benlehman

Well, first I'd say you're right - ignoring the rules whenever it suits the GM is generally a bad thing.

However, if one of the the rules of the game is 'the GM controls random factors', then there is no problem. Now, if a GM did this to me in D&D I'd be pissed. If they did it to me in Amber, I'd accept it. It depends on the common, shared framework of the game, and that's a social contract between players and GM.

In the Amber example I cited above, I'd say it was merely the game working as intended - as more information became available to both actors (GM and player) the outcome changed from the GM's initial 'first pass' resolution. It gained granularity (and, indeed, the outcome was different that even the GM expected) thanks to the actions of the player.

Further, I'd argue that the best games are not those that are limited by the rules. Otherwise we should all just roll 1d6 'to win' at the start of each campaign, and be done with it - after all, if all decisions of any worth are to be systematically decided, then it stands to reason that the entire outcome of the campaign can be so condensed to a simple dice roll. Best get that out of the way now so we can use those Sunday afternoons for something more productive.

If, however, the purpose of the rules are to guide and aid (but not control) the game - to help the story, not confine it, then yes - sometimes it's in the best interest of both GM and players for the GM to 'fudge' the rolls. In that sense, hidden information makes it easier to get away with undesirable outcomes produced by the rules. After all, it may not be apparent to all the actors *why*, exactly, they will have more fun if that natural 20 didn't hit the Overfiend.