a matter of trust... some reflections.


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, in that case, it was also so early on that they would've gotten to roll a few skill checks, initiative and do nothing else. It wouldn't've actually been a "try out PFS" scenario. However, I bet I could've found a seat for them at another table that was just starting, haha.

As far as trust and the original topic goes: I trust but verify. I try to catch players doing things right. Last weekend, I asked a player that I know would be right to give me a breakdown of his super-high will save. It was a moment where I reinforced at the table that 1) I do check (so it doesn't become a "well, I'll never get caught...") and 2) that the player can show off some of his system mastery. It's not antagonistic. I find that people like showing off their boon sheets (I'm super proud to pull out my GenCon boons and talk a little about my experience/how I died a little doing 8 unique scenarios in 8 slots). It also makes it easier to handle when it is a "woah, how'd you get that" moment at the table.

As far as GMs go: I trust the GM. Period. If I really think it's off, I'll ask after the game, but I don't want the GM to have to spoil something cool about the scenario/the monster's ability. In the end, I'm lucky because I have plenty of characters I can pull out if/when someone dies. The only real issue I ever had with a GM was when one of the GMs set up characters in an electronic initiative tracker and used the tracker to roll init for us. I just really like rolling dice, and taking that away from me was disappointing. I also recognize that this is silly, but there's a reason I play characters where I get to roll plenty of dice, and I'm pretty sure that's a big reason why I like GMing so much. Getting to grab a fistful of d20s and roll feels good to me.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

nosig wrote:

depends a lot on the player too though.

Some of them will take it as a challenge... where as if they realize (sometimes even later) that you "soft-balled it" they can feel a little cheated. Seen that too.

If you feel the need to "soft-ball" something, try really hard to make it impossible to see...

If I realize a GM soft-balled an encounter that should have been tougher, I feel disappointed. If I realize a GM made an encounter more challenging than it was supposed to be, and we lost/died because of it, I am PO'd.

I'd rather be disappointed.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
A "fudged" die roll has never increased my enjoyment of the game.

Or perhaps you weren't even aware it happened? I posit that it can certainly improve the game, but I think this is a fundamental difference of how people approach and view the game. I don't think proponents on either side are going to be swayed.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

nosig wrote:
try really hard to make it impossible to see...

Like maybe by using a GM screen? Hmmm...

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
nosig wrote:
try really hard to make it impossible to see...
Like maybe by using a GM screen? Hmmm...

nah. often using a screen (in PFS) just means the players wont believe the rolls no matter what they are. Where as if you roll in the open - and get:

1) 3 natural 20s and an 18 on an attack (rolled 4 dice at once)
2) 4 natural 1s in a row
3) the 7th save in a row that EXACTLY made the DC.
4) or something else hard to believe
everyone SAW it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guess I just have more trust in my GM than most

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Guess I just have more trust in my GM than most

???

I am the guy that said "if someone really feels the need to "roll behind the screen" so that they can ensure the outcome, why roll at all? Just pick whatever is best for "the sake of story"."

if the Judge feels the need for (insert outcome) to happen for "the sake of story" - I trust them. Just tell me what happens. Tell me the story. Why roll a dice and then lie about it? I don't understand this.

If there is no need for a certain outcome to happen, then why the need to conceal the roll? What does it do? Besides put a barrier between the judge and the players?

edit: in the interest of full disclosure - I learned to play RPGs back in the 70s, so I may even predate DM screens.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

nosig wrote:


if the Judge feels the need for (insert outcome) to happen for "the sake of story" - I trust them. Just tell me what happens. Tell me the story. Why roll a dice and then lie about it? I don't understand this.

Following is more for home games than PFS but does also occur in PFS.

Especially as a GM I am a firm believer in the "Roll dice first, think about things second" style. I find that it speeds up the game a lot. So, if a player makes a convincing argument and then rolls diplomacy I'll look at the result first before deciding what Circumstance Bonus I'm giving. Most of the time it either succeeds or fails regardless.

Similarly, sometimes I think that something is almost certain to succeed or fail but I have the player roll the dice. They roll really high or really low and THEN I think about whether or not it actually COULD succeed or fail.

So, sometimes the player rolls the dice and it turns out to have been unnecessary. But I only went through the thought process that convinced me the roll was unnecessary when I needed to.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:


if the Judge feels the need for (insert outcome) to happen for "the sake of story" - I trust them. Just tell me what happens. Tell me the story. Why roll a dice and then lie about it? I don't understand this.

Because it can create the illusion of control. Illusions are an important part of storytelling. The problems come when the players see through the illusion.

Quote:
edit: in the interest of full disclosure - I learned to play RPGs back in the 70s, so I may even predate DM screens.

DM Screens? I predate dice!

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Guess I just have more trust in my GM than most

There is a difference here between home games and organized play. In a home game, the GM gets to know the players and their characters and learns what they are and aren't capable of. Likewise, the players learn the ways of the GM. Trust comes two-fold in such situations: reliability & predictability. In organized play, we will likely rely on the GM to try to do an honest & fair job, but if the players and GMs are unfamiliar with one another, we cannot trust the predictability as we don't know what it will be. In the previous example where the GM added monsters to increase the difficulty of an encounter which resulted in a TPF, the GM failed to estimate the correct difficulty level because he did not have enough experience with the players and their characters to accurately access their strength.

Silver Crusade 3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I don't think proponents on either side are going to be swayed.

I want to be swayed.

Please explain to me how fudging dice improves the game for me.

As far as I can tell, the situations where you would fudge would come in four flavors:

    1. Changing my success to a failure;
    2. Changing my failure to a success;
    3. Changing an enemy success to a failure;
    4. Changing an enemy failure to a success.

I don't see how any of those changes improve the game. But I'm willing to listen. So please explain it to me.

You're right that I might not always know when a die roll is being fudged, but sometimes I do. And it is upsetting. If a player fudges his dice, I consider that cheating.

Story Time:
I once had a GM who began the game rolling in the open. In the first encounter, we faced off against a Medium spider. I won the initiative and cast blindness on it. The GM rolled a natural "19" for a total of 21 for his Will save. The DC was 22.

The GM said, "What?!? How many times per day can you do that?"

I told him that I had prepared 4 of those for the day.

So he grabbed his GM screen and started rolling all of his dice rolls behind it. For the rest of the game, every attack against me hit, and the next 3 castings of my blindness spell were saved against.

Not a very fun game.

Now, when a GM is rolling behind a screen, I just assume that he is fudging his dice. I guess that means that I don't trust those GMs. *shrug* Oh well, I figure they don't trust me as a player either, so it's kind of a wash.

The Exchange 3/5

I don't change rolls unless it is for brand new players (that Trial by Machine game was brutal) but I can understand people who only hide the rolls to prevent the party from gaining metagame knowledge on the enemy's saves, hit bonuses, etc. In fact I would prefer GMs don't take liberties to change the scenarios to make it more difficult so that Paizo might consider actually making the games more difficult in the first place.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:
I don't change rolls unless it is for brand new players (that Trial by Machine game was brutal)

It's even written in the guide to fudge things in the case of new players! :) (Some verbiage I definitely agree with)

The Fox:
Small quibble. Blindness is a fort save, not will save. :)

Grand Lodge 5/5

I don't often hide rolls, but there are certain situations where I absolutely will. I recently had a run of Thornkeep go off that originally had 6 players of various levels that made for a pretty good party composition set up - mostly for the benefit of 1 player. Due to real life issues the run ended up going off with 3 and a pregen. There was some definite soft-balling when I realized how much this party really needed the help of the other 3 players that were supposed to be there. (Not to mention nearly killing the pre-gen round 1 of the first combat with a bow crit - followed by a second bow crit in the 3rd round.)

As a side note - I don't use a GM screen despite owning one.

Dark Archive 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
If sometimes I have to "fudge" the dice, I would hope [players] know I am doing it to increase their enjoyment of the game to improve the experience. If not, then perhaps I have lost touch with what the game is all about and it has evolved past this old grognard.

A "fudged" die roll has never increased my enjoyment of the game. When a die is "fudged," whether in my favor or against, I feel like I'm on the GM Storytime Train. Choo choo!

I'm sure that the vast majority of GMs who "fudge" dice have the noblest of intentions.

The road to hell..., and all that.

I guess it all comes down to how you view roleplaying and the job of the gamemaster. I view it as cooperative storytelling. We're all here to tell a story of high adventure and epic fantasy. Of noble heroes, and vile villains. The rules help give structure and decide the results. But at the end of the day, telling the story trumps the rules.

as a player, I expect my character to be in real danger. But I also expect there to be an honest chance to win out in the end. As the GM, I try to put the players in real danger of failing while still giving them a good chance at succeeding. Not a 100% chance, but better then 50/50. I'm not a fan of "there's nothing you can do" situations. And there's nothing fun about going from full to "dead" simply because the die came up 20.

That's why I have fudged dice in the player's favor in the past. Once when GMing a superhero game the party got excessively lucky and had nearly killed the villain of the adventure. Since they were suppose to be heroes, who all had moral codes that said they are against killing (not that several of them were RPing that) I ended up fudging some capabilities of the badguy's power armor. Not much, I just added single use rocket boots (not much fuel) and glider wings. Then had the badguy try tricking them into thinking his suit is atomic powered and about to have a meltdown. He then flew away when the strong guy tossed him high into the air. A trick that wouldn't work twice.

The point I'm trying to make is that fudging dice (as a GM) isn't always a bad thing. Doing so because of an "me vs them" mentality? Yeah, that's bad. Doing so because you feel the need to 'win', also bad. But doing so to enhance the story being created? That can sometimes be a good thing.

Of course sometimes you just accept that the potentially nasty badguy rolled a 1 on their will save and fell asleep :)

And sometimes the bard to cast Otto's Irresistible Dance on the vampire lord... gets pulled into a waltz, much to the amusement of the party.

Dark Archive 1/5

nosig wrote:

depends a lot on the player too though.

Some of them will take it as a challenge... where as if they realize (sometimes even later) that you "soft-balled it" they can feel a little cheated. Seen that too.

If you feel the need to "soft-ball" something, try really hard to make it impossible to see...

Hence why I've been a fan of (smaller) GM screens.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

I switch back and forth between rolling behind my laptop screen and rolling in the open. Typically as a battle goes along, I 'open up' the die rolls- -to represent being able to judge a little about the enemy you're fighting.

If it's something particularly important/life-threatening/dramatic, I try to put the die in the center of the table so that everyone can celebrate/lament at the same time.

The synchronous cheer as the enemy natural 1s a big save (or an attack that would kill a PC, say) turns every head in the store (or the nearby tables at a convention).


While I hide some dice rolls most time my players see the roll. I in fact have a set for when I'm a GM. Being blue I refer to them as Blue for bad guys dice. I started using them after I rolled three twenties in a row. Everyone saw them so no one could cry foul. They also roll well below ten the other half of the time. So if I say 20 then I got you they don't dispute it because they saw it. They are not happy I got a crit against them but they don't challenge the roll.
When I do roll without them seeing no one calls me on it since they know I'm pretty honest and am not out to cheat them. If I have a GM's screen out it's for the tables on it not to hide anything.
Now I do in some encounters stack the deck if you will in my favor. Max HPs maybe add an advanced template or rearrange their spells. In some cases it is too much and I pull punches then apologize after the encounter. Most times after the fight they might ask what I did no one upset for making the encounter tough.
In some encounters I will kill a monster that isn't quite dead. In those cases we say it had cancer a common saying me and two other GMs share.

5/5

Kahel Stormbender wrote:
And sometimes the bard to cast Otto's Irresistible Dance on the vampire lord... gets pulled into a waltz, much to the amusement of the party.

Vampire lord was not immune to mind affecting?

Dark Archive 1/5

The Fox wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I don't think proponents on either side are going to be swayed.

I want to be swayed.

Please explain to me how fudging dice improves the game for me.

As far as I can tell, the situations where you would fudge would come in four flavors:

    1. Changing my success to a failure;
    2. Changing my failure to a success;
    3. Changing an enemy success to a failure;
    4. Changing an enemy failure to a success.

I don't see how any of those changes improve the game. But I'm willing to listen. So please explain it to me.

You're right that I might not always know when a die roll is being fudged, but sometimes I do. And it is upsetting. If a player fudges his dice, I consider that cheating.

** spoiler omitted **

Now, when a GM is rolling behind a screen, I just assume that he is fudging his dice. I guess that means that I don't trust those GMs. *shrug* Oh well, I figure they don't trust me as a player either, so it's kind of a wash.

This is just an example, but it's similar to something that happened in a game I GMed a few years back.

The party has just tracked down Elric, the Mad Bomber (who bombs at midnight). They've done so because his bombing campaign has been terrorizing the neighboring towns. He's an alchemist/wizard and your notes say that he's set up a summoning circle that will go off at midnight in the middle of a nearby town. This circle will summon twenty fire elementals, and he's filled the warehouse the circle is in with an unstable alchemic compound he devised which explodes violently if it's disturbed or exposed to too much heat.

Earlier in the adventure the party's sorcerer accidentally destroyed the notes on where this warehouse is when she threw a fireball at a rat swarm. This means the only way to get the information the players need to avert Elric's threat to destroy the town of Podunk is to capture him alive and interrogate him. of course they don't know this because the fireball destroyed the evidence before they even knew it was there. As well as notes on the creation of his unstable concoction which would have allowed the party's alchemist to try figuring out how to stabilize it so the explosive compound is inert in 1d6x10 minutes (instead of 1d3 hours)

Problem, the raging barbarian just confirmed a crit with his Large sized scythe while power attacking and using vital strike. He rolled low, but it's still enough to take Elric the Mad Bomber (who bombs at midnight) from full health to -3 past his con.

Do you
A) go with it and have the barbarian instantly kill the only man who can tell the party where the explosives and summoning circle are? This will force them to spend hours searching, and stands of having a good chance they'll fail. And even if they find the warehouse in time, the party's alchemist will take 1d3 hours examining the unstable substance to find a way to neutralize it. They have 5 hours after reaching the town to prevent disaster Your notes say the warehouse's explosion will destroy 2/3 of the town, probably killing the entire party in the process.

or

B) fudge things a little, claiming that Elric is badly hurt, but not quite dead. As a GM decision you put his health at one point away from -con, roll a d20 to create the illusion he might fail to stabilize, and decide regardless of the roll that he stabilized. And maybe add to the 'loot' for that encounter the alchemic notes that previously had unknowingly been destroyed.

Which is better for the story's flow? Which is more likely to upset the players if they realize exactly what happened?

Dark Archive 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
tlotig wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
And sometimes the bard to cast Otto's Irresistible Dance on the vampire lord... gets pulled into a waltz, much to the amusement of the party.
Vampire lord was not immune to mind affecting?

Can you honestly say you can't see a vampire lord who recognized the spell (made the spellcraft check easily) playing along and drawing said bard into a waltz while using his hypnotic powers on the bard? :)

It was a very fun encounter that ended up with the players having a ball. Pun fully intended.

EDIT: Not that anyone in the group knew vampires are immune to mind affecting magics. They asked stuff like "how strong is it" and "can he really turn into bats". Never asked about special defenses or weaknesses.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
I guess it all comes down to how you view roleplaying and the job of the gamemaster. I view it as cooperative storytelling. We're all here to tell a story of high adventure and epic fantasy. Of noble heroes, and vile villains. The rules help give structure and decide the results. But at the end of the day, telling the story trumps the rules.

At least one person "gets" my point. Maybe I'm not as crazy as a thought. ;-)

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
At least one person "gets" my point. Maybe I'm not as crazy as a thought. ;-)

You are actually crazier ;)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
I guess it all comes down to how you view roleplaying and the job of the gamemaster. I view it as cooperative storytelling. We're all here to tell a story of high adventure and epic fantasy. Of noble heroes, and vile villains. The rules help give structure and decide the results. But at the end of the day, telling the story trumps the rules.
At least one person "gets" my point. Maybe I'm not as crazy as a thought. ;-)

This is how I generally see it too.


The Bomber had an extra set of notes on him. The bomber killed was a disguised henchman. Contingency spell. All three require no dice fudging. You can even explain the last two easily enough he is a mad bomber meaning he's crazy not dumb to plan ahead.
Now as far as fudging in this case, no. It seemed the story was already suffering from problems getting worse with him dead. Saying the Barbarian missed wouldn't help at all. The problem I'm seeing here isn't an issue of fudging but the party doing things unexpectedly and doing a rather good job of derailing your adventure. The kicker is they are not trying to. It happens a lot.
The problem is trying to fix things without making it feel forced or cheated. Tell a player he has to go back to the city without knowing why he'll refuse just because. Having a plan B already prepared is a good idea.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

GM 101 has some great ideas on how to handle the key NPC dying.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Derek Dalton wrote:
cancer a common saying me and two other GMs share

That may be okay for your home game, but I caution against such things in a community-based game like PFS. There are a lot of people who live with cancer or someone close to them has it (or has died from it). To them, cancer is not a joke nor should it be said so callously. Just a bit of advice. YMMV


Andrew Christian wrote:
GM 101 has some great ideas on how to handle the key NPC dying.

Where might that be I'd like to read this.


Bob Jonquet wrote:
Derek Dalton wrote:
cancer a common saying me and two other GMs share
That may be okay for your home game, but I caution against such things in a community-based game like PFS. There are a lot of people who live with cancer or someone close to them has it (or has died from it). To them, cancer is not a joke nor should it be said so callously. Just a bit of advice. YMMV

I apologize if I offended you or anyone else. I have lost three very special people to Cancer so no it's not a joking matter with me. We started using that term long before they became sick.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Derek Dalton wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
GM 101 has some great ideas on how to handle the key NPC dying.
Where might that be I'd like to read this.

GM 101 and GM 201.

Dark Archive 1/5

I do generally try to plan ahead when writing an adventure. I think "what could the players do to derail or break this". Then often the players come up with something I never expected. Or they goof and do something I should have expected.

In the 'mad bomber' example, after the fireball consumed the entire room (including desk and bookshelf) the sorcerer did have the guts to say "Oops, I didn't know it would be that big of a blast". Was the character's first fireball spell. Actually, first time the player used that spell too.

Think there's a saying about horses and water. I remember one adventure where I had dozens of clues as to what's going on, all leading to a wizard's tower two days travel from this small hamlet where the BBEG was having his kobold minions kidnap villagers so he could preform horrific experiments. Somehow, and I have no idea how they did this, the players after finding half the clues I laid out for them came to the conclusion of "orc slavers in a hidden base in the sewers".

Never mind that they were in a small village, not a major city. Or that the eyewitness accounts described small reptilian figures heading away from town. Or the fact that, again, small village. THERE WERE NO SEWERS. Hell, the hamlet wasn't even big enough for a local thieves guild. Or having their own blacksmith. Nearest blacksmith was 3 days travel. But they were absolutely convinced it's orc slavers in the sewers.

So I had to create a new dungeon, on the fly, and populate it with orc slavers. And find a way to somehow connect this to the actual adventure so I can get them to the wizard's tower.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trust but verify.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
The Fox wrote:
A "fudged" die roll has never increased my enjoyment of the game.
Or perhaps you weren't even aware it happened? I posit that it can certainly improve the game, but I think this is a fundamental difference of how people approach and view the game. I don't think proponents on either side are going to be swayed.

I hate dice fudging in PFS. I have seen Dms fudge for and against the players. I hate them both when I catch them. If i find out later I will feel the DM cheated for us and we did not honestly win.

As a DM I will never fudge dice rolls. If I have a new player Going toe to toe with a times 3 or 4 crit weapon. I try to warn them. I let them know they are risking a crit doing this. I go to the point and stop the game to make sure they make a choice to accept that risk.

I am cursed with a good memory and will forever remember poor DM ruling or cheating. They usually correlate in my experience.

One of the elements of PFS I enjoy is the challenge of it. Hand waving the challenge by fudging dice or whatnot removes one of the things I enjoy.

Dark Archive 1/5

In PFS, I've not done any dice fudging. And generally try not to do so anyway unless either the story being created by me and the players absolutely requires it for them to even have a slim chance of succeeding or it's the first adventure a group of new players are being ran through.

That said, when my dice are rolling hot and the players just can't get a break, I do tend to apologize for it. Although it can be funny when a lone goblin manages to separate one of the most effective people from the party and seriously beat him/her down due to them chasing said goblin half way around the map.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
we did not...win

Hmmm...

3/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
we did not...win
Hmmm...

Are you questioning one of the many different things I enjoy about the game?

Am I badwrongfun because I enjoy winning/succeeding fairly?

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Different campaign, different situation, party appears hyper-competent, takes down an elite security detail aboard a capital scale vessel that was in one round.

The hold-outs are the bridge technicians, who apparently decided that day was the day they were going to reveal their secret combat training...

The party begged for a 'cease-fire' after the sixth round where they were getting picked off by the 'lowly' technicians...

Sometimes letting the dice fall where they may makes for fun stories. Could I have hand-waved the techs with something about whimpering in a corner begging not to die? Sure. But this was a lot more fun and memorable...

4/5

Personally I trust my players unless something sound funky/fishy. Then I ask them to explain/show me the source.

Just as important, how many players trust the GM to give a good experience and not overly question something once the GM says there is something going on the players do not know about?

Dark Archive 1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
we did not...win
Hmmm...

Are you questioning one of the many different things I enjoy about the game?

Am I badwrongfun because I enjoy winning/succeeding fairly?

Not so much "badwrongfun" as I don't understand why some people consider an RPG something to "win" instead of a more structured way to tell a story. If "winning" is the most important thing to you (the general 'you'), then I may question your motivations for role playing. Winning fairly or dishonestly, if the "winning" part is what's important I personally think someone should reexamine their role playing priorities.

The GM's there to tell a story, not kill the players. Character death can, and at times often does occur. But as I said earlier, sometimes for the GM telling a story should trump the rules. Yes, I realize it's a double standard to say it's okay for the GM to fudge dice rolls while it's cheating for the player to do so. But consider the differing motivations.

When a player fudges dice rolls they're often doing so in order to 'win'. They don't like the low roll they made, so claim they rolled better then they did.

When most GMs fudge a dice roll on the other hand winning isn't even a consideration. Instead it's the GM deciding to tone things down for a story reason. Or maybe to not alienate that brand new roleplayer who's character should be dying in their first game session according to the dice roll.

There's this great foreword I've seen on the first page of a rpg book. "These rules are written on paper, not carved in stone." When you sit down at the table, the GM is well within their rights if they decide not to accept that critical hit they just rolled on a player. If the story being told for some reason needs a specific NPC alive, why are you complaining if the GM decides that instead of being insta-killed they are almost dead, and stabilized?

Now, if the GM is getting confirmed crits on every attack then there may be an issue. But the GM occasionally fudging things to not be too cruel to the players or something that improves the story's narrative, how is this a problem?

For PFS play I'm unlikely to fudge as a GM. But if the players do something incredibly clever, or outrageously weird I may have to. Especially if what the players are doing is so far out of the box that I'm literally having to make it up as I go.

Party I'm running through Crypt of the Everflame decide to cut through the woods instead of staying on the road, then flub the navigation check multiple times? Well, strictly going by the dice rolls I should have them get hopelessly lost. But that's going to break the narrative. So why don't I fudge things a little and let them find their way to the first major landmark after a few hours wandering lost in the woods.

And this would cause you problems?!

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
I don't understand why some people consider an RPG something to "win" instead of a more structured way to tell a story. If "winning" is the most important thing to you (the general 'you'), then I may question your motivations for role playing. Winning fairly or dishonestly, if the "winning" part is what's important I personally think someone should reexamine their role playing priorities.

PFS rewards success and penalizes failure, though. This game isn't just about roleplaying, or storytelling. Characters need to also survive combat, pass skill checks, acquire wealth, and progress their faction.

You're obviously focused more on the story side. That's cool. But recognize that others may be more focused on the competitive side. And of course, some enjoy equal amounts of both.

Dark Archive 1/5

That's the thing Nefreet, PFS isn't the only time success is 'rewarded' and failure is 'penalized'. Actually, failure isn't as big a penalty in PFS as it normally would be. Once you have enough prestige and gold saved up a TPK doesn't mean your character is gone for good.

In a non-PFS adventure the party learns of an Evil or other problem. They travel to the location, (hopefully) investigate, and overcome a series of challenges. These may be role playing skills based challenges, or slogging through a dungeon and fighting those found within. Or a combination of the two. Along the way the party acquires resources from their slain foes and/or as reward for rescuing the princess in disguise from muggers. At the end they defeat the adventurer's BBEG and walk away with treasure.

That's not so different then a PFS session if you think about it. So the chronicle sheet doesn't really set a PFS character above their non-pfs counterpart. Actually, it's possible the PFS character ends up with less loot as a reward. All the PFS character really gets is gold, prestige, and the ability to buy certain items. Maybe a boon. The non-pfs character got gold, actual loot which they can sell for more gold if desired or use to enhance their own capabilities, and their legend (fame/prestige) grows a little.

In the end, Thrug the Fighter in a non-pfs game gets to keep and use that +2 sword of slashy goodness AND get gold. While GurhT the fighter in a pfs game only got some gold (possibly less then Thrug got), then has to buy a replacement for the +2 sword of slashy goodness they found. The sword it's self was given over to their superiors after all.

So it's not that PFS rewards 'winning' and punishes 'losing' more then non-PFS play. It doesn't.

As such, IMO the story being told should be the most important thing.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:


As such, IMO the story being told should be the most important thing.

That's a perfectly valid opinion. But it is just one opinion.

Other equally valid opinions are that the most important thing is the roleplaying, the story is just the backdrop that allows the roleplaying.

Or the combat is the most important thing.

Or the solving of the intellectual puzzles.

Or the in and out of character joking.

Or ....

Dark Archive 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Jackson wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:


As such, IMO the story being told should be the most important thing.

That's a perfectly valid opinion. But it is just one opinion.

Other equally valid opinions are that the most important thing is the roleplaying, the story is just the backdrop that allows the roleplaying.

Or the combat is the most important thing.

Or the solving of the intellectual puzzles.

Or the in and out of character joking.

Or ....

This should be a thread all it's own.

How to finish this sentence "the most important thing is..."

The laughs.
The friends.
The gold.
The Paracountess.
The llama...


Fudging to actually cheating does with some groups cause problems. I alter a rule for the adventure. It might screw the party short term but in the end it doesn't and makes for what I hope to be a great adventure. I run into a rule lawyer the type that does nothing but memorize the rules for their benefit. Even when I try explaining what I'm doing is short term and that in the end it will make sense they don't care. I've even given details of the adventure away to explain to them I'm not screwing them to screw them. They don't care and usually attempt to get the party against me on this. Most of the people I play with are cool if the GM alters something for the campaign.
Altering a die roll in some cases is one thing especially for the story. The GM rolls criticals all the time that's cheating and I'm going to call them on it. I roll in front of my players because of problem players saying they are rolling super hot hitting a monster everytime when they really shouldn't be. Luck is one thing we have all probably have had a hot streak at some point. That is why we roll in front of each other. The trust on this subject with some of our players is gone. A few players could tell me their roll and I'll take them at their word others I want to see that roll. That spoils the game for me and others.
Cheating character in this case a fighter kills the last six monsters without getting hit. Everyone else is getting hammered missing more often then not and having no luck. These are not inexperienced players with bad characters these are people who know the game and character and work as a team. We start to question how is this fighter taking on monsters single handily when it should require a team to take it down. Someone calls for the rolls to be seen. Suddenly the cheater's are not so hot making everyone convinced he cheated. Now the GM and players are all upset even angry. Now GM has to call for everyone's rolls to be seen. He can't afford to trust players he normally would. The cheater's character starts to do badly suddenly he's whining. "My character sucks." By then no one cares except for the fact he's whining.
It's one thing if a GM alters a die roll or rule if it doesn't screw a party completely over and advances the story and in the end it doesn't matter. Trust for a group of players that have been gaming for months and years shouldn't be an issue. You do get bad apples in a group most groups depending on personalities will work to change him or her or in some cases kick him or her out.

Dark Archive 1/5

Agreed Derek. While the GM is within their rights to occasionally fudge the dice and alter rules, it's not something one should do constantly or vindictively. The GM who forced me to roll an excessive amount of skill checks, then disregarded my passing all the DC he gave me caused much anger. Especially after he then disregarded a confirmed crit and had me fall on my face, then told me the AoO my falling on my face triggered was a crit which nearly killed me.

A different GM however who disregarded RAW in favor of a 'rule of cool' decision actually enhanced the game session. By all rights a roundhouse kick from a level 1 monk with 13 strength should not send a horse tumbling down the street six blocks. Even if it is a critical hit with max damage rolled. It was a bloody hilarious event though when a GM ruled that's what happened after I kicked the charging horse in it's head.

Similarly, your half giant character trying to hide behind a sapping that isn't even as wide as your bicep shouldn't be able to pull it off, regardless of how high your stealth roll is. But if you're description of the attempt is amusing enough, I may very well allow you to fool the bad guys you're trying to ambush.

As a player on the other hand, the player isn't within their rights to disregard a rule or roll that isn't in their favor. But in general I trust my players to know this. It takes someone demonstrating they aren't trustworthy for me to not do so. And once trust is lost, it's hard to regain it.

When playing alongside someone in the past they were running classes that I honestly had no clues about. Didn't have the book, couldn't say what their capabilities were. So I trusted their explanations. It was only later after I had access to those rules myself and started tinkering with the classes that I realized something fishy was going on. Which is also when I noticed the person in question rolled rather high routinely, but never let others see their roll.

Again, once trust is lost it's hard to regain. So it's better to be honest.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Role-playing gamers are still 'gamers' and gamers are competitive by nature. However, one of the beauties of TTRPGs is that its open ended nature allows for the individual gamers to decide what constitutes 'winning' for them. Thus it is possible for everyone at the table, including the GM, to 'win' at Pathfinder simultaneously. I realize Pathfinder is supposed to be cooperative game rather than a competitive one, but you can't just ignore human nature.

The Exchange 5/5

we seem to have wondered away from what I was originally wondering about (not that that doesn't happen often on threads).

Do we trust our fellow players? (on both sides of the DM screen). I mean, basically, on a root level, what's our default?

how I mean this question is...

When a game is setting up, and we are sitting down with 4 to 6 relative strangers, do we trust them?

Picture a PFS game at a CON starting up - you look around and the gamer to your right says to the judge (maybe even you) "How do you handle XXXX?". What pops into your mind...

a) What do they mean by that? How can that be twisted into a game breaker in this scenario/group/setting? What're they up to?

b) What do they mean by that? How are they confused by that? How is that not clear? Do they see something I don't?

c) something else? (He/She is cute!)

1/5 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nosig wrote:


c) something else? (He/She is cute!)

You ALWAYS have to watch out for the 'cute' ones. They're the ones that throw a wrench into all your well-built plans.

'Cute':
*notes that the roughest Confirmation run he's had so far was run by a 'cute' GM. They were awesome on mechanics, had appropriate (and rare, imo) figures for all the encounters, and didn't pull punches when the dice went frigid (on both sides of the fence). Despite the rough going, it was the most memorable run of it I've been in so far.

Dark Archive 1/5

nosig wrote:

we seem to have wondered away from what I was originally wondering about (not that that doesn't happen often on threads).

Do we trust our fellow players? (on both sides of the DM screen). I mean, basically, on a root level, what's our default?

how I mean this question is...

When a game is setting up, and we are sitting down with 4 to 6 relative strangers, do we trust them?

Picture a PFS game at a CON starting up - you look around and the gamer to your right says to the judge (maybe even you) "How do you handle XXXX?". What pops into your mind...

a) What do they mean by that? How can that be twisted into a game breaker in this scenario/group/setting? What're they up to?

b) What do they mean by that? How are they confused by that? How is that not clear? Do they see something I don't?

c) something else? (He/She is cute!)

We kinda have digressed. But then most of us have already answered the question. And moved on to WHY do you distrust, and arguing over if it's acceptable for a GM to fudge dice rolls and such in the name of furthering the story and/or not scaring off newbies.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I sit down at a table with the stranger nosig, and they ask:

nosig wrote:
"How do you handle XXXX?"

Depending on the exact question;

a) I get frustrated with this player who is knowingly using grey area mechanics. Using grey area mechanics the requires the GM to arbitrate slows down the game and distracts them from their role in running the scenario for the other players at the table.
b) I get excited to speak to another rules lawyer who can teach me something new.
c) I'm glad they've brought up and discussed a routine item that different groups run different ways. (Eg. "Hey, animal companions are normally on their own initiative, but we have six players at this table. Do you want me to roll it into my own initiative to save time?")
d) I get excited to wax on and on about an obscure rule mechanic that is not common knowledge.

So ya, my default assumption is that the other players I sit down with are honest people and skilled players.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Failure is always an option."

Given that, I have a hard time fudging things one way or the other. I'm not going to force failure on the players by way of fudging, it's dishonest and unnecessary. I'm also not going to mitigate players' failure because if I do, there's not much point in playing in the first place. If it's guaranteed that the players are going to win, one might as well just leave the dice at home and narrate the scenario for them.

There is an exception to this, which is -1's. If a player shows up with their -1 with only a handful of chronicles, I'm probably going to take poor tactical decisions instead of reasonable or strong ones. The dice will still end up the way they land, but maybe the enemies don't take flanks or focus fire or use their special things. Cause you just shouldn't frag new players' characters. But once they've hit six chronicle sheets, I present them with the same challenge I'd present anyone: those contained in the scenario, run to the best of my ability. If they can't overcome those challenges, they don't earn the rewards offered for so doing.

Yes, it's important to tell a story. But the heroes don't always win in stories, and there's an entire genre where the hero always dies in the end. What story are we putting together over the course of a PFS session? That's up to the dice and the players, otherwise they aren't playing a game, they're listening to a guy tell a story.

Do I trust the other people at my table? To a degree, I have to. But there's only one person I trust implicitly and absolutely and she doesn't play PFS.

101 to 150 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / a matter of trust... some reflections. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.