen tendency to mock the idea that there's wrong fun (badwrongfun), which tends to damp out flame wars.
Me, I think that Hunter vastly underestimates the ability of the human being to ignore facts; for some people, the illusion of "fair play" is more important than the actuality. It's a perfectly legitimate technique for elevating story over mechanics. Won't work for everyone, of course.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/102/2065164
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference RPG.Net Thread of the Week: Fudging Rolls:
» Nets Work Out Local Scoring Star from Nets brass at
yesterday: He's willing to share. The former St. Peter's star and three others auditioned [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 16, 2006 9:02:04 PM
» Italian Election - The End of Prodi from happened. Despite
razor-thin majority, most are predicting a quick loss of confidence, and a collapse in government just like in Prodi's last [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 17, 2006 9:37:44 AM
» Life?s Irony Fuels this Jetlag Writer?s Wit and Humor from inter-themed
stories written over the course of one year (PRWEB Jun 15, 2006)
[Read More]
Tracked on Jun 21, 2006 5:13:21 AM
» Art gallery loses its head, displays plinth
(Reuters)
from put a block of
on display, topped by a small
piece of wood, in the mistaken belief it was a work of art. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 21, 2006 10:00:50 AM
» Conjoined Twins Successfully Separated After Lengthy Operation from cut the pelvic
that lasted the best part of a day. The first phase of the operation neared its end as surgeons cut the pelvic bone that connected the two girls. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 21, 2006 11:24:28 PM
» Former Alabama governor, ex-CEO convicted
(AP)
from in federal court
former HealthSouth chief executive Richard Scrushy were convicted Thursday in federal [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 30, 2006 3:13:44 PM
» POLITICS: What's Worse, Terrorists or Gays? from In this case,
as effective as possible in dealing with terrorism. The other is the endless war against homosexuals that conservatives within our country are [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 1, 2006 1:12:15 AM
» Update: IBM injects more servers with AMD chips from launch of new
there are no excuses," said Jeff Benck, a spokesman for IBM.
The new servers [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 7, 2006 1:35:48 PM
» Second U.N. Official Expected to Depart from Investigation
BC Investigation Exposed Widespread U.N. Sexual Misconduct [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 7, 2006 6:56:00 PM
» Pacers' Roster Overflowing from and perhaps a
to address. They are hoping to obtain Al Harrington in a trade with Atlanta that [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 9, 2006 9:34:33 AM
Comments
Why would you want to elevate story over mechanics?
Roleplaying games are games about story. Not games first, story second. Not stories first, games second. They're both, in balance, or you're missing out.
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 14, 2005 9:05:34 AM
Hell, sometimes I roll but don't even look at/add up/calculate modifiers to the dice. It's closer to giving me a nudge in one direction or another than it is in dictating my actions/statements.
Sounds like Hunter Simon's Gme is "more like a game" in that it is more like a board or war game, where the players are competing with each other, or GM vs Players. I have no need for such a game.
Posted by: Chris T. at Mar 14, 2005 10:07:38 AM
It seems to me like this should be an outdated discussion. If you like games about tactics and probability, then run a crunchy system with dice in the open. If you like an element of randomness to your plot but want both the gm and players to have some control over the story as well, run a system that has hero points or drama points or whatever you want to call them. If you want a more freeform experience, run a diceless game. There are so many different systems out there that you can get pretty much any type or combination of types of gaming that you can conceive of. You just have to know what you want and be able to communicate it openly and clearly to others.
Posted by: peaseblossom at Mar 14, 2005 10:29:37 AM
I tend to agree, pease. I like this thread because it's generally got a lot of people doing a good job of explaining why they like what they like and staying civil about it.
Posted by: Bryant at Mar 14, 2005 11:15:48 AM
Outdated this may be- but for the majority of gamers out there, there is a tendency to ignore what is happening at the table. This isn't a problem if the entire group is playing in the same fashion and working on the same hidden assumptions about play("It's ok for the GM to fudge, but not for the players..."), but if different folks in the group aren't with that, then there's problems.
The key to the issue is that the system is supposed to be what the group is working with as baseline assumptions- take that away and conflict can ensue.
Posted by: Chris at Mar 14, 2005 12:02:24 PM
I think one of the problems with the discussion is the prevailing, but (in my experience) horribly inaccurate, belief that "sticking with the dice"="crunchy gamist" and "fudging the dice"="necessary for story." It's entirely possible to play a tactics-heavy game without dice at all, and it's entirely possible (and for my own tastes, preferable) to have story-facilitating games where all of the dice rolls are done in the open and abided by.
So, I agree with Chris, the issue of "dice fudging" is larger (and different) than "story or mechanics?" It has to do with social issues, with game expectations, and acknowledgement of what the mechanics are there for (which varies from person to person, group to group).
Posted by: joshua m. neff at Mar 14, 2005 12:42:10 PM
Uh... a game about tactics and probability like, say, Dogs in the Vineyard?
Either you guys are woefully behind the times, or I'm completely missing what you're saying... because it sounds like you're saying that strict adherence to a well-structured set of rules can only produce certain types of play.
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 14, 2005 12:48:29 PM
Cross-posted: Yeah, what Joshua said.
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 14, 2005 12:50:05 PM
If you have to ignore the rules to get the result you want, you're playing with the wrong rules. Why not use a game that gives you the kind of results you're looking for?
Posted by: Jasper Polane at Mar 14, 2005 1:32:28 PM
If you have to ignore the rules to get the result you want, you're playing with the wrong rules. Why not use a game that gives you the kind of results you're looking for?
This is what I meant to say. Sorry if my comment didn't express that clearly enough.
Posted by: peaseblossom at Mar 14, 2005 1:44:44 PM
Re: rules -- I cite Lumpley!
The rules are not just what is written down in the book; they are also the unwritten (and often unspoken) rules of how the players interact with one another. Sometimes parts of what's written in the book doesn't match what you want, so you gotta add to it or modify it or whatever.
I added house rules to Adventure! D20 to cover healing, because I thought that'd help the genre. If, with the concurrence of my play group, I add house rules for fudging rolls, I don't see that as being any different. I like the rest of the game a lot -- the need to add rules for healing quickly (or for fudging) doesn't mean I hate the rest of the game.
I.e., it's not black and white. You can't just say "well, if you ignore one aspect of the rules you must be ignoring the entire thing."
Posted by: Bryant at Mar 14, 2005 5:57:19 PM
This other question is why do the players have to be kept in the dark about the fudging? Or in other words, why is it the GM's sole perogative? But I remember so many times in ol' D&D when the GM would roll something, in the open, and we'd all look at eachother for a second, and then say "Nah...that just doesn't make sense, 'cause of XXX. Re-roll that." I guess it just goes back to never-questioned traditions.
Posted by: Jasper McChesney at Mar 14, 2005 6:18:20 PM
Yeah -- I think you can go either way.
If the players are in the dark, it creates the illusion that the dice don't get overruled, which is important for some people. But not for all people. I've actually wanted that illusion in some games and not wanted it in other games, myself.
One could ask why an illusion is important or even possible when everyone knows what's really going on, but then, we all know that we aren't really an elf, a dwarf, a mage, and a fighter too. Gaming has a lot of illusions and I'm not sure it makes sense to object to one but not the other. Except in the personal case -- we all have personal preferences.
Posted by: Bryant at Mar 14, 2005 6:41:44 PM
Of course you can change the system. At which point you have a new set of rules. Those rules can be good. Or they can be bad.
I'm not talking personal preference here. I am talking objectively whether they reinforce a functional, mature social contract. Communication is key to that.
In any other activity in your life, how would you react to the suggestion that it's okay to lie and cheat, as long as you don't get caught?
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 14, 2005 7:53:16 PM
Tony, you just equated consensual dice roll fudging to lying and cheating. You might want to take a step back and think about that.
In answer to your question: when I tell my nephew a story about samurai and ninja, I am generally not telling him a true story. In fact, by the strictest definition, I am... lying.
I don't fudge my rolls as a GM unless the players know it's a possibility. Since it's done consensually, it's not cheating. By definition.
Posted by: Bryant at Mar 14, 2005 7:56:38 PM
Ah, I must have misunderstood what you were saying in earlier posts. Let me make another try at understanding.
Are you saying that you explicitly tell the players that there will be dice-fudging in the game, but that having said that you reserve the right to pretend that every roll is in fact fair? So that you want informed consent on the general level, but also want to maintain the illusion of fairness on each particular roll?
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 14, 2005 10:37:20 PM
I'm saying that if I wanted to take that approach, it'd be a valid approach, sure.
Posted by: Bryant at Mar 15, 2005 11:06:26 AM
Sure, I think that would be a valid approach.
It disempowers your players, but if that's what they're looking for then you're not violating any standards of good conduct.
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 15, 2005 11:43:04 AM
I'm not sure "it disempowers your players", Tony.
It clearly empowers the GM, who is a player. Forgetting this basic fact leads to the mistaken notion that GMs and other players are in any way in conflict. In fact, they all have the same goal (a good time playing the game), just different tools with which to pursue that goal. It is impossible to "disempower the players" by empowering the GM because the GM is a player.
It clearly disempowers the dice and the mechanics of the game rules (note I don't say "system" since I agree with the previously stated observation that social rules are part of the system). But that isn't inherently a problem, as they aren't participants in the fun-having, just tools for assisting it to happen.
And IMO it empowers all players by reducing the chance that their action choice will have an unexpected, irrational, and un-fun result just because the dice say so. Some GMs fudge too much, but far more fudge too little. To excuse an unfun, game-damaging result with "the dice said so" is to cop out. Period.
Now, fudging isn't necessarily a perfect mechanic for restricting the tyranny of the plastic bits, as they put too much of the power and responsibility in one of the player's hands. Better dice-vetoing mechanics allow all the players to influence things (with the GM perhaps having more or less power than the other players, based on the goal at hand), and can be applied either before or after the roll, or can modify the nature of the role itself. Many, many games use Hero points, Paranoia XP has pre-roll "Perversity Modifiers" (a mechanic I particularly like both for its effects and its name), HeroQuest has its extensive rules for quick versus detailed contests complete with lots of intermediate decision points in extended contests and Hero Points as well...
Personally, I've proposed that a "better" set-up would be one where the range/influence of the dice is mechanically scaled to the range of uncertainty of the event being determined. For example, assume the default condition is a 3-die pool. One die represents indeterminate results on the part of one side of the contest, one indeterminate results on the part of the other side, and the third indeterminate results of the general world around the event. Either side of the contest could then use a resource of some sort to determine their side, reducing the number of dice rolled, replacing them with a player or mechanic determined fixed result and thus the uncertainty of the check. Perhaps a player would have a limited amount of such each session, or perhaps it's a matter of immediate focus and so they could, say, fix their attack die at the cost of having no ability to fix an attack die of people attacking them, or fix one die of one incoming attack but not be able to focus on their own action as well. What some would call "fudging" is now inherently part of the mechanic, removing the rolling of several of the dice from the proceedure. (If anyone recognizes Godlike's "hard" and "wiggle" dice are a big influence here, give yourself a cookie.)
But, then, I'm a regular AmberCon attendee... maybe I dislike dice a bit more than average. Of course, I'm bringing dice with me to AmberCon for limited use in the games I'm running...
Posted by: Ghoul at Mar 15, 2005 3:42:38 PM
Wow, I thought we'd gotten past this unfortunate (and inaccurate) conflation of "obeying the dice" with "getting unexpected and irrational results." I guess we've got to go around with it one more time.
Like Jasper said: "If you have to ignore the rules to get the result you want, you're playing with the wrong rules."
You're offering a dichotomy between "Play a broken (for you) system and fudge the dice" or "Play a broken (for you) system and get bad results".
I have no interest in arguing that dilemma. Go out and find a system that isn't broken for you.
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 15, 2005 5:11:49 PM
Tony, the best system in the world can be broken occasionally. Which is why, IMO, the rules always include the ability to ignore the printed rules. Most games are even explicit about it. And that's only sometimes because the designers are too damn lazy to get it right the first time. Sometimes it's because they're smart enough to know that there is no "right".
I love Feng Shui, but I fully realize that OCCASIONALLY you'll get six or seven + or - 6's in a row and the ridiculous will occur. Sometimes that can be borne without the story collapsing, sometimes it can't. Throwing out the system is a baby and bathwater situation. Fudging the occasional die roll is a much neater and efficient fix.
IMO, the only thing that's always wrong is absolutism. And you're taking an absolutist position here. Fudging is not always wrong because nothing is always wrong. It's also not the perfect fix. A better base mechanic is a better fix.
But if you're playing a game you like 99.9% of the time, fudging one roll in 1000 to make it work is not a big price to pay at all.
Posted by: Ghoul at Mar 15, 2005 5:19:22 PM
How would you break Dogs in the Vineyard? Or My Life With Master?
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 15, 2005 5:30:42 PM
Are we talking about how to break things or how to fix them when they are broken? Fudging is a quick way to fix a crack that shows up during play. Design is a way to prevent cracks. During play, you can do the former but not the latter. Yes, a good design needs less arbitrary fudging. I would think that's obvious. Of course, for most of the systems I consider "good designs", it's because there's fudging built right into the rules (Forge-speak calls it "player empowerment", I think). But to take a tool out of the RPG toolkit because if they'd picked a "better" game they wouldn't need it as much? That's needlessly elitist and snobbish.
How would I break DitV? I would watch it break itself when the dice come out impossibly screwed up (the side with all the advantages in numbers and sizes comes up all 1's and 2's, the side with a small scattering of d4 and d6 comes up all 4's and 6's). Unfortunately, since DitV is rolls-in-the-open, it's not easy to fudge by traditional means. Fortunately, DitV has a built-in fudging rule, whereby players or the GM can add a trait to their sheet on-the-fly and immediately use it to escalate the conflict! Is this a better mechanic than the raw fudge? Hell yeah! Is it any less a way for the GM to use their infinite resources to patch an unexpected plot twist with a behind the scenes change (i.e., to fudge) just because the players have a finite pool to let them do the same thing? No. We are talking about a game where the GM is told to have NPCs with blanks on their sheet ready to be used for exactly whatever the next role required is... That's a perfect example of structured, in-rules fudging (this time of NPC stats rather than die rolls, of course).
How would I break MLwM? Well, the same way... except there we lack a way to fix the bad roll once it's on the table. I wouldn't put my Black Road Amber/MLwM game up as any example of good GMing of the system, but I did watch a perfectly well-set-up endgame collapse into complete chaos because one roll came out far, far below expected. This being a time-limited game at a con, this failure to reach an ending already after time was up resulted in a very unsatisfying conclusion. Mostly my fault, I'll admit, for bad time management, inadequate prep, and failure to give things time to develop prior to that, but I was also failed by my own decision to be "by the book" rather than fudge a result that would have turned a nice all-characters-present scene into a solid (if not 100% "fairly earned" to the absolute purist) endgame.
Posted by: Ghoul at Mar 15, 2005 6:20:26 PM
You break DitV just like you "break" Feng Shui.
Look, suppose I'm a Killer in FS, and I'm looking to show how badass I am by fighting a Mook. I have an AV of 15, he has an AV of 8. 99.99% of the time, when I fight him, what the system does is illustrate my badassosity. It demonstrates in game terms just how cool I am. But maybe .01% of the time, the mook rolls really well and beats me up. Is that system broken?
Similarly, in Dogs, I'm a Dog with a Heart + Acuity of like 12, and traits like, "I was born with a silver tongue (2d8)" and "I could sell refrigerators to eskimos (2d8)." I walk into a Branch and find the village idiot (literally -- Heart + Acuity of 3d6) entertaining the corrupted faithful with blasphemies. I look to the system to support and illustrate my competence as I rebuke him. And 99.99% of the time, it does. But maybe .01% of the time, he rolls all 6's and I roll all 1's and 2's, and I lose the argument. Is the system broken?
Well, arguably yes, arguably no. But there are certainly people who are really looking for the systems to support and illustrate their competence in such situations 100% of the time. That doesn't mean that they don't want to interact with the system. It may mean they occaisionally fudge the rolls to get it to work out the way they want.
Posted by: Mike "Epoch" Sullivan at Mar 15, 2005 6:28:45 PM
Usually, when I GM, I run games where the burden of fudging is on the players. If they don't like a roll, they are expected to change it. Eg, when I ran Revenge of the Jedi, I set up the game so that I (as GM) never rolled any dice, and all of the action sequences involved the players rolling defense checks (against enemy attacks) or attack rolls (against enemy defenses). So any fudging that happened was done by the players (I don't know if any of them actually did, nor do I actually particularly care).
That's a variation that usually isn't discussed in these threads -- I dunno why.
Posted by: Neel Krishnaswami at Mar 15, 2005 7:14:19 PM
Ahhhh.... I think I see the disconnect here. Ghoul, Mike, thank you for giving your examples of how you would break Dogs. I get why you think it's possible.
If you're trying to play a character who is already formed in your mind, and you don't want to be confronted with uncomfortable questions about that character (like "what do they do when all their skills fail them?"), then Dogs is inherently broken for you. You are running directly counter to what it is meant to do. The system won't break down because of a bad die roll, it will fight you to a standstill no matter what you do, or how the dice come out.
But if you are trying to seek out uncomfortable questions like "How far will you go to do God's will?", and answer them only in the moment of roleplaying... then how does having the village idiot outwit your glib talker break anything? It's played right into the question of "How far will you go?"
Your happy people skills have failed you. Does God's mandate justify slapping him down in the street? Shooting him? If that's not the kind of thing you're comfortable with your character doing then why isn't it? What's the counter-balance that makes the Will of God less absolute when it goes that far? You've got terrific opportunities to answer all those questions. If you don't have any answers ready? GREAT. That means you get to make them up on the spot, which is the point.
Likewise, if your glib talker convinces the idiot to repent his sinning ways and turn back to the true faith, you're still in happy Dogs territory. Is that it? Do your Dogs agree that an apostate doesn't need to be punished if he says he's sorry? What about his followers? Do the people he's harmed deserve justice, or does mercy override their anger? If you decide that he needs to be punished: will you shoot a man in cold blood right after he's repented and begged your forgiveness? How far will you go to do God's Will?
If anyone is reading this and saying (scornfully, I rather hope) "Well sure, you can pretend a system works without fudging if you say that any outcome whatsoever is equally good!" then you have grasped exactly what I am saying.
Games like Dogs are not unbreakable because they provide a car that keeps you on the road of "Where the game should go". They are unbreakable because they provide you with a gigantic killer four-by-four, and then they take away your roads. If off-road driving is your thing then there is simply no way to go wrong. Go left? Go right? Go straight? Back up? It's all great off-road fun.
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 15, 2005 7:31:47 PM
Neel, I actually really like that option, and have since I first saw only-player-rolls mechanics, I believe it was in Lost Souls or Khaotic one of the other games from that company. However, I must admit to one flaw, which is that usually (and I'm quite willing to admit not always) the GM has the most knowledge of all the players about just what all is going on and so usually (and I'm quite willing to admit not always, more easily here than the last time) will recognize a crack sooner and so might be in the position to apply the minimum amount of fudge to the situation. And while I'm all for allowing fudging, I understand the "fairness" issues and opinions of some players and so am willing to make its rarity a goal.
Still, the appeal of purely player-driven fudging is that each player gets just the degree of "arbitrariness" or "fudge" that they are comfortable with. That's a big plus. Besides, the GM has enough plot-creation power inherent to the role, giving up the power to fudge as long as something else is in place that serves its crack-filling purpose doesn't hurt much.
Posted by: Ghoul at Mar 15, 2005 7:34:05 PM
Any game is "unbreakable" if you approach it from the perspective of, "What I want out of this game is to explore the world created by its mechanics." D&D, Dogs in the Vineyard, Feng Shui, Toon, whatever.
And it's entirely valid to say, "Hey, if the glib guy gets verbally smacked down by the village idiot, then that's fine. It may even be 'realistic' for whatever value of realism you prefer." Just like it's entirely valid to say, "Hey, being a Killer is a tough gig. Sometimes, the little nobody will shoot you and you'll die. It may even emulate some types of action movies."
Many people, however, approach games from the point of view of, "I want to explore this idea I've got in my head... And now I need to find a system that does a good job of bringing this idea to life."
That may be as extreme as taking the DitV system, stripping out huge chunks of it, redoing the Fallout mechanics, and then using it to explore an Amber setting pre-Corwin-Chronicles, as I did for Ambercon Northwest 2004.
But it may be as un-extreme as taking the default DitV setting and system and running it in a way that seems, at first glance, indistinguishable from a TonyLB-like-game, but privileging the participants' idea of how the world "ought" to work over the mechanics' idea of how the world "ought" to work.
I don't need a primer on what Dogs is about -- I've read it, I've played it, I've GMed it, and I got it, thanks very much. I put to you that extremely, extremely unlikely mismatched results aren't necessary to explore what Dogs is about (as, indeed, they shouldn't be, because most Dogs games will go by without results that unlikely).
Now, does such an extremely unlikely mismatched result hurt the game's sense of, "How far are you willing to go?" Well, maybe -- it can get the players sidetracked into a less interesting moral debate than the one that lies behind the supposedly easy conflict -- but more so, for lots of people, RPG's aren't about just one thing. Sure, my game of Dogs may be about, "How far are you willing to go?" but it may also be about, "My guy is super-talented at what he does, and let's all marvel at that." And if it undermines the "My guy is super-talented" thing, and doesn't really affect the "How far are you willing to go" thing, why not fudge the dice so that my guy's area of competence shows?
Posted by: Mike "Epoch" Sullivan at Mar 15, 2005 7:50:12 PM
Tony, you've just explained thematically WHY DitV has a built-into-the-rules fudging system (and, IMO, a damn good one). Systematically, of course, it has it because it's just good design, which is why most modern systems have something of the sort (some better than others). I'll note you completely ignored my talking about DitV's built-in fudging. Do you just not want to admit that this is exactly what fudging is and why?
What you have still failed to do is explain why fudging is as bad as you say it is and why systems that occasionally need outside-the-rules fudging should be tossed out as broken (while systems built around fudging but calling it something else are an amazing holy grail of perfection, apparently), which is a painfully extreme overraction (and a dogmatic extremity).
Because, Tony, any result is NOT equally good. Some results invalidate characters and take away choices. Some results make for bad stories with crappy endings. These results are not good, and a good system (by which we must include a good GM or player initiated decision to ignore the book) serves to recognize and repair that. For example, the MLwM result I spoke of, which you didn't address in your rush toward the fudging-heavy DitV world. Because there is such a thing as a die roll that makes the story worse, that takes it off-theme, that runs it into a ditch it will never climb out of. You can still drive your four-by-four into the Grand Canyon and then kiss it goodbye. Likely? No. But far, far less likely if you don't let pieces of plastic tell your story no matter how stupid it gets. And that's my point. "Never Fudge" is an invitation to rare but massive disaster.
A good system (again, rule and extra-rule) serves to add an intelligent human reviewer to veto the dice when they say "jump into the bottomless pit now". DitV has it. And that's precisely why it's so strongly able to do it's "How far will you go to do God's will?" theme. Because its fudging mechanic is inherently linked to answering that question in order to activate it. Damn good design.
And still fudging.
Posted by: Ghoul at Mar 15, 2005 7:52:06 PM
Added note...
Tony, I think our real difference is that you have a MUCH more limited definition of fudging than I do.
You seem to think it's just "changing die rolls". You also seem to think it must be exterior to the written game rules.
I say it's "changing the results" and think it can either be within or external to the written game rules.
So, to me, the ability to add a relationship on-the-fly and then immediately use it to escalate is a rules-enabled fudging opportunity. To you, it is not. To me, spending a hero point to change a failure into a success is fudging, to you it is not. To me, the GM adding exactly the skill needed by the scene to an NPC's sheet is fudging, to you it is not.
So I can see how you can say "some games don't need fudging". It's because you've defined fudging in such a way that the fudging those games do isn't fudging any more. And that's just semantics, IMO.
If games didn't need intelligent player-created editing/vetoing of the rules and the random results, then CRPGs could be just as good as RPGs. But the human element is essential.
I agree with you, it is FAR better when that element is built-into the rules, and better still when, like in DitV, it is strongly linked to the basic thematic thread ("how many meta-game resources will you spend" and "how much will you escalate" being inherently related to "how far will you go", if not exactly the same question). But I still call it fudging because, IMO, it still is.
Posted by: Ghoul at Mar 15, 2005 8:16:20 PM
Ghoul: Cool. Given your clarification, I think we're largely in agreement. I was, indeed, defining "Fudging" as altering results (die rolls or otherwise) outside of the methods prescribed by the rules.
Mike: I wasn't actually talking about the agenda of "Explore the world implied by the game mechanics", but since you bring it up... wouldn't following objective rules be far less likely to lead to arguments, confusion and disatisfaction than referring to peoples subjective (and varied) sense of how the world ought to be for a particular genre?
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 15, 2005 9:03:37 PM
You really were talking about the agenda of "Explore the world as implied by the game mechanics." It's really the only way to exclude the possibility that the game mechanics might have "bad" results.
As to this: "Wouldn't following objective rules be far less likely to lead to arguments, confusion, and dissatisfaction than referring to people's subjective (and varied) sense of how the world ought to be for a particular genre?"
I will first note that I didn't speak of genres. I spoke of games. I'm distrustful of the word "genre."
My actual answer is that I don't think it's a useful question, nor one that's possible to answer. You can't project a single answer on "people," and saying things like "most people" or the like gives a false sense of utility.
I think that some people prefer objective standards as measured by rules. I think others don't. For me, it depends on the campaign.
Posted by: Mike "Epoch" Sullivan at Mar 15, 2005 11:09:54 PM
Mike: You say that the only way a game can systematically avoid having bad results is if it is dedicated solely to the agenda of exploring the world as implied by game mechanics.
I think that "exploring" is a very freighted word in this context. It connotes (to me) the idea that there is one game world implied by the mechanics, and that a straightforward execution of those mechanics should reliably create that world. Now maybe you meant that more broadly. In which case, feel free to expand on what you've said, and we'll understand each other better.
By contrast with the explore-heavy agenda (which, as noted, you may not even be advising) I prefer games where players are using the rules in a systematic way in order create a world and events together, in order to explore what they think about life through the mirror of their own contributions. The rules become not the window through which a pre-existing landscape is viewed, but the tools that help people to pose each other pointed questions about the human condition.
I am certain that it is just as possible to build a game where the mechanics cannot produce "bad" results in pursuit of this agenda as it is in pursuit of the agenda you outlined. Let me know if we have a real difference of opinion here, or just a confusion of wording.
On objective vs. subjective rules: You're absolutely right that people have individual preferences. But I don't think that truth is relevant to my question, which was about what objective and subjective rules do, not what people like.
Objective rules foster clear communication. If I know that a roll of four or better on d6 gets me across a fatally deep chasm then I know (with literally mathematical certainty) that I have a 50/50 chance of survival.
Subjective rules don't foster that same communication. If I know that a roll of four or better on d6 gets me across the chasm, and I think that we're playing a game where PCs never die due to bad luck on dice, then I may well believe that I have a 100% chance of survival. If the GM, by comparison, thinks that we're playing a game where taking stupid risks should be punished then I may have a 0% chance of survival. Or maybe I have 100%. Or maybe 50%. Or some other number entirely. The more the rules are subjectively applied, the further I am from being able to make informed decisions of any sort.
I like greasy hamburgers. My wife likes a nice green salad. We don't argue about which one tastes better. But I also don't delude myself into thinking that I'm eating as healthy a diet as she is.
Similarly, I totally accept that some people like subjective rules. I won't argue the preference. But I haven't yet seen a good argument that they are better tools of communication than objective rules. And as I think good communication is key to reliably enjoyable roleplaying, I feel confident that good objective rules are a healthier choice for a game than good subjective rules.
Again: Are we disagreeing on only semantics, or is there a genuine difference of opinion here?
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 16, 2005 12:09:31 AM
Well, I disagree that objective rules are inherently clearer. Humans are pretty good at communicating nuances and feelings. Sure, it is easy to miscommunicate -- but in my experience it is easy for people to misunderstand or miscommunicate through objective rules as well.
Some people are better at one than the other. i.e. Someone with an engineering or science bent might understand something better if it is laid out in objective rules and numbers. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who are completely thrown off by such things -- whereas a few minutes of honest face-to-face communication over subjective boundaries just makes things click for them.
Posted by: John Kim at Mar 16, 2005 2:04:37 AM
TonyLB paraphrases me as saying, "You say that the only way a game can systematically avoid having bad results is if it is dedicated solely to the agenda of exploring the world as implied by game mechanics."
This is a slightly bad paraphrase. A game can only UNILATERALLY avoid having bad results if it is dedicated to the agenda of exploring the world as implied by game mechanics.
That is, a game can systematically avoid (reduce/minimize, not altogether vanquish the possibility of) bad results by being well-designed. System does matter, etc.
But it is tautologically true that a system can not make zero the possibility of a bad result unless one defines a "good result" as something that the system produces, in which case one is devoting onesself to the agenda of exploring the system.
As soon as one is willing to postulate that there may be some standard outside the system by which one may judge a result to be "bad," it becomes apparent that the system will never be 100% reliable in producing "good" results, simply because the system is incapable of understanding whatever other criterion you may apply.
Part the second:
Tony says, "You're absolutely right that people have individual preferences. But I don't think that truth is relevant to my question, which was about what objective and subjective rules do, not what people like."
