Last year I picked up a set of "Cheater Dice" a t a con. For those not familiar with these, they are a set of dice with thre variation of the same type: 3 d3s, 3 d10s and 3 d6s. One of the three is just a regular die of that type, one tends to roll higher, and the last tends to roll lower. I bought it specifically for the times when, as a DM, I have to make an opposing roll and I either want to go easy on the party or go a little hard on the party. I just was wondering what people think about that.
I took a lot of flack from the guy selling them (I think I even asked him why he was selling them if he was so opposed to them in principle). My thought is, hey, I'm the DM. I don't even HAVE to make a roll. That's why I have the screen. I can just SAY "you fail" or "you succeede." But somehow, it seems more exciting when they see the roll.
Of course, they don't know they are "cheater dice." MOST of the time I use the streight dice.
Anyway, enough from me. What do you all think?
|
Last year I picked up a set of "Cheater Dice" a t a con. For those not familiar with these, they are a set of dice with thre variation of the same type: 3 d3s, 3 d10s and 3 d6s. One of the three is just a regular die of that type, one tends to roll higher, and the last tends to roll lower. I bought it specifically for the times when, as a DM, I have to make an opposing roll and I either want to go easy on the party or go a little hard on the party. I just was wondering what people think about that.
I took a lot of flack from the guy selling them (I think I even asked him why he was selling them if he was so opposed to them in principle). My thought is, hey, I'm the DM. I don't even HAVE to make a roll. That's why I have the screen. I can just SAY "you fail" or "you succeede." But somehow, it seems more exciting when they see the roll.
Of course, they don't know they are "cheater dice." MOST of the time I use the streight dice.
Anyway, enough from me. What do you all think?
I admit, cheat dice would make it simpler to fudge rolls in favor of the PCs so that they don't step outside, trip on their own shoelace, causing them to fall and break their own necks. Similarly, it keeps the BBEG from making his grand monologue and then having his master plan fizzle because he rolled a one, instead of him losing because the players actually beat him.
However, use of them should be sparingly, and if any player discovers you have them, they will question every roll that favored an NPC over them, or one player over another.
Of course, they don't know they are "cheater dice." MOST of the time I use the streight dice.
Anyway, enough from me. What do you all think?
The key rule to fudging rolls as a DM is don't get caught. If players think you're pulling your punches, it will really detract from their enjoyment of the game.
The use of such dice don't fall into my way of Dming, but everyone has a different style. I agree that if you use them or fudge other rolls, don't get caught. If you fudge in favor of the PCs and they know it, they may get angry that eventually you didn't. If your Dming style is one that consists of re-rolling until you get what you want anyway, (usually done to appease and save characters), then the question of using the dice is kinda mute anyway, because generally speaking, one will re-roll until the desired results are achieved, then announce the outcome to the players.
If you eventually have a disagreement with players and then the "cheating dice" issue is discovered I think your reputation as a DM could be on the line.
I would pass on the dice and opt for friendlier methods of gaming.
The DM can't cheat. You don't have to roll a die ever. You could in fact simply sit their and refuse to roll dice for your part of the game instead simply stating which number was rolled. It is only the players that must roll dice and abide by the results.
That said if your players where to actually suspect that this was how you played you'd probably find yourself sitting there all alone with no players. Hence usually when the DM is deciding to ignore the dice (aka fudge things) it is done in great secrecy.
Personally I'm not really sure why one would bother with 'cheater' dice. If your going to fudge things having cheater dice seems to add a layer too this that appears to destroy rational for cheating in the first place.
If the DM is going to cheat then its supposed to be for the good of the story. The problem with cheater dice is its half-assed cheating. If something is important enough to cheat over its important enough to go all the way consciously. Here we essentially have the DM sort of... kind of... cheating. You've trivialized cheating to a ridiculous degree and thats my problem with these dice. Cheating should never be a trivial decision.
Now personally I never cheat - I kill way to many characters in my game to be allowed to cheat. Its imperative that my players know that everything is always on the level or I won't have a game.
It all boils down to what you want to achieve. You are right - you're the DM so what you say goes. But are you there to tell a story that the players are co-creators in, or are you there to set the scene, and the player live and die by the decisions they make?
Loaded dice is one set of tools, the screen is another tool, obfuscation is yet another. They all allow a DM to carry out the first option - creating a story.
It's up to you. But I have fudged on occasion to realise the plot (and once to my shame to destroy a PC that was broken and whose player was... disruptive, to say the least)
2kb
Contributor
|
I never fudge rolls, and I make sure my players know it. That said, there are a multitude of ways in which the DM influences the game non-randomly, or even the parameters of the randomness.
If your cheater dice are legitimately just rolling with tendencies rather than rolling fixed numbers, you are altering the parameters of the randomness under some circumstances. To me this is better than either not rolling at all or rolling and then ignoring the results. It's not much different from saying "This goblin isn't smart, so he doesn't move to flank" or something like that.
I wouldn't do it. I like to test my encounter design skills, and test the PCs. I prefer to run the encounters as designed. But I'd prefer that kind of fudging to actual fudging.
If you did that as a player though... that would be bad.
|
It all boils down to what you want to achieve. You are right - you're the DM so what you say goes. But are you there to tell a story that the players are co-creators in, or are you there to set the scene, and the player live and die by the decisions they make?
Loaded dice is one set of tools, the screen is another tool, obfuscation is yet another. They all allow a DM to carry out the first option - creating a story.
It's up to you. But I have fudged on occasion to realise the plot (and once to my shame to destroy a PC that was broken and whose player was... disruptive, to say the least)
2kb
Bloody Hell, Matt; you beat me to a thread!
My thread-sense was lacking.
Point 1: I agree. Having a tale to tell once the campaign is over is worth aiming for, and this can be difficult if PCs are dying like flies, and new characters are dropping out of the sky to take their place.
However, there is a trap, that the DM goes too far in the opposite extreme, and keeps helping the players, or worse, helps one or two of the players, at the expense of the others. Whether it's letting out-of-game friendship cloud your judgement, or if it's a case of allowing one PC to be disproportionately important, it will lead to bad feeling. "I can't kill Paul Pureheart! He's the only remaining original PC/the rightful heir to the throne/the seventh son/the last of the dragon bloodline/the only one who can wield the Vorpal Plothammer! My melodramatic story (which I hope to see print as a five-volume trilogy) will be ruined!"
All the more reason not to try running adventures based too heavily on a book or a movie. I've seen a Dragonlance campaign where this was the case, and it's not pretty to see the DM fawning over Raistlin, while Flint and Sturm are basically treated as dead meat that doesn't know when to fall down.
Point 2: I don't like loaded dice. The players get to recognise them, unless they are indistinguishable from your others, in which case, how do you keep them separate? It's a pathetic sight to see a DM rustling through his bag, holding each one up to the light before an important roll.
Rolling behind the screen; some rolls need to be secret (trapfinding, etc), and most groups are aware of that. And rolling combat dice in the open is one way to dispel any accusations of cheating. However the players then crowd round the dice like vultures, dissecting every result "Hmm, he just hit me on a 17, so I'll only need to use 3 points of Combat Expertise...".
Point 3; Whahey! Who was the offending player (and which PC)? Anyone I know?
|
|
I took a lot of flack from the guy selling them (I think I even asked him why he was selling them if he was so opposed to them in principle).
I know. What a goober.
I think people will be mad if they find out that's what you've been doing. It's not technically cheating; you're dungeonmaster and what you say goes. And it's not Vegas or anything....it's just a little on the deceitful side. When people find out they've been deceived, sometimes it tends to make them mad.Now me, I'd think it was funny as hell, but somebody could end up ticked off.
Bloody Hell, Matt; you beat me to a thread!
It happens. Life is like that sometimes.
...there is a trap, that the DM goes too far in the opposite extreme, and keeps helping the players, or worse, helps one or two of the players, at the expense of the others.
Gah! I know what you mean. Objectivity is the first thing to go when you get too attached to the 'destiny of the campaign'. I'm guilty of that to an extent - it used to be that certain players had paladins and elven fighters specifically to curry my favour. That wouldn't work any more though. I hope.
It's a pathetic sight to see a DM rustling through his bag, holding each one up to the light before an important roll.
I don't know if anyone could be that obvious and still save face... give me a screen any time. Behind which I will never fudge of course.
rolling combat dice in the open is one way to dispel any accusations of cheating.
Shouldn't have to dispel them. The DM is the referee. Only time you call them into question is to debate rules inference, but even then it shouldn't be an accusation - what the DM says goes. I just happen to be persuasive as a player (that lava versus sword debate the week before last yeah?)
However the players then crowd round the dice like vultures, dissecting every result "Hmm, he just hit me on a 17, so I'll only need to use 3 points of Combat Expertise...".
Guilty as charged. And I even know it spoils the magic. Gah!
Who was the offending player (and which PC)? Anyone I know?
I don't like sneaky games. Nuff said.
I'm inclined to think that if you really need to cheat, you need to succeed; if rolling a 1 is going to destroy your campaign, going from a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 10 is not good enough. The problem with loaded dice is that they won't necessarily do what you want, and then you're back where you started.
If you find yourself wanting to fudge frequently, it's time to ask what's wrong with your game: scenario too hard (or too easy) for the PCs? Problem with the mechanics? Too much attachment to having the plot go just as you want? Player/GM tension?
I found out the hard way that better than use weapons with 4x crits and then fudge wildly to prevent PCs from dying, it was a lot better to substitute weapons with 2x crits.
Mary
Anyway, enough from me. What do you all think?
If you only use them as DM, and only use them to add drama to the game, I wouldn't call it cheating.
Now, I wouldn't want to be in your game and find out. I've had too many "have to win" DMs, and "kid gloves never come off" DMs that I am very, very weary of them.
Give me a straight up game all the time, every time.
But then I am deranged. I actually enjoy character death from time to time...
I would not use cheater dice as a DM - if I need to cheat, I just do. It happens occasionally, mostly to steer a combat encounter in the direction I want it to go - tougher or less tough, depending on the situation.
Using cheater dice as a DM would seem to me questioning my competence as DM - if I notice that something runs wrong due to dice rolling, it is easy to correct that without resorting to this crutch.
Accusing a DM of "cheating" does not make much sense to me anyway - nobody knows what kind of adventure he has designed (one hopes), so if he corrects his design mistakes while running the adventure, this is hardly cheating. If the DMs aims at killing PCs, then killing them is ok. If the DM wants to challenge the PCs without killing them, and he notices that he might kill them inadvertedly, then he should correct that. Just IMO, of course.
Stefan
I do not let dice dictate my game to me anyway, so I do not see the purpose of loaded dice. But then I am one of those namby pamby dramatist that everyone hates so much.
Of course, they don't know they are "cheater dice."They do now!
Umm, they do? How is that? First, you presume that any of my players are active on this board and second, you presume they could identify me from my posting ID.
Thanks for the insight, though.
Point 2: I don't like loaded dice. The players get to recognise them, unless they are indistinguishable from your others, in which case, how do you keep them separate? It's a pathetic sight to see a DM rustling through his bag, holding each one up to the light before an important roll.
I think there is a big misconception about the "cheater" dice I am using. They are NOT loaded dice (holding them up to the light wouldnt' help - and they're opaque, anyway). They roll just like any normal dice. The difference is that they are numbered in such a way that it is more likely that you will roll high or low (i.e. two 20s or two 1s, etc.) So, like I said, they TEND to roll high or low.
Also, because of the they way they are numbered, you cannot tell at a glance that they are in any way different, but if you have them in your nand and you know what to look for, you can tell. Keeping them "seperate" is not an issue.
I took a lot of flack from the guy selling them (I think I even asked him why he was selling them if he was so opposed to them in principle).I know. What a goober.
I think people will be mad if they find out that's what you've been doing. It's not technically cheating; you're dungeonmaster and what you say goes. And it's not Vegas or anything....it's just a little on the deceitful side. When people find out they've been deceived, sometimes it tends to make them mad.Now me, I'd think it was funny as hell, but somebody could end up ticked off.
First, OMG this response just struck my funny bone right from the word "goober." Thank you for that.
Yeah, I know my players, and, while I appreciate what everyone is saying, I am not concerend about them finding out. All of them would be like you. They would be, like, "Dude, you know that's not necessary. You're the DM. Nothing says you have to roll AT ALL."
Still, there is someting to be said for the Koblod who scores a critical on your arrogant 10th level swashbuckler, or the critical fumble by the dragon. Sure, I could just say it happens, but if the dice roll that way (and it at least appears natural), the reaction is incredible and the players talk about it for months.
I'm inclined to think that if you really need to cheat, you need to succeed; if rolling a 1 is going to destroy your campaign, going from a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 10 is not good enough. The problem with loaded dice is that they won't necessarily do what you want, and then you're back where you started.
If you find yourself wanting to fudge frequently, it's time to ask what's wrong with your game: scenario too hard (or too easy) for the PCs? Problem with the mechanics? Too much attachment to having the plot go just as you want? Player/GM tension?
If you only use them as DM, and only use them to add drama to the game, I wouldn't call it cheating.
Now, I wouldn't want to be in your game and find out. I've had too many "have to win" DMs, and "kid gloves never come off" DMs that I am very, very weary of them.
Give me a straight up game all the time, every time.
It’s not a “need to cheat,” all though I understand what you’re saying, Mary. If I absolutely have to have the players succeed in order to keep the game going, I won’t be rolling any dice. It’s like Disenchanter says; I’m just doing it to add drama. These dice, frankly, don’t change the outcome that much and, more often than not, don’t do what I want them to. They just increase the odds of the “Holy Cow!” outcome (and only slightly, at that).
Disenchanter, I totally get what you’re saying about “have to win DMs,” and, Mary, about “what’s wrong with [my] campaign.” However, I’m not a killer DM, nor do I go to easy on them. I regularly silicate feedback from my players, so I can confidentially say that they enjoy my games.
Thanks, both, for the comments.
I would not use cheater dice as a DM - if I need to cheat, I just do. It happens occasionally, mostly to steer a combat encounter in the direction I want it to go - tougher or less tough, depending on the situation.
Using cheater dice as a DM would seem to me questioning my competence as DM - if I notice that something runs wrong due to dice rolling, it is easy to correct that without resorting to this crutch.Accusing a DM of "cheating" does not make much sense to me anyway - nobody knows what kind of adventure he has designed (one hopes), so if he corrects his design mistakes while running the adventure, this is hardly cheating. If the DMs aims at killing PCs, then killing them is ok. If the DM wants to challenge the PCs without killing them, and he notices that he might kill them inadvertedly, then he should correct that. Just IMO, of course.
I appreciate what you’re saying, but I really don’t want to be so blatant about it either, in most cases. Personally, as a player, I hate it when a DM says “that doesn’t work” and it is obvious that he’s turned the rules off for the sake of his scenario. That’s very frustrating.
The “cheater dice” could be viewed as a half-measure towards that, but the players don’t FEEL like they are being stonewalled (which is crucial), and, really, they aren’t.
However, that being said, I agree with you 100% about the nature of DMing.
I just want to thank everyone on all the feedback. I really appreciate it. I am especially encouraged that there is such a range of opinions, everywhere from “DMs cannot cheat by the nature of being the DM,” to “I would never use cheater dice.”
I especially appreciate that the clerk who sold them to me and gave me such grief was a “goober.” That’s probably the most reassuring comment of all (and funniest).
SLightly off-topic, maybe, but am I the only DM who doesn't adhere to the "Respect my authority!" version of "I'm-the-Dungeon-Master-and-my-word-is-LAW"? I prefer to view the game as a cooperative enterprise, where we're all in it to have fun. If that means fudging rolls, so be it, we're all in it together. If it means letting characters die (as it often does), well, then at least we all agree.
Granted, this style works better with smaller groups (< 5 PCs); I can see how people who run monstrous tables with 12 players need to rule with an iron fist. Then again, I never did enjoy playing with that many people.
In some ways it might give interesting twist to the game...if the players are ok with it that the game is not necessarily fair.
There is another RPG where the point of not being fair has been taken further, different characters might be rolling different dice to do things...so the character who rolls d10s naturally does better than the one who rolls d8s.
I fudge rolls myself a lot so for me it doesn't really matter to have cheater's dice, but if they are not loaded (so the rolls are random with slight bias to one way or another), it might be interesting to give them to hands of the players...for example priest of goddess of luck would roll every other day with high-rolling dice and every other day with low-rolling dice :)
For times like that I have a "one sided die" a black marble that sounds like a die when "rolled" behind the screen. Not to be used lightly, but sometimes a fudged roll is a necessary evil and then the players level of emersion doesn't get blown by thinking you're always making up whatever you want (though one could argue that rolling dice kills it anyway) occasionally I have to threaten the players with the One sider too (when silly rp goes off the deep end)
Personally, as a player, I hate it when a DM says “that doesn’t work” and it is obvious that he’s turned the rules off for the sake of his scenario. That’s very frustrating.
I´m with you there - this kind of DMing is just bad DMing if it happens to save the adventure. If there is an ingame justifcation for bending the rules (like having a reason that teleporting does not work, or walls are so slippery that climbing has a DC of 40), thats ok. To invalidate the rules to save a weak spot in the adventure is bad style.
Stefan
This use of cheating dice never occured to me.
Very ingenious. I'll have to get some for that very purpose. Several sets, so they don't suspect me of "cheating" when I keep using the same die.
Anyway, it's not cheating. It's on the list.
Some of the "It's not cheating if..." list:
- ... the DM's doing it
- ... you don't remember it the morning after
- ... you're in a different area code area
- ... there is no kissing
- ... you thought it was your wife/husband
|
|
Gah! I know what you mean. Objectivity is the first thing to go when you get too attached to the 'destiny of the campaign'. I'm guilty of that to an extent - it used to be that certain players had paladins and elven fighters specifically to curry my favour.
What you trying to say, Matt?
Are you implying you like elves and paladins? ;PWho was the offending player (and which PC)? Anyone I know?
I don't like sneaky games. Nuff said.
Ah, nuff said.
The endless conveyor-belt of gnome illusionist-thieves!|
|
Granted, this style works better with smaller groups (< 5 PCs); I can see how people who run monstrous tables with 12 players need to rule with an iron fist. Then again, I never did enjoy playing with that many people.
I played in a campaign as one of twelve players.
The DM simply set up a gang war, and the PCs split up into four rival groups of three, joining existing mob families, so his 'adventure writing' consisted of collecting our plots to whack each other and deciding how to play them out.It felt like a play-by-mail game.
He even used to take a scheduled break to watch 'Twin Peaks', every week, while we huddled up and conspired against each other.
Heh. Cheating dice. Interesting thought. :)
As a DM whose table I hardly ever fudge, but then I enjoy having my players roll for most everything, NPCs included. The looks on their face when they roll massive hits or damage against their own PC is priceless. At most I'll fudge on encounter size, adding or removing enemies (or calling reinforcements).
However, I also like games that have mechanisms so that cheating dice aren't really necessary. In Savage Worlds they're Bennies. I seem to recall that 3x has something like that (at least optionally) - aren't they called Action Points or something? There are also Adventure Cards, which are more random than Bennies/Action Points, but allow players different ways to exert a small amount of control over an encounter. I think there is a d20 version of them available on PDF, even.
If a DM wants to have influence over what the die rolls, then he should roll behind a DM's screen. If a bad roll would completely ruin the character and wipe out the entire campaign, then the DM should be able to make up what he rolled.
If a DM wants to have influence over what the die rolls, then he should roll behind a DM's screen. If a bad roll would completely ruin the character and wipe out the entire campaign, then the DM should be able to make up what he rolled.
I'm with you in principle, but I don't even use a screen. Players get full transparency with me. If somebody rerolls a die, it'll be because of an egregious, one-in-a-zillion series of rolls that threatens to derail the whole game, and nobody really likes when that happens (unless you're a sadist) -- and everyone has to agree that a reroll is both reasonable and conducive to a more enjoyable game in the long run. In "real" situations (plot-related), we all let the dice fall where they may.
He even used to take a scheduled break to watch 'Twin Peaks', every week, while we huddled up and conspired against each other.
OT - I LOVE Twin Peaks! Man, I miss that show.
...I enjoy having my players roll for most everything, NPCs included. The looks on their face when they roll massive hits or damage against their own PC is priceless.
Yeah, see, this is the effect I am attempting to get. Really, the outcome of the overall encounter isn't altered much, but there is a better chance of that "priceless" moment. Frankly, I may only use the cheaters for one crucial roll (the one where a "20" or a "1" would be the coolest).
If a DM wants to have influence over what the die rolls, then he should roll behind a DM's screen. If a bad roll would completely ruin the character and wipe out the entire campaign, then the DM should be able to make up what he rolled.I'm with you in principle, but I don't even use a screen. Players get full transparency with me. If somebody rerolls a die, it'll be because of an egregious, one-in-a-zillion series of rolls that threatens to derail the whole game, and nobody really likes when that happens (unless you're a sadist) -- and everyone has to agree that a reroll is both reasonable and conducive to a more enjoyable game in the long run. In "real" situations (plot-related), we all let the dice fall where they may.
See, there comes a point where, if you are making up die rolls, as someone else said in an earlier comment, what's wrong with your game ballance? Heck, for that matter, why bother rolling? Just decide whatever you want.
I LOVE to do the thing where I see what the players are going to do, give an ominous "Hmm..." and roll a big handful of dice behind the screen. I don't do it often, so it has the impact I want. They all go, "Dude! What's going on? Do we see anything? Do we hear anything?" and they start making skill rolls for no good reason. It simulates the "bump in the night" or "thought I saw something out of the corner of my eye" effect in the game.
But for combat, I always do my rolls in the open. It makes the combat a)fair, and b)duely dangerous.
But, agian, just one "to hit" roll from the totally outclassed kobold with the cheaters increases the chance that he gets a 20 and really makes the players stop and think - don't take any counter for granted.
I think the cheating dice are in bad form. The dice rolling is in the game as a fair way of determining success and failure. In my game, I've even switched to the "Players roll all the dice" option from Unearthed Arcana.
I think the cheating dice are in bad form. The dice rolling is in the game as a fair way of determining success and failure. In my game, I've even switched to the "Players roll all the dice" option from Unearthed Arcana.
...though using those not-weighted dice which just tend to roll high or low still could be considered fair way of determining success, they just have slightly different probabilities.
...though using those not-weighted dice which just tend to roll high or low still could be considered fair way of determining success, they just have slightly different probabilities.
My biggest problem with this whole concept, and the reason I stopped fudging entirely, is that it's not fair to all of the players. If during one encounter a PC dies, and then during another I fudge (be it by fudging or cheating dice) and let another character live, it's not fair to the first. As the DM, my job is to present challenges to the players in an effort to build a story. It's up to the players to handle those challenges. If that means somebody dies, well, that's part of the experience. But if you give Fred the Fighter a pass in this fight, does that mean that Molly the Mage deserved it when that explosive runes went off?
If you start giving some players (or adversaries) an unfair edge it makes the whole system arbitrary. If you want your players to make it through an encounter, then leak information to them so that they can better prepare or give them the tools they'll need to deal with upcoming challenges.
And if you want the villian to have an edge, then build the villian to be that much tougher. As the DM, you have that level of control without going outside the rules. (See the CR in the spoiler). However, cheating on the dice rolls seems like it just invalidates any actual work you put into the game and any tactics or efforts the players put into it.
My biggest problem with this whole concept, and the reason I stopped fudging entirely, is that it's not fair to all of the players. If during one encounter a PC dies, and then during another I fudge (be it by fudging or cheating dice) and let another character live, it's not fair to the first. As the DM, my job is to present challenges to the players in an effort to build a story. It's up to the players to handle those challenges. If that means somebody dies, well, that's part of the experience. But if you give Fred the Fighter a pass in this fight, does that mean that Molly the Mage deserved it when that explosive runes went off?
Look, I've heard this argument before, and if we were playing Monopoly or Checkers, I’d agree with you 100%. If D&D wasn’t such a complex game - with rules that radically change every decade, on average, I might add – I would also tend to agree with you. However, I’ve been a player in too many games where the game just wasn’t balanced and a few bad rolls killed the cleric which eventually led to the whole party dying (I won’t get off on a tangent to tell the whole story, but I’m sure you can imagine how that could happen). Suffice it to say that nobody had a good time and the DM was viewed as jerk. His defense? “I was following the rules.” You know what? That phrase lost its meaning at Nuremberg.
Yeah, what this kind of mentality forgets – and directly opposes - is the #1 rule of RPGs: “Above all else, have fun!” I remember the 2nd ed. DM guide said in the introduction (and I’m paraphrasing because I don’t have my books handy) that the rules are subject to change as necessary based on the situation to ensure that everyone has fun.
I mean, really, is there anyone who loves a DM who’s a rules lawyer?
Okay, fair enough about saving one character and not another. That has more to do with maturity than the rules. If you have a bunch of juveniles playing, that’s just a power keg however you look at it. But, as a player, I’ll never criticize the DM for having the monster decide to attack the goon with a gillinion hit points over the sickly mage- frack the die roll - even if I’m the goon.
Look, I've heard this argument before, and if we were playing Monopoly or Checkers, I’d agree with you 100%. If D&D wasn’t such a complex game - with rules that radically change every decade, on average, I might add – I would also tend to agree with you. However, I’ve been a player in too many games where the game just wasn’t balanced and a few bad rolls killed the cleric which eventually led to the whole party dying (I won’t get off on a tangent to tell the whole story, but I’m sure you can imagine how that could happen). Suffice it to say that nobody had a good time and the DM was viewed as jerk. His defense? “I was following the rules.” You know what? That phrase lost its meaning at Nuremberg.
Yeah, what this kind of mentality forgets – and directly opposes - is the #1 rule of RPGs: “Above all else, have fun!” I remember the 2nd ed. DM guide said in the introduction (and I’m paraphrasing because I don’t have my books handy) that the rules are subject to change as necessary based on the situation to ensure that everyone has fun.
I mean, really, is there anyone who loves a DM who’s a rules lawyer?
Okay, fair enough about saving one character and not another. That has more to do with maturity than the rules. If you have a bunch of juveniles playing, that’s just a power keg however you look at it. But, as a player, I’ll never...
What's the point of playing an adventure based game if there's no risk? Why would any character take a dramatic action in a battle if the DM's just going to fudge so that the party can live. Where's the fun of defeating something when you can't lose? I've played in games where my character has died, or there was even a TPK, and I've still had fun.
At the peak of a game I played in, our party stumbled into the BBEG and were totally unprepared and got our asses handed to us. Then our rogue stuffed his bag of holding into a portable (or however that works) and blew everything to another plane. It was one of the most memorable and most fun games I was ever in. None of us lived, but we thwarted the BBEG and it was all the more dramatic because we were so close to failing entirely.
You mention maturity levels, but then you also say that your DM was a jerk for letting the party die. Hey, I have an idea. Why didn't the party retreat (I'm not saying all PC's should be cowards, just know when run away). It's not entirely up to the DM to keep the party alive or to keep the game fun, it's up to the group. (If the DM was outright trying to kill the party, that's another story.) Why was the cleric out there all alone when the party has a fighter with a bajillion hit points? I think most fighters present a more immediate threat than the cleric and monsters tend to deal with the immediate threat first.
Maybe that DM was a jerk, and when your party died he just slammed his DMG closed, and said "Well, that's done with. What do you guys want to do now?" Yes, character death sucks, but there are ways around even that. It can even build adventure hooks. If the party dies and you still want to keep the game going, it's not difficult to send an NPC along who raises them, or the party might just be beaten unconscious and taken prisoner. