So as to keep this thread on topic, I'm gonna bring part of the discussion here.
Basically, the question of whether or not it was OK to fudge dice (in particular as a DM) was OK. When? How often?
While it's something I generally dislike, I'll admit that I have indeed done it on ocassion in my games. As a general rule of thumb, I only do so when I severely overestimated what the PCs can handle, and tossed them a challenge that's really kicking their ass.
I don't cover up for dumb mistakes made by players. Medesha loves to tease me about the time I killed my wife's PC. She opted to stand from prone while next to a raging orc - knowing the orc could easily hit her and do enough damage in one hit to kill her. It would have been easy for me to say, "The orc swings his greatsword down at your head; you think you're doomed when suddenly your reflexes kick in, causing you to roll to the side just in time." That wouldn't have been fair, in my opinion, to the other players though - especially the ones that use wise tactics. My wife's character got raised - and some cool RP opportunities came from it. Her character is deathly afraid of being prone now; her character talks endlessly about how cool the afterlife is - she's a cleric of Olidammara. She regularly mentions how the wine on Oerth isn't nearly as good as that in the afterlife. "Compared to the sweet nectar of Olidammara's home, this wine is but vinegar."
I could also very easily fudge the dice when my players either come up with an awesome plan or just plan get lucky. But this isn't fair, either. I once had a PC manage to kill a "boss" in one round. The first round - well, two actually. He got surprise, then also acted first in the initiative order. I spent about 5 hours carefully statting the NPC, picking equipment, making his spell list, etc. It was really tempting to fudge things and add a few more hit points to his total - to give him a chance to fight on or escape or whatever. I didn't though. It wouldn't have been fair to the player. And even to this day (it's about three years later), I still hear this player tell the story of how, "In just one round, I killed an NPC that took John 5 hours to create. Man - you should have seen his face when I rolled back to back crits!"
Finally, there's comments such as this (apologies to Marc if it sounds as though I'm "picking" on him):
If you want to define a modified or disregarded die roll as cheating, then I'll be the first to tell you that I've cheated many times to prevent the party from getting killed off outright, to keep a colorful, dominant player character from being disintegrated and to keep the game moving forward in a productive, entertaining and thrill-enducing manner.
I have to ask - why bother rolling dice at all then? Why not - as DM - just resolve things as you want them to go all the time? I'm glad I didn't fudge those two examples above - even though doing so would have been easy and kept things on the "path" I had intended. Yet, in one case I got a PC who made the best of it and used the experience to create some cool quirks for her character; in the other, I have a player who gets to tell an awesome gaming story. I wouldn't trade either of those.
Who me? Never. ;)
GGG
Who me? Never. ;)
GGG
Well okay, sometimes. The secret is to make it transparent. Sometimes after a luck string of rolls I'll roll in front of the screen. And other times I roll behind the screen. Sometimes I will fudge them. If the encounter is not exciting enough I will make it more so by scoring a hit or two when perhaps there wouldn't have been one. Just as often - sometimes in the very same battle - I'll miss hit that should have been a critical.
It's not that I care about loosing a precious NPC (all I have to do is rename them, change their gender, alignment and give them a new weapon focus and ta-da - new character. Characters I create are like kids to me. I have hundreds of them and all of them mean something to me, but like real kids you have to let them grow up and live their own lives. If they happen to run afoul a PC barbarian with a greatsword and die - that's life. It doesn't matter what their alignment is or how much they could have accomplished in "life" they're dead and you move on. As a DM I have hundreds of characters. The Player (which is sometimes me) only has one character. And when that player puts hours and hours into their character's background I have a little trouble killing them until at least some of their backstory is revealed.
I hate the way "raise dead" and similar magics work and do my games ever feature such magics. Death is pretty much final in my opinion unless there is some rare story reason or actual divine intervention going on. Raise dead and the lot make D&D seem more like Final Fantasy and for me at least cheapens the whole idea of death more often than not.
So I fudge - but only in defense of the adventure's fun and challenge. Also I make it as transparent as possible. Trust is a hard thing to earn and once it's lost, well... Character's who do dumb things will die (and actually of the DMs in my group I am considered the most ruthless). Most of my killer reputation comes from a TPK that I presided over. For weeks afterward my players would talk to other players or game enthusiasts and tell them the tale at which point if I was present they would turn to me and ask "Why? Did you kill them?" After which I would say "I didn't kill them, the monsters did." I was playing by the rules when they wandered down the 'wrong corridor' still weak from their last encounter. I even fudged in their favor during the fight until it became obvious that no amount of believable fudging would help. So they died and the fun died for a while.
So I say, fudge for fun, but in general let the dice guide you,
GGG
I have to ask - why bother rolling dice at all then? Why not - as DM - just resolve things as you want them to go all the time? I'm glad I didn't fudge those two examples above - even though doing so would have been easy and kept things on the "path" I had intended.
Don't get me wrong guys - I've also had die rolls drive the storyline lots of times; but I've also chosen to 'grab the wheel' of the story, at moments where the next line was about to be, "...and the (fill in the monster) hits, dropping the last one of you still standing; he and his cohorts fill their bellies on your flesh and make off with your posessions, to be bartered for cheap rum and baubles."
There are times where administering character generation for a dozen people makes me shudder...
Medesha - great anecdote! I know some people back in Tampa who would LOVE to be a part of that game...a couple (the Mrs. is a Lit. Major) and a high school Lit. teacher; they'd eat that game up.
My players right now are more the middle of the road type (50% hack, 50% role-play), so I consider myself the "Steven Spielberg" of DMs right now - 'pulp entertainment' in the form of high drama and big, set-piece encounters with just enough dialogue to move the plot along.
I come from a tactical wargame background (back when Avalon Hill ran the table on gaming...), so my games tend to be more, "You spend 3 weeks in town resting, training and refitting, and then you're back outdoors..." than three sessions of dialogue and role-play in between encounters...
...well, I'm not that bad any more... :-)
M
Call me a softy, but I only fudge when the party is about to buy it, big time, and I'm feeling especially sorry for them. I'm not afraid to kill a character, especially when its a good, well fought battle, or when they do something stupid >:-) but then its always the dice that decide, not me. However, if they are fighting hard and I've either a) horribly underestimated the strength of their opponents, or b) they just can't catch a break; then I may turn a hit into a miss or reduce some damage just for the sake of letting one of them get away to go for help or to keep the story going.
I find its more fun that way.
YMMV, of course.
Greg
(edit: well I guess I should read the whole post before posting myself - I guess my post can be condensed down to "I agree with Zherog". That'll teach me for posting at work...)
Medesha - great anecdote! I know some people back in Tampa who would LOVE to be a part of that game...a couple (the Mrs. is a Lit. Major) and a high school Lit. teacher; they'd eat that game up.
Thanks, but don't gush too much. As Zherog can attest to, once you get me started on my solo game I NEVER shut up. :-D
-Amber S.
As a GM, I never fudge.
Instead, I give my players real "metagame" resources for avoiding disasterous die rolls, usually in the form of points that can be spent to reroll or improve rolls. This adds a whole new level of strategy to the game (as the points are a limited resource that requires careful spending) and also avoids the rather lame, IMHO, practice of just plain not playing by the rules ("fudging").
As for NPCs, well, they're NPCs and not the stars of the game. I will never fudge for an NPC. They can take the dice falling as they may. :)
As a GM, I never fudge.
Instead, I give my players real "metagame" resources for avoiding disasterous die rolls, usually in the form of points that can be spent to reroll or improve rolls. This adds a whole new level of strategy to the game (as the points are a limited resource that requires careful spending) and also avoids the rather lame, IMHO, practice of just plain not playing by the rules ("fudging").
- Aren't metagame 'modifications' to rolls "fudging", or, more accurately, "DM-allocated fudging"..?
M
As Zherog can attest to, once you get me started on my solo game I NEVER shut up. :-D
-Amber S.
Of course, listening to you talk is far from the worst thing somebody could inflict upon me. ;)
***
Yamo - what you do sounds a lot like "Action Points" from Unearthed Arcana, and popularlized in Eberron. It's something I like very much as a player, and something I'll probably include in my next game as a DM, regardless of the campaign setting. It really helps cover the PCs from bad die rolls.
Yamo - what you do sounds a lot like "Action Points" from Unearthed Arcana, and popularlized in Eberron. It's something I like very much as a player, and something I'll probably include in my next game as a DM, regardless of the campaign setting. It really helps cover the PCs from bad die rolls.
Without having read that section of the U.A., this is no more than an open musing:
- Could Action Points be a game mechanism for quantifying the concept of "fudging" for the sake of game play, with just enough restricion-by-rule to prevent abuse by a DM or player?
*gonna go digging in my books tonight*
M
"- Aren't metagame 'modifications' to rolls 'fudging', or, more accurately, 'DM-allocated fudging'..?"
No, they're not. Fudging is done outside the rules on an fundamentally arbitrary and usually secretive basis. Action points and such are a codified part of the rules and are right out there in the open, so to speak. No deception and no going outside the rules, but disasterous die roles can still be mitigated. As a bonus, players have an increased sense of control over the shared world and their characters' fates.
I fundge almost every sunday night when the party is about to die or i want a Villan to get away ect... it helps me keep the story going the way i need it too... But don't think of me as a softy i roll in fron of the party all the time. i more fudge the stats on the page saves HP things like that to keep things going
I never fudge die rolls. In fact, I roll my dice in front of my players; no screen, no mercy. Do people die? Sure, but this is fantasy gaming, and death isn't always so permanent. Within two rounds, the players already know their opponents AC and total attack bonuses, based on what Ive rolled and what theyve rolled. They arent stupid - in fact, many of them are brilliant in regards to statistics and odds - I DO live in Vegas afterall.
About the mercy part....okay, there's a little mercy. It falls back on the "transparent" part that someone earlier in the post hit upon. If I see that my PC are getting "mobbed on", I reduce the number of reinforcements that were going to show up and/or reduce the number of hitpoints that the creatures have, or the equivelant (ignore fast healing, etc.) The PCs don't know the hitpoints, especially since no two creatures are the same (well, in most circumstances anyway).
Umm;
This:
I never fudge die rolls. In fact, I roll my dice in front of my players; no screen, no mercy.
...and this:
okay, there's a little mercy. It falls back on the "transparent" part that someone earlier in the post hit upon. If I see that my PC are getting "mobbed on", I reduce the number of reinforcements that were going to show up and/or reduce the number of hitpoints that the creatures have, or the equivelant (ignore fast healing, etc.) The PCs don't know the hitpoints, especially since no two creatures are the same (well, in most circumstances anyway).
...are contradictory.
'Fudging rolls/not fudging rolls' and 'altering/not altering monster stats behind the scenes' are interchangeable methods that a DM can use to regulate and steer game results in favor of the story and total game experience.
Personally, I prefer to fudge rolls, because they represent a variable result - which is easier to alter and justify than creature stats (not to mention less administrative overhead).
M
...are contradictory
A guy can't be hipocrite anymore?! :)
And as for choosing to "modify" die rolls versus stats (which could be completely random also), whats it matter? Its a means to an end, right? And as long as I've run games, I can't recall ever being put on a witness stand by players to justify adjusting stats. But we're splitting hairs here.
Mmm, Fudge. I love fudge. But I like white chocolate more.
Oh, rolls, right.
Well, let's see. I roll my attacks, init, and damage out in the open. I roll treasure, spot checks, listen checks, and vs. skill checks behind my hand unless I want the player to see the roll, but usually give the players some kind of idea as to what happened.
I do my absolute best to keep the players alive without losing the sense of danger to their characters, but have already killed one. He got resurrected next session, but only because his God showed mercy upon him, and will exact a sort of fee later. (it's complicated, but let's just say the resurrection spell worked on two people when it should have only worked on one. love those plot twists that cause curious looks, don't you?)
In other words, there's always an explanation for everything that happens in my game, even character death and resurrection.
Do I fudge the rolls? Nope.
Do I make a spellcaster roll concentration every dang time she wants to cast a spell? Even a 0 level one? Yep.
There's a 1 in 20 chance any given thing will fail or succeed. Love those dice. Roll roll roll. Preferably in the open.
Now, do I forget to add the +2 bonus to hit against the PC if it's going to kill them? Sometimes, but not intentionally. After all, it's dang hard to keep track of all those modifiers all the time.
Oh, and because I'm the DM, I can kill any PC anytime I want, so why should I fudge the roll? After all, a diety could easily come down from heaven and slay them right there on the spot, and I bet I wouldn't even need to roll to hit. ;-)
But then, that's not role-playing, that's outright player killing for the benefit of my ego.
Go ahead, kill my monsters, I'll make more.
You'll run out of spells and get tired eventually. Even if your character is Epic, you have to sleep sometime, or bathe, or look the other direction, or blink, or eat, or drink, or breathe. Unless your PC is a God/Goddess, in which case I have other Gods to take care of that.
Even the Gods fight and lose sometimes.
- Warcry
i had one powergamer, the problem was resolved easily when the partys "sword sponge" shot him in the head with a balista.
needless to say there were out of game things taking effect on his actions, however he was always asking towns people for a "raise dead" scroll and he was the total opposite of the rest of the parties alignment. looking back he really didn't get along with everyone else.
I pride myself (at least out in the open) in not fudging anything. But in reality I have fudged in favor or against my players from time to time. Very rarely, though (maybe once this year - 2 or 3 times last year), and its usually done because the result of the roll would most likely derail my game. And the players were none the wiser.
I really try to avoid it, though, because it cheapens the feel of the game to me. I love the fact that so often life and death is balanced so precariously on the outcome of a die roll. It makes for very exciting gameplay. Every toss is a gamble (yes, I live in Vegas too, but no pun intended).
BTW, I wonder if I have ever played in one of I've Got Reach's games. We're both Las Vegans...
Every toss is a gamble (yes, I live in Vegas too, but no pun intended).
BTW, I wonder if I have ever played in one of I've Got Reach's games. We're both Las Vegans...
I wondered the same thing a few months ago as I wandered into Cold Stones Keep! ;) I guess the gaming community is bigger in Vegas than I thought. Keep up the great work, Steve.
I have such terrible dice luck that if I didn't fudge rolls occasionally my players would never have a challenging encounter. Oddly enough I love Craps, kinda strange bad dice luck/loves craps shouldn't go together.
I only fudge rolls to keep the fun going. As a DM I think it's my responsibility to fudge rolls occasionally to make sure my players enjoy the session.
I can't say that I've never fudged a roll, but I don't tend to do it, especially when something big is at stake.
Not to get into any specifics, but I've learned that players would prefer to have their characters die honorably (per the rules of the game) than to have the rules bent (i.e. cheat) to save them.
Sure, there's a lot of great stories that start, "My fighter walked up to three storm giants and kicked their butts" but the ones that start "Alas, poor Peeba... we'll never forget him!" are often longer remembered.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
There's really nothing wrong with fudging a roll now and then to keep the story going or an important encounter from going down the toilet. I mean that's why DM's have a Screen.
If you like rolling in the open that's cool. A PC who dice cheats and a DM who fudges a roll are two completely different things. Suspension of disbelief is more important for a Player than the DM. It's our job to entertain the group. Letting them slaughter everything in sight is all well and good... but once in a while it's good to kick back and watch them catch a beating.
I mean as a DM you're basically coaching the losing team each week and loving it!
-"I am a Vrock, I'm a Tanar'ri!"
Once. My PCs managed no less than seven natural ones in a row. Against a kobold guard (3e, so he only had 2 hp). The guard was fighting with a dagger, and managed knock out the party barbarian with a critical. The wizard bravely stood in front of the barbarian while the cleric rolled two ones in a row for cure light wounds and couldn't get the barbarian back on his feet.
Then I rolled a 20 with the kobold against the wizard. I didn't have the heart.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Once. My PCs managed no less than seven natural ones in a row. Against a kobold guard (3e, so he only had 2 hp). The guard was fighting with a dagger, and managed knock out the party barbarian with a critical. The wizard bravely stood in front of the barbarian while the cleric rolled two ones in a row for cure light wounds and couldn't get the barbarian back on his feet.
Then I rolled a 20 with the kobold against the wizard. I didn't have the heart.
Man it's not your fault Kurtlmak happened to put his avatar on guard duty that day...
-"I am a Vrock, I'm a Tanar'ri!"
That is one nasty little Kobold.
Never say never...always avoid saying always.
I'm in the let the dice fall where the may camp. I never fudge the dice. On rare occasions I have screwed up big time and arbitrarily TPK'd the entire party in some utterly unfair encounter. In this case I stop playing - talk with the players and roll the camera back to rerun the scene without the monster/trap whatever it was the was near instant death to the party. But this is rare, the players have to have no warning and reasonable way they could have escaped. My decisions have to be what killed all of them and not their own. I also make a special point not to protect some players over others. Death takes all comers equally.
On top of this I hate resurrect type spells and restrict them viscously. Pretty much I want death to be final. If its not I feel it cheapens the game to some extent.
But these aren't free options - You have to be a better DM then I am to keep the players coming back for more if they can't raise their characters and going 6 sessions without at least one players character dying is some kind of a record.
What I went with is to steal the protege concept from the Dark Sun rules. The players start with one character at first level and every time they gain a level they add a protege who also starts at 1st level. They keep adding a new protege at each new level until each player has 3 characters (4 if the campaign gets brutal and characters are dying left and right). The non-active characters can do mundane things and train and all non-active characters earn half the experience the of the current active character. Protege's can't be run together but the player can swap which character is active if they leave the dungeon and return to wherever their base is. If an active character dies the player picks from their proteges and starts to run that character and a new protege is introduced at first level. Companions/hirelings can be taken as a new protege if their patron dies under most circumstances.
The obvious drawback is that this is more work for the players and the DM. Thats one of the reasons the proteges are introduced staggered at start instead of rolling up 3 characters from the beginning (that and the campaign I recently started had a few newbies - they don't need any more complications - they are already lost).
The benefit is it eases the pain of loosing a well liked character. You can at least bring in another character you like. It also cuts back on some of the worse abuses of min/maxing when making new characters. Proteges get enough experience level often enough but at least the player builds them up level by level over many sessions. The fact that the protege might be played on any session keeps the worst of the min/maxing at bay as the character always needs to be somewhat well rounded and available for use.
I also don't have to have a revolving door of resurrections where the players seem to adventure in order to get enough loot to pay the cleric's to raise their characters back. Death is final and the dice fall where they may but the price is more record keeping.
One final benefit is that I can slowly introduce more cool races that players may take for their newest protege. A 1st level centaur ranger is to powerful to allow at the start of a campaign but introducing one into a campaign where the party is averaging 6th level is not a problem. Still has to earn a lot of experience to become second level though.
*cast resurrection*