Actually, your question was, "wouldn't following objective rules be far less likely to lead to arguments, confusion and disatisfaction than referring to peoples subjective (and varied) sense of how the world ought to be for a particular genre?"
People who don't like objective rules are dissatisfied with them. You're changing the goalposts.
Posted by: Mike "Epoch" Sullivan at Mar 16, 2005 2:19:23 AM
John: Fair enough. I don't really agree, but I don't really have the data (or inclination) to argue either side. Both methods can be misunderstood, and the question of which is more likely is something I judge only from my personal experience.
I'm interested in a follow-up issue, which is the result of misunderstanding in the two different modes. My experience is that when people miscommunicate their subjective rules both sides often feel that they have a right to have their view of things institutionalized. e.g. if one person thinks the PCs have script immunity, and one person doesn't, when the miscommunication becomes clear both sides argue that they have been playing according to their own beliefs and shouldn't be "punished" as a result.
Do you see that as a difference between subjective and objective rules?
Mike: Yeah, you're right. I'm changing the goalposts. My original goalposts were set too far apart, because you ran over and answered a question that had nothing to do with what I'm interested in learning about your opinions and thinking. Your clarification has shown me, however, that the question was within the goalposts of the actual words I used. Sorry for having been too vague to convey the intent of my question. I hope my clarifications will help narrow the goalposts to the point that you can choose whether or not to answer the question I'm actually interested in.
On tautologies: I agree with your logic, until you seem (to me) to skip a step. To get 100% good results you do indeed need to define good results as something that the game system produces. But, as I discussed, that doesn't imply that you are producing such results in order to explore the system. At least for my usage of the word "explore". So, is your usage different? I ask again, do we have a real difference of opinion here, or is it just that you use "explore" more broadly than I do?
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 16, 2005 7:50:05 AM
I don't understand what distinction you're drawing between "explore" and whatever else, but since we seem to agree on all the rest, I guess it must be semantics.
As to objective rules versus playing to goals: I guess that playing to goals may be unavoidably less communicative than playing to clearly set-down rules, but if so, the difference is slight enough that my experience is that appropriately inclined people can get through dozens of sessions without arguments or misunderstandings. So there may be a difference, but I don't regard it as having to be a significant difference.
Posted by: Mike "Epoch" Sullivan at Mar 16, 2005 3:03:10 PM
Subjective rules never work. In order for rules to work, they have to be objective. Otherwise they'll break down as soon as people disagree over the outcome / result.
Examples:
"The GM may change the results whenever it serves the story" is subjective. It will break down as soon as that GM decides killing of my character serves the story.
"The GM may change the results to save the PC's lifes" makes the rule objective. It also makes rolling dice whenever your life's in danger pretty pointless.
Posted by: Jasper Polane at Mar 17, 2005 4:32:03 AM
Now, see, Jasper's got a more definite position than I do, which makes for interesting discussion.
Jasper, do you mean literally that subjective rules never "work" (i.e. that it is impossible to complete even one session of a game using them) or that they never "help" (i.e. that if you can complete such a session it is only because you have such unity of vision that you could have done the same with no rules at all)?
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 17, 2005 6:09:27 AM
Witness how well communication (this honed for a thousand years or so) works as an objective system.
Excuse me if I believe:
"The GM may change the results to save the PC's lives" is still subjective since the GM cannot know that another PC might not save the PC's life if allowed to do so.
The GM may revive a dead PC is objective. Perhaps. Depending on a lot of factors.
Posted by: Arref at Mar 17, 2005 8:08:37 AM
Never mind the last. Let me be more helpful.
I think this discussion will never be done because communication is subject except in a limited scope of mathematics.
:)
Posted by: Arref at Mar 17, 2005 8:12:10 AM
-tive
subjective
*sigh*
Posted by: Arref at Mar 17, 2005 8:12:50 AM
They never "help", and sooner or later, they will stop "working". I don't think it's as bad you can't even complete one session of the game, but after a couple of sessions, yeah, it'll stop working. Basically, at the first time you don't agree with your GM's decision.
And I don't necessarily mean a bad decision towards your character. Take your example of jumping a chasm: If I fail the roll, and the GM "fudges", saying I made it, then why did I put all those skillpoints in my jumping skill? Why even bother to roll?
--Jasper
Posted by: Jasper Polane at Mar 17, 2005 8:16:45 AM
Arref: Would "The GM may reroll an attack roll by spending a Reroll Token (of which he starts with three, and earns more on any critical success by a PC)", or similar stuff, be objective, by your standards?
Jasper: Obviously you'll realize that people can and do have long-running campaigns with purely subjective rules (sometimes even using "The GM just uses his best judgment for every decision). You say such rules don't "work" long-term, and I'm not trying to dispute that (at least until I understand it better). But these games do continue and people have lots of fun. So I assume that you're talking about something more specific than "the game can continue and people can have fun", yes?
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 17, 2005 8:40:33 AM
Tony: I think those campaigns are actually build upon unspoken, objective rules. Not "The GM just uses his best judgment for every decision", but "provided he doesn't kill me outright."
Example: "I drink the liquid." GM says: "It's a fastworking poison. You die. Make a new character." would be not acceptable in most games, I think.
Arref: Crossposted with you.
I believe we're not really talking about the same thing, here. What I meant with "changing results to save the PC's lives" was "the result is, the PC dies. The GM changes the result. Now the PC stays alive." Looks objective to me. I don't really see how this is the same as "another PC saves him", which is, I think, a different result on a followup action.
--Jasper
Posted by: Jasper Polane at Mar 17, 2005 9:22:56 AM
Interesting... and completely contrary to what I would think of as open, objective rules. Ain't terminology grand?
Jasper, are you saying that in any working campaign Player A's sense of what the rules are (spoken or unspoken) must be the same as Player B's sense of same? And if you're saying that, are you using the word "objective" to refer to that property of everyone sharing the same view?
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 17, 2005 10:43:11 AM
Mmmm, I have been using "objective" that way, haven't I? Maybe my example wasn't very good, let me reformulate it: "The Gm just uses his best judgment for every decision, but he can't kill my character without me agreeing." That's objective, isn't it?
The rules are there to provide agreement between players as to what happens in the SiS, right? A rule which leaves the decision in the hands of one player (the GM, most of the time) doesn't provide agreement, it just says "You're right, and you're wrong." It will break the game as soon as the GM decides upon a result which is really, really unacceptable by one of the players.
Does this make sense?
--Jasper
Posted by: Jasper Polane at Mar 17, 2005 1:04:45 PM
Hi Jasper, I think written rules fail in exactly the same way.
I was in a D&D game once, where one character attacked a possessed person to keep them busy while someone else did something to un-possess them. So, he rolled a critical hit on the attack roll, followed by max damage on that. It instantly killed the victim, and the player said, "No, that doesn't happen."
The GM said, "But the rules say your character just killed this guy. What's up?" And the player said, "I'm not going to play someone who killed an innocent person, and I want to keep playing this character, so that didn't happen."
We all talked it over for a few minutes, ret-conned it so it was a knockout attack, and then went on playing. We talked it over, because other people had done "accidentally evil" things in the game, and the GM was reluctant to agree with the player because he wanted to be fair and even-handed. But the rest of us were cool, and so he gave and we had the unanimous consent for a retcon.
But note that the rules didn't provide us with any agreement at all. It all happened between people.
Posted by: Neel Krishnaswami at Mar 17, 2005 2:24:47 PM
Hi Neel. You're right about D&D, ofcourse. The rules provide no agreement at all. I'm not trying to make a case for "following rules as printed" here.
In your example, what would have happened if the DM had said: "I don't care, the dice say he's dead, he's dead?" Would that be acceptable? Because, you know, the DMG actually states "the DM is always right." If he wouldn't agree the retcon was a good idea, the rules back him up. Result: The player doesn't want to play his character anymore, feelings get hurt, game is broken.
--Jasper
Posted by: Jasper Polane at Mar 17, 2005 3:45:08 PM
Jasper: Your reformulation does, in fact, strike me as much more of an objective standard. I think we're nicely highlightng the fact that objective/subjective and clearly-communicated/not-communicated (or "explicit/implicit") are different but related issues.
Personally, I like my rules both objective and clearly communicated. For instance, I play in a game where there is an explicit rule "No spotlight character may die for any reason other than that the owning player chooses, without duress, to have them die."
Say somebody explodes a nuclear bomb in my characters lap, and says "Everything within a ten mile radius is vaporized instantly!" Do I have to worry?
Not in my game. My response is "Except my guy, of course. He survives, somehow." Because those are the rules we agreed to and I know (because we've clearly communicated) that those rules will not be fudged for something as trivial as a hellish ball of all-obliterating flame.
If I'm playing in a game where nobody has ever explicitly stated that rule, though, the bomb-in-the-lap thing may be my moment to suddenly discover that I'm the only one who thinks it's chiselled in stone. "Well, sure, we don't let PCs die as a general rule," the GM says, "but dude, Tony... a nuclear bomb in the lap, man. That's obviously an exception." And if I had passed up opportunities that would have saved my character, because I didn't think it would come to his death, then this is my cue to start whining about what I would have done if I'd known what the actual rules of the game were. In other words, the situation has just transcended being a "dispute" and become an "injustice".
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 17, 2005 4:00:09 PM
TonyLB asked: Would "The GM may reroll an attack roll by spending a Reroll Token (of which he starts with three, and earns more on any critical success by a PC)", or similar stuff, be objective, by your standards?
No, I don't think so. Imagine such a system in use. In one night the GM allows two PCs to die without using a Reroll Token and then saves the third PC with a Reroll Token. The evening closes with Reroll Tokens remaining and two PCs dead. What is objective about this system? I think the phrase "the GM may" transforms any rule into a subjective system.
Try this rule: "The GM must reroll any attack that slays a PC. Three 'slain' results in a row mean the PC is dead."
Posted by: Arref at Mar 17, 2005 4:12:02 PM
Jasper: If the GM had said, "I don't care, and the DMG says I'm always right," then absolutely everybody would have said "Don't be an ass; none of us are ten-year-olds who fall for that kind of BS." But really there's zero chance he would have tried to pull some kind of petty authoritarian stunt like that -- we had a very high level of mutual respect, and he was probably the player who worked the hardest to build that environment. I'm not sure this hypothetical is really all that interesting, though, because the player in question had already said no to one rule; why would he listen to the "authority" of another? Trying to use that tactic really seems like a sleazy way of not listening to the player.
If you're wondering what would have happened if the GM had not given in for mature reasons, let's suppose that he had said something like "Dude, one of the big artistic points of the game is that good intentions aren't perfect armor against events". Then we'd probably have called it a night, and talked it over over dinner. If we found a mutually satisfactory resolution, then that would have been great, and otherwise, we'd have stopped playing that game and switched to another. (We had done that a couple of times before, so this is not a hypothetical.)
Posted by: Neel Krishnaswami at Mar 17, 2005 5:12:06 PM
Arref: Hrm. My instinct is that a decision point (e.g. the GM is the one responsible for deciding whether or not to apply a reroll) is not the same as a rule with no mechanism for application (e.g. "Players should have a sporting chance to avoid the death of their characters").
If the only stated rule is "The GM may or may not save a character" then I (as a player) don't know whether my character will or will not be saved, but I know whose decision it is, and that he can make it for pretty much any reason (up to and including "I had a bad day at work").
Unless I have internalized an unspoken subjective rule (like the infamous "The GM will assure that the players have fun"... try finding the chart to roll on to make that happen) then I have no expectations one way or another of what will happen, other than that the GM will make the call.
That sounds pretty objective to me, actually. But, again, the term "objective" is clearly meaning different things for different people. so this communicates more about my take on the term than about the reality behind it.
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 17, 2005 5:47:45 PM
In one night the GM allows two PCs to die without using a Reroll Token and then saves the third PC with a Reroll Token. The evening closes with Reroll Tokens remaining and two PCs dead. What is objective about this system? I think the phrase "the GM may" transforms any rule into a subjective system.
I'm a little stuck here. Surely the game has to depend, in part, upon subjective choices by the people involved. For the results to be totally objective, by your definition, means that whatever happens can't depend on subjective choices by the players (including the GM).
Let me illustrate here for a moment. Let's say you're concerned about PCs dying, and your rule is that any roll that results in PC death gets an automatic reroll. If the GM has free reign to create NPCs of arbitrary stats and play them, then it is no protection at all to say that he is bound by objective resolution rules. He can still arbitrarily kill any PC by sending a sufficiently tough monster after them.
I guess one of my issues here is that in general, games with mathematically-formulated mechanical rules still have just as thick a layer of unwritten behavioral rules. i.e. There are characters which I can mechanically build according to the system which aren't acceptable to the group. There are adventure setups that I can create as GM which are unacceptable to the players. I am not even sure that more "new wave" games like My Life With Master don't have at least a similar layer of unwritten behavioral rules.
Posted by: John Kim at Mar 17, 2005 6:36:43 PM
John: The RP game does depend on choices of the people involved. I certainly was not posing that it doesn't. I was instead saying that most RP gaming is subjective because of how it depends on communication, even if the rules are largely objective. Most communication is a fine structure of objective meaning flourished with a tremendous range of subjective info.
In GURPS, the system gives the people a measured bible of things to judge by. Those unwritten behavioral rules are still there in such a game and a majority of the unwritten elements are subjective--especially if they haven't been discussed.
These days, I am much the subjective gamer. I feel the crunchy rules of D&D and the quest for objective meaning is symptomatic of bad communication and broken trust; perhaps combined with inability to find style compatible gamers. When I read these calls for clear objective game systems, I hear my own inner voice questioning "how do I game for fun and meaning with people I don't know?"
Dice? No dice? Crunch? No crunch?
Yes, design matters, but people (communication) matter vastly more. Design than enhances communication is 'golden' and rare.
Tony: OK, I'll see your 'instinct' and raise you some 'quibbles'.
If the only stated rule is: The GM may or may not save a character. Then my judgment of the GM in relationship to my contribution to the game is still subjective criteria and actually becomes part of the game. I can be fine with that, or not play. But I'd be hard pressed to call it objective (undistorted by emotion or personal bias).
What I see you calling 'subjective' is the theoretical "rules with no standard measure for application." Since people always have experience as a measure for application, the shared 'standard of application' is what I think you are calling the crux of objectivity.
This indeed communicates more about my take on the term 'subjective' than about the reality behind it.
Posted by: Arref at Mar 17, 2005 7:53:52 PM
Ah... I think I see. Not quite sure what you mean by "standard measure of application", but I think I see the rest. Let me separate out two different factors about a rule here, and examine the combinations. I hope it will be illustrative.
Interpretation: The things that the rule can possibly be saying, in terms of mechanics. A rule with Objective Interpretations tells you what can be done, who can do it, when they can do it, and what choices they have, all in game-mechanic terms. A rule with Subjective Interpretation fails in one or more of those criteria.
Application: The possible outcomes when the rule is applied. A rule with Objective Application does one thing and one thing only when it is relevant. A rule with Subjective Application gives some player the right to any of two or more possible outcomes when the rule is relevant. Note that the number of possibe outcomes can be infinite (e.g. "You may create a new NPC and how they become relevant to the scene")
Examples:
"Any time a player rolls a ten they get a Squeegee Token." Objective Interpretation, Objective Application (OIOA)
"Any time a player rolls a ten the GM may choose to award them a Squeegee Token, at the GMs sole discretion." Objective Interpretation, Subjective Application (OISA)
"When a player does something heroic they get a Squeegee Token." Subjective Interpretation, Objective Application (SIOA)
"When a player helps another character face their inner demons that character's player may award them a Squeegee Token." Subjective Interpretation, Subjective Application (SISA)
I'm labelling OIOA, OISA or any combination of the two within a single ruleset as "objective rules". I think you're labelling only OIOA as "objective". Have I correctly gauged how you're using the word?
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 17, 2005 10:57:14 PM
Cool!! That's a great analysis, Tony. It should get posted somewhere onto a post or maybe Forge thread of its own, instead of buried deep here in the comments.
Posted by: John Kim at Mar 18, 2005 12:20:05 AM
I agree with John here. This deserves more discussion of it's own.
Actually, Tony, you're beginning to change my mind about some subjective rules. Your SISA example ("that character's player may award him a token") would be perfectly allright with me.
--Jasper
Posted by: Jasper Polane at Mar 18, 2005 4:25:31 AM
To get back to Tony's original contention, I think it's all a matter of social contract and 'table feel.'
Example 1: AD&D 3.5. The battle is going badly for the PCs, and too well for the NPCs. The GM doesn't want this, so he cuts the NPCs' hit points and bonuses.
Example 2: Any system. The PCs' dire enemy beats them in battle. For reasons that are well established, their captor wants the PCs dead. The GM doesn't want this, so he invents a reason why their captor wants to keep them alive.
Example 3: Any system. The battle is going bady for the PCs, and too well for the NPCs. The GM doesn't want this, so he declines to use the NPCs' best powers and abilities.
Example 4: DitV. The PC's initial dice rolls are horrible and the opposition's are great. The PC keeps on pulling out traits and rolling horribly. The GM wants the PC to win, so he declines to pull out even a single trait for the opposition -- even though the PC keeps on pulling out traits and escalating.
I submit that each and every one of these will be read at the table as a fudge, even though only #1 involves any use of SI rules. Do you disagree, Tony? Because what you have said implies that, for you, numbers 2-4 are not fudging. Really so?
I think what DitV really does to make a no-fudging game more palatable is to limit the stakes of most conflicts, and to make it likely that the PCs will not escalate any conflict that they are likely to lose.
Posted by: Lee Short at Mar 18, 2005 2:33:28 PM
Example:
"Any time a player rolls a ten they get a Squeegee Token." Objective Interpretation, Objective Application (OIOA)
Just so. That's the only purely objective example. By george, I think we've got it.
There are no RPGs that work by OIOA system that I know of.
Posted by: Arref at Mar 18, 2005 2:46:37 PM
Actually, I got that wrong. I should have said "only #1 involves any use of SI rules to overrule OI rules."
All of them involve SI rules. But, at some level, every game system depends on SI rules. A whole lot of them -- how to build the opposition, when to use their best tactics, etc. As I think my example above shows, DitV has them just as much as the implicit social contract for fudging D&D does.
Posted by: Lee Short at Mar 18, 2005 2:48:58 PM
Gaak! I'm just confused today.
Example #1 is clearly SI. But if the GM's fudging powers are clearly delineated, it becomes OI.
Example #2 is, I think, OISA -- most games clearly state that NPC decisions are the purview of the GM; that makes it OI.
Example #3, same thing.
Example #4, OISA as well.
But I think my basic point still stands. And I'm still interested in Tony's answer to the question.
Posted by: Lee Short at Mar 18, 2005 2:59:52 PM
Can you tell I'm ambivalent about this?
The more I think about it, the more I think my second take was right. *ALL* of my examples involve SI rules. "The GM can [not] have the NPC do stupid, out-of-character things just to let the PCs win" is exactly the same sort of SI rule implicit in the social contract as "the GM can [not] fudge to prevent character death."
Which means that DitV has just pushed the SI rules back another level, not done away with them. Once you get down to it, "the GM may adjust the monster's HP and bonuses as he sees fit" is pretty damn similar to "the GM may or may not bring in the NPC's traits as he sees fit."
Sorry for doing my thinking on the board.
Posted by: Lee Short at Mar 18, 2005 3:30:31 PM
Arref: A game (any game) that uses purely OIOA rules can be executed without the need for players. Chutes and Ladders is an example, from the board-gaming arena. I agree that I have never heard of a roleplaying game that runs purely on such rules. I think we've reached understanding.
Lee: I think you were doing great up to post #3, and then you diverged from the definitions as written.
Interpretation is about what the rules say about mechanics.
Application is about the choices you can make in using the rule.
So any statement about the choices the GM can make with the rules (e.g. "The GM can have the NPC do stupid, out of character things just to let the PCs win") is a statement about Application. Literally "by definition". I defined it that way.
If you want to talk about the extent to which OISA rules can result in game-play experiences that you are subjective at the higher level of social contract and its structure, then I'd love to discuss it. It's a damn fine topic, near and dear to my heart. Please don't view my correction of your terminology as missing the importance of the greater point you're trying to express.
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 18, 2005 4:46:49 PM
"any game that uses purely OIOA rules can be executed without the need for players"
Did you mean that? No one to role the dice? No one to decide whether to buy Park Place?
Posted by: Arref at Mar 18, 2005 8:57:32 PM
Right. OIOA means that someone cannot subjectively decide to buy Park Place. OA is "Objective Application" -- meaning that the participant cannot simply decide whether to use the mechanic or not on a whim. For a rule to be OA, it must not have subjective choice in this. So the participant can't just choose to buy Park Place or not on a whim.
Posted by: John Kim at Mar 19, 2005 12:48:58 PM
Actually, there are OIOA games. For example, Candyland or Chutes and Ladders are both OIOA. There are actually no choices involved.
But most boardgames are a mix of OIOA and OISA rules.
Posted by: John Kim at Mar 19, 2005 12:51:40 PM
Arref: Yep. John handled the "Park Place" question, which was all I would have clarified, so I won't repeat.
Posted by: TonyLB at Mar 19, 2005 1:48:33 PM
My own view is that the die roll is not the outcome of a challenge. The results of the die roll are input into the GM's and players' decision-making - important input, but part of the process. The outcome doesn't happen for sure until it's spoken (or typed out, for text-y online play) and agreed to.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh at Mar 20, 2005 3:41:46 AM
I've always rolled openly; this may mean risking my main villain at the first fight, but I figure if the Players put their PC's on the line for a fight, my fudging rolls is the equivalent of just blue-bolting them from on high. It's made me play my villains a lot smarter.
In general, if I really need something to succeed, I'd rather just not roll at all, rather than go through the motions of making a plotted event appear random. Such plotted events are similar to "cinematics" in console/PC games.
Posted by: Marc at May 1, 2005 7:12:19 AM
[b]Remember how you felt when your dream girl shot you down?[/b] Well now you never have to feel that way again! [b][url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Pheromones[/url][/b] have been proven to work, and are guaranted to increase your attractiveness to women of all ages. Just look at some of the testimonials we have received back from 100% satisfied repeat customers! :
[i]"I've always had a problem approaching girls. They would just walk past me like I didn't exist. I sometimes felt like they purposely would not give me any attention just because they were snobby and stuck up. Now, when I use [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure Pheromones[/url], it's alot easier to approach girls because THEY are usually the ones that will smile at me first or make eye contact."
[b]Robert K, Boise Idaho[/b][/i]
[i]"I saw you guys offered a moneyback guarantee, so I though I would give it a go(I had nothing to lose). Well how glad am I that I did! My first night out with a little [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure[/url] on me I had 4 different girls ask me what I was wearing and what I was doing later(I met up with the hottest of the 4 ;) ) Now I don't even leave the house without throwing on a few dabs of Ultra Allure- its my (not so) secret weapon! I can honestly say this product truly works, women are really drawn to you once they catch a little bit of the scent."
[b]Brad M. Kentucky[/b][/i]
Don't be left out! Pheromones have been studied extensively and profiled on such media outlets as CNN, Oprah Winfrey show, ABC, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, and magazines such as MAXIM, FHM and PLAYBOY!
[b][url=http://seemoco.info/r/]Visit our website now to check out the huge discount sale going on right now! Hurry though as discount specials will be discontinued within the next few days![/url][/b]
Posted by: Kaseron at May 31, 2007 9:21:29 PM
[b]Remember how you felt when your dream girl shot you down?[/b] Well now you never have to feel that way again! [b][url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Pheromones[/url][/b] have been proven to work, and are guaranted to increase your attractiveness to women of all ages. Just look at some of the testimonials we have received back from 100% satisfied repeat customers! :
[i]"I've always had a problem approaching girls. They would just walk past me like I didn't exist. I sometimes felt like they purposely would not give me any attention just because they were snobby and stuck up. Now, when I use [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure Pheromones[/url], it's alot easier to approach girls because THEY are usually the ones that will smile at me first or make eye contact."
[b]Robert K, Boise Idaho[/b][/i]
[i]"I saw you guys offered a moneyback guarantee, so I though I would give it a go(I had nothing to lose). Well how glad am I that I did! My first night out with a little [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure[/url] on me I had 4 different girls ask me what I was wearing and what I was doing later(I met up with the hottest of the 4 ;) ) Now I don't even leave the house without throwing on a few dabs of Ultra Allure- its my (not so) secret weapon! I can honestly say this product truly works, women are really drawn to you once they catch a little bit of the scent."
[b]Brad M. Kentucky[/b][/i]
Don't be left out! Pheromones have been studied extensively and profiled on such media outlets as CNN, Oprah Winfrey show, ABC, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, and magazines such as MAXIM, FHM and PLAYBOY!
[b][url=http://seemoco.info/r/]Visit our website now to check out the huge discount sale going on right now! Hurry though as discount specials will be discontinued within the next few days![/url][/b]
Posted by: Kaseron at May 31, 2007 9:22:04 PM
[b]Remember how you felt when your dream girl shot you down?[/b] Well now you never have to feel that way again! [b][url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Pheromones[/url][/b] have been proven to work, and are guaranted to increase your attractiveness to women of all ages. Just look at some of the testimonials we have received back from 100% satisfied repeat customers! :
[i]"I've always had a problem approaching girls. They would just walk past me like I didn't exist. I sometimes felt like they purposely would not give me any attention just because they were snobby and stuck up. Now, when I use [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure Pheromones[/url], it's alot easier to approach girls because THEY are usually the ones that will smile at me first or make eye contact."
[b]Robert K, Boise Idaho[/b][/i]
[i]"I saw you guys offered a moneyback guarantee, so I though I would give it a go(I had nothing to lose). Well how glad am I that I did! My first night out with a little [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure[/url] on me I had 4 different girls ask me what I was wearing and what I was doing later(I met up with the hottest of the 4 ;) ) Now I don't even leave the house without throwing on a few dabs of Ultra Allure- its my (not so) secret weapon! I can honestly say this product truly works, women are really drawn to you once they catch a little bit of the scent."
[b]Brad M. Kentucky[/b][/i]
Don't be left out! Pheromones have been studied extensively and profiled on such media outlets as CNN, Oprah Winfrey show, ABC, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, and magazines such as MAXIM, FHM and PLAYBOY!
[b][url=http://seemoco.info/r/]Visit our website now to check out the huge discount sale going on right now! Hurry though as discount specials will be discontinued within the next few days![/url][/b]
Posted by: Kaseron at May 31, 2007 9:22:39 PM
[b]Remember how you felt when your dream girl shot you down?[/b] Well now you never have to feel that way again! [b][url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Pheromones[/url][/b] have been proven to work, and are guaranted to increase your attractiveness to women of all ages. Just look at some of the testimonials we have received back from 100% satisfied repeat customers! :
[i]"I've always had a problem approaching girls. They would just walk past me like I didn't exist. I sometimes felt like they purposely would not give me any attention just because they were snobby and stuck up. Now, when I use [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure Pheromones[/url], it's alot easier to approach girls because THEY are usually the ones that will smile at me first or make eye contact."
[b]Robert K, Boise Idaho[/b][/i]
[i]"I saw you guys offered a moneyback guarantee, so I though I would give it a go(I had nothing to lose). Well how glad am I that I did! My first night out with a little [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure[/url] on me I had 4 different girls ask me what I was wearing and what I was doing later(I met up with the hottest of the 4 ;) ) Now I don't even leave the house without throwing on a few dabs of Ultra Allure- its my (not so) secret weapon! I can honestly say this product truly works, women are really drawn to you once they catch a little bit of the scent."
[b]Brad M. Kentucky[/b][/i]
Don't be left out! Pheromones have been studied extensively and profiled on such media outlets as CNN, Oprah Winfrey show, ABC, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, and magazines such as MAXIM, FHM and PLAYBOY!
[b][url=http://seemoco.info/r/]Visit our website now to check out the huge discount sale going on right now! Hurry though as discount specials will be discontinued within the next few days![/url][/b]
Posted by: Kaseron at May 31, 2007 9:23:08 PM
[b]Remember how you felt when your dream girl shot you down?[/b] Well now you never have to feel that way again! [b][url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Pheromones[/url][/b] have been proven to work, and are guaranted to increase your attractiveness to women of all ages. Just look at some of the testimonials we have received back from 100% satisfied repeat customers! :
[i]"I've always had a problem approaching girls. They would just walk past me like I didn't exist. I sometimes felt like they purposely would not give me any attention just because they were snobby and stuck up. Now, when I use [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure Pheromones[/url], it's alot easier to approach girls because THEY are usually the ones that will smile at me first or make eye contact."
[b]Robert K, Boise Idaho[/b][/i]
[i]"I saw you guys offered a moneyback guarantee, so I though I would give it a go(I had nothing to lose). Well how glad am I that I did! My first night out with a little [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure[/url] on me I had 4 different girls ask me what I was wearing and what I was doing later(I met up with the hottest of the 4 ;) ) Now I don't even leave the house without throwing on a few dabs of Ultra Allure- its my (not so) secret weapon! I can honestly say this product truly works, women are really drawn to you once they catch a little bit of the scent."
[b]Brad M. Kentucky[/b][/i]
Don't be left out! Pheromones have been studied extensively and profiled on such media outlets as CNN, Oprah Winfrey show, ABC, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, and magazines such as MAXIM, FHM and PLAYBOY!
[b][url=http://seemoco.info/r/]Visit our website now to check out the huge discount sale going on right now! Hurry though as discount specials will be discontinued within the next few days![/url][/b]
Posted by: Kaseron at May 31, 2007 9:23:30 PM
[b]Remember how you felt when your dream girl shot you down?[/b] Well now you never have to feel that way again! [b][url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Pheromones[/url][/b] have been proven to work, and are guaranted to increase your attractiveness to women of all ages. Just look at some of the testimonials we have received back from 100% satisfied repeat customers! :
[i]"I've always had a problem approaching girls. They would just walk past me like I didn't exist. I sometimes felt like they purposely would not give me any attention just because they were snobby and stuck up. Now, when I use [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure Pheromones[/url], it's alot easier to approach girls because THEY are usually the ones that will smile at me first or make eye contact."
[b]Robert K, Boise Idaho[/b][/i]
[i]"I saw you guys offered a moneyback guarantee, so I though I would give it a go(I had nothing to lose). Well how glad am I that I did! My first night out with a little [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure[/url] on me I had 4 different girls ask me what I was wearing and what I was doing later(I met up with the hottest of the 4 ;) ) Now I don't even leave the house without throwing on a few dabs of Ultra Allure- its my (not so) secret weapon! I can honestly say this product truly works, women are really drawn to you once they catch a little bit of the scent."
[b]Brad M. Kentucky[/b][/i]
Don't be left out! Pheromones have been studied extensively and profiled on such media outlets as CNN, Oprah Winfrey show, ABC, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, and magazines such as MAXIM, FHM and PLAYBOY!
[b][url=http://seemoco.info/r/]Visit our website now to check out the huge discount sale going on right now! Hurry though as discount specials will be discontinued within the next few days![/url][/b]
Posted by: Kaseron at May 31, 2007 9:23:58 PM
[b]Remember how you felt when your dream girl shot you down?[/b] Well now you never have to feel that way again! [b][url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Pheromones[/url][/b] have been proven to work, and are guaranted to increase your attractiveness to women of all ages. Just look at some of the testimonials we have received back from 100% satisfied repeat customers! :
[i]"I've always had a problem approaching girls. They would just walk past me like I didn't exist. I sometimes felt like they purposely would not give me any attention just because they were snobby and stuck up. Now, when I use [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure Pheromones[/url], it's alot easier to approach girls because THEY are usually the ones that will smile at me first or make eye contact."
[b]Robert K, Boise Idaho[/b][/i]
[i]"I saw you guys offered a moneyback guarantee, so I though I would give it a go(I had nothing to lose). Well how glad am I that I did! My first night out with a little [url=http://seemoco.info/e/?page=pheromones]Ultra Allure[/url] on me I had 4 different girls ask me what I was wearing and what I was doing later(I met up with the hottest of the 4 ;) ) Now I don't even leave the house without throwing on a few dabs of Ultra Allure- its my (not so) secret weapon! I can honestly say this product truly works, women are really drawn to you once they catch a little bit of the scent."
[b]Brad M. Kentucky[/b][/i]
Don't be left out! Pheromones have been studied extensively and profiled on such media outlets as CNN, Oprah Winfrey show, ABC, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, and magazines such as MAXIM, FHM and PLAYBOY!
[b][url=http://seemoco.info/r/]Visit our website now to check out the huge discount sale going on right now! Hurry though as discount specials will be discontinued within the next few days![/url][/b]
Posted by: Kaseron at May 31, 2007 9:24:41 PM
Greetings...
First, I would have to say that trust is not diminished between the players and the GM if the GM is known fudge rolls. Now, if you have a particular player who is constantly wondering if the GM is fudging this roll, that roll, and letting it consume their thoughts and not letting them enjoy the game. Well, I would say that there is a problem there.
However, trust is built between the GM and the players when the GM is able to construct a fun-filled engaging game where it is shown that he's not on a personal power trip, nor out to kill the party for the sake of his enjoyment - and to the detriment of the players. I have run games where my players thought they were some of my best, despite the fact that I didn't pick up any of the dice. The flow of the game was so natural, and so no one picked up their dice to affect this, or to attempt that... nothing was all that challenging that warranted the need for dice. -- Though, habitually, I roll dice to give the game an element of randomness. "Is this NPC going to be hostile or friendly to the players? Let's see what the dice say..."
Of course, you always have exceptions to the rules. Such as when your playing Paranoia, or Call of Cthulhu. Where the name of the game is to have fun because of the deadliness of the game.
When the GM is able to entertain and engage the players, this builds trust. However, on the other hand. Fudging can be taken to extremes. If the GM is reluctant to put the party in harm's way, or to let a character reap the negative results of a particularly foolish or stupid action; then there is no challenge to the player-characters. This is where trust is diminished between players and game-master. Those low-level adventurers go off to kill the dragon they hear is ravishing the villages a couple of counties over? Despite the fact that the GM has hinted time and time again that even much more experienced knights and wizards have died of their attempts? Well, there is no excuse for stupidity.
But there does need to be clear communication between the players and the GM. A GM who doesn't do anything to illuminate and illustrate the size of challenges within their game, then they have no one else to blame if players misgauge the difficulty of situations.
One of my friends and fellow GMs is firmly on the other side of this argument. That he feels that all rolls should be out in the open, and that what happens is what happens. Personally, I see this more of a way in which a GM challenges his storytelling ability. That when a GM is able to weave a coherent story despite of what the dice and fate may throw at them, then that is a sign of a good GM.
But why do I fudge? Well, let's look at a couple of situations. The party has worked their way through an adventure, come face to face with the big bad guy, and because of a 20 the BBG was able to behead the wizard in the first round. A glorious death. Is there a need to fudge there? I don't think so.
But let's say that 5 or 6 game sessions ago, when the PCs meet each other at that infamous tavern for the first time. The paladin steps off his horse, rolls a balance check, rolls a 1 and fumbles. Breaking his neck and dies even before introducing himselves to the other characters. An empty and meaningless death. What purpose to the story does this have? Does this make the game any better to allow it to happen? I don't think so. Would it be better to just say that the paladin fell face down in the mud in front of the town council, so that by noon the next day everyone within a 10 miles radius has heard the tale of the pompous paladin Olaf the Clumsy.
Certainly having all the rolls out in the open gives a more tense, gripping atmosphere. But with good storytelling those characteristics can be given to any game. I don't see the need to lend tension to the game by telling the players that they have to live with dice results.
Posted by: John 'Imagicka' Blackthorne at Jun 17, 2007 1:45:21 PM
Jessica Cirio erotic photo shoot
[url=http://about-adult.net/kingston/1125932160/1/player.php?m=bW92NC53bXY&id=1237&tpl=8]Sexy video from photo session[/url]
Posted by: SortTore at Jun 30, 2007 3:47:41 PM
This fucking porn star rides some prime cock,
bounces on his sack of rubber balls.
[url=http://about-adult.net/kingston/1125932160/1/player.php?m=bW92NC53bXY&id=1237&tpl=8]WATCH HOT VIDEOS!!![/url]
Posted by: EonjUpl at Jul 3, 2007 8:44:45 PM
[url=http://hometown.aol.com/ReynaSavala8466/1/]Jessica Alba erotic fotos & movies[/url]
*****
[url=http://hometown.aol.com/ReynaSavala8466/1/][img]http://infostore.org/info/418421/Jessica_Alba_000.jpg[/img][/url]
Posted by: Loverbros at Jul 4, 2007 8:34:06 AM
[url=http://hometown.aol.com/ReynaSavala8466/1/]Jessica Alba erotic fotos & movies[/url]
*****
[url=http://hometown.aol.com/ReynaSavala8466/1/][img]http://infostore.org/info/418421/Jessica_Alba_000.jpg[/img][/url]
Posted by: Loverbroser at Jul 4, 2007 11:36:32 AM
Hi!
Free GIRLS ONLINE. Free pics and video!!!!
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/braces-cute-girl.html] braces cute girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/braless-girl-school.html] braless girl school [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/braless-school-girls.html] braless school girls [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/brazil-farting-girl.html] brazil farting girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/brazilian-farting-girl.html] brazilian farting girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/brazilian-girl.html] brazilian girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/breast-girl-pubescent.html] breast girl pubescent [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/brisbane-girl-grammar-school.html] brisbane girl grammar school [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/brisbane-girls-nude.html] brisbane girls nude [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/brisbane-grammar-school-girls.html] brisbane grammar school girls [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/british-indian-girls-nude-on-youtube.html] british indian girls nude on youtube [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/brown-girl-little-shirt-t.html] brown girl little shirt t [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/bubble-from-the-powerpuff-girl.html] bubble from the powerpuff girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/budapest-nightlife-girls.html] budapest nightlife girls [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/bunny-girls-psp-tubes.html] bunny girls psp tubes [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/bunny-ranch-girl.html] bunny ranch girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/bunny-ranch-girls.html] bunny ranch girls [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/busty-girl-thailand.html] busty girl thailand [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/butt-cute-girl.html] butt cute girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/call-girl-thailand.html] call girl thailand [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cam-cute-girl.html] cam cute girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cam-cute-girl-web.html] cam cute girl web [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cam-girl.html] cam girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cam-girl-horney.html] cam girl horney [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cam-girl-masturbate-web.html] cam girl masturbate web [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cam-girl-shitting-web.html] cam girl shitting web [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-bar-girl.html] cambodian bar girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-bar-girls.html] cambodian bar girls [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-found-girl.html] cambodian found girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-found-girl-in-jungle.html] cambodian found girl in jungle [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-found-girl-jungle.html] cambodian found girl jungle [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-girl.html] cambodian girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-girl-in-jungle.html] cambodian girl in jungle [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-girl-in-jungle-lost.html] cambodian girl in jungle lost [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-girl-jungle.html] cambodian girl jungle [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-girl-jungle-photo.html] cambodian girl jungle photo [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-girl-jungle-picture.html] cambodian girl jungle picture [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-girl-jungle-video.html] cambodian girl jungle video [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-girl-lost.html] cambodian girl lost [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-girl-missing.html] cambodian girl missing [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-girl-wild.html] cambodian girl wild [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-girls.html] cambodian girls [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-pic-of-girl.html] cambodian pic of girl [/URL]
[URL=http://spacelayout.hut2.ru/cambodian-webcam-girls.html] cambodian webcam girls [/URL]
Posted by: HotGirlonline at Jul 5, 2007 3:12:14 PM
Seems Paris is enjoying it
[url=http://porno-scan.net/emm/771837900/1/player.php?m=Nl8yX2Uud212&id=1237&tpl=8]Look new video[/url]
Posted by: FonjYipl at Jul 13, 2007 3:18:39 AM
[url=http://satellitepc.tripod.com/satellites-tv.html]SATELLITE TV[/url] for PC 2007 ELITE EDITION.
[url=http://sattv.freehostia.com/adult-free-satellite-tv.html]The Elite Edition includes over 3000 STATIONS![/url]
Posted by: SatlitPccccs at Jul 13, 2007 3:32:12 AM
[url=http://hometown.aol.com/ReynaSavala8466/]Jessica Alba erotic fotos & movies[/url]
*****
[url=http://hometown.aol.com/ReynaSavala8466/][img]http://infostore.org/info/418421/Jessica_Alba_000.jpg[/img][/url]
Posted by: LoverbrosGgg at Jul 13, 2007 8:47:08 AM
Pam and the Miller Lite hotties have a little pillow fight.
[url=http://porno-scan.net/emm/771837900/1/player.php?m=Nl8yX2Uud212&id=1237&tpl=8]Look hot video[/url]
Posted by: SonjNipl at Jul 13, 2007 12:30:22 PM
Ultram Only $0.88
Tramadol is an effective pain reliever (analgesic). Its mode of action resembles that of narcotics, but it has significantly less potential for abuse and addiction than the narcotics.
Tramadol is as effective as narcotics in relieving pain but does n... $25, No Rx Reg'd
BEST Price for TRAMADOL VIAGRA VALIUM PHENTERMINE XENICAL
[url=http://tramadolnew.hut2.ru]TRAMADOL[/url]
http://viagraultram.hut2.ru
http://analvideos.hut2.ru
[url=http://xanax.hut2.ru]XANAX[/url]
http://valium.hut2.ru
[url=http://porno.hut2.ru]XXX[/url]
http://hotvideo.hut2.ru
Posted by: ultramDoctoo at Jul 13, 2007 3:26:25 PM
I am a retired [url=http://www.freewebs.com/topsearched/turbotax]S[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topsearched/taxrefunds]e[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topsearched/irsform]p[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topsearched/irsforms]t[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topsearched/irstaxforms]u[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topsearched/irsextension]a[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topsearched/irsrefunds]g[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topsearched/irsgov]e[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topsearched/taxacc]n[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topsearched/ttaxonline]a[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/findbest/1040taxform]r[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/findbest/taxfiling]i[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/findbest/taxdeduction]a[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/findbest/freeturbotax]n[/url] from [url=http://www.freewebs.com/findbest/taxlien]I[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/findbest/freetaxprep]n[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/findbest/freecredscore]d[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/findbest/nfcu]i[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/findbest/securedcards]a[/url] interested in all that happens around me. By chance I stepped into www.20by20room.com site and joined today. I find the www.20by20room.com different from others and seems to be user friendly. Perhaps I may be in a better position to pass comments after going though the [url=http://www.freewebs.com/findbest/securedcard]C[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/bestguide07/loans]o[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/bestguide07/report]m[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/bestguide07/creditscores]m[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/bestguide07/discover]u[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/bestguide07/fiancee]n[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/bestguide07/accdegree]i[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/bestguide07/colledge]t[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/bestguide07/onlndegree]y[/url] [url=http://www.freewebs.com/bestguide07/degreeprogram]P[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/bestguide07/paydayloans]o[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topguides/nofaxloans]r[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topguides/mba]t[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topguides/mlm]a[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topguides/fidelity401k]l[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topguides/fidelity]s[/url] and the [url=http://www.freewebs.com/topguides/annuity]F[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topguides/cashadvance]o[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topguides/equity]r[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topguides/forexonline]u[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/topguides/forexbroker]m[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/weboffers/fastloans]s[/url] properly. My knowledge of using a computer is just Zero or at basic level! But my enthusiasm in acquiring knowledge compels me to delve into subjects that I do not know. My motto in life is "[url=http://www.freewebs.com/weboffers/rollover401k]S[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/weboffers/currency]a[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/weboffers/geico]p[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/weboffers/forextrading]e[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/weboffers/distancemba]r[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/weboffers/fico]e[/url] [url=http://www.freewebs.com/weboffers/bankruptcy]A[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/weboffers/grants]u[/url][url=http://www.freewebs.com/weboffers/grantsgov]d[/url]e" in Latin meaning "Dare to be wise". I believe in Love towards all living beings in the borderless World.
Brahmanyan.
Posted by: Brahmanyan at Jul 15, 2007 8:39:09 PM
Every day, thousands of would-be marketers scour the internet
looking for any and every affiliate program, sign up, sit back
and wait for the money to pour in and get frustrated just as
fast when the bank balance still shows a big, fat ZERO!
[url=http://flashnews.awardspace.co.uk/index.html]Affiliate programs[/url]
[url=http://flashnews.awardspace.co.uk/index1.html]Best affiliate programs[/url]
[url=http://flashnews.awardspace.co.uk/index2.html]Affiliate at Deal Team[/url]
There are tons of guru's floating around and even more eBooks
and articles claiming to know the latest and greatest trick to
make tons of money with no effort at all (oh and of course,
unless you use their method then you will never, ever get
anywhere in your online business and stay broke the rest of
your life). We've all seen these before.
[url=http://flashnews.awardspace.co.uk/index3.html]Free online Money Making Website[/url]
[url=http://flashnews.awardspace.co.uk/index4.html]Make money before oppening the wallet[/url]
[url=http://flashnews.awardspace.co.uk/index5.html]Affiliate Money Tree[/url]
Let's get real for a moment.
If you don't put any effort into your marketing and don't
spread the word of whatever you are marketing, then you will
get exactly that much out of your effort.
Zero effort = Zero results!
[url=http://flashnews.awardspace.co.uk/index6.html]10 affiliate program top[/url]
[url=http://flashnews.awardspace.co.uk/index7.html]Affiliate program guide[/url]
[url=http://flashnews.awardspace.co.uk/index8.html]Top sites for affiliate[/url]
I hope that's plain enough and now let's have a look at the
sensible way to market your affiliate programs, so you can
actually earn some of that Internet-Money-Pie (and it's yummy
too).
[url=http://flashnews.awardspace.co.uk/index9.html]Earn money now[/url]
[url=http://flashnews.awardspace.co.uk/index10.html]Easy ways to make money[/url]
[url=http://flashnews.awardspace.co.uk/index11.html]Affiliate marketing[/url]
Posted by: Duroshutuathe at Jul 17, 2007 2:02:06 PM
[url=http://topvidsonline.com/movies/bdsm/index.php?id=991]Amateur kinky S&M sex video surfaced on the Net[/url],
featuring a 19-year-old Cameron. It involves her dressing up all in leather with her
perky tits exposed. She also has to get her nipples hard using an air gun.
She then dominates some other big guys, before doing some sexy little dances with
the other people who are being filmed.
Posted by: AssinnW at Jul 22, 2007 9:33:47 PM
Sky News is joining the Jalipo online marketplace. The 24-hour news channel is being made available in three different quality streams.
Sky News head John Ryley said that it was appropriate for the channel to appear on Jalipo given its continued innovation. “Sky News’ ambition is to make breaking news available through as many routes as possible, recognising the changing habits of consumers everywhere. This trial will allow us to understand how we can deliver that across Europe, alongside our strong television audience.”
Viewers to Jalipo purchase so-called J Credits that allow them to watch as much or as little of the channels they are presented with. Already Euronews, Al Jazeera English, Bloomberg, Deutsche Welle, France 24 and Phoenix CNE are available under Jalipo’s news [url=http://videoromantic.biz/free-porno-xxx/free-xxx-porn-preview.html]adult tv stations[/url] section.
Posted by: #gennick[LAXLLLLASALX] at Jul 26, 2007 10:22:18 AM
Consumers using online [url=http://buy-carisoprodol.connect.to]buy carisoprodol[/url] pharmacies can greatly benefit by visiting and joining [url=http://buy-cialis.i.am]buy cialis[/url] in on a forum discussing any particular online pharmacy [url=http://buy-fioricet.snap.to]buy fioricet[/url] that they have had experience with or any online pharmacy they are considering buying products from. Consumers can be informed, discover the advantages and the disadvantages of the [url=http://buy-acyclovir.connect.to]buy acyclovir online[/url]
online pharmacies listed on the discussion forum and also find out things to watch out for when dealing with certain online pharmacies. Vital information on an online pharmacy can be quickly gathered from a forum and be extremely helpful and useful to consumers[url=http://buy-hydrocodone.hp.ms]buy hydrocodone[/url] looking to buy a certain medication online.
[url]http://dorblya.netfirms.com/karta.html[/url]
Some helpful informational[url=http://buy-levitra.zip.to]buy levitra[/url] forum discussion topics on an online [url=http://buy-meridia.all.at]buy meridia[/url]pharmacy are:
- [url=http://buy-acyclovir.connect.to]buy acyclovir online[/url]
- Prices of the medications sold at the online pharmacy
- [url=http://buy-acyclovir.connect.to]buy acyclovir[/url]
- The ordering process and ordering requirements of the online pharmacy
- [url=http://buy-carisoprodol.connect.to]buy carisoprodol[/url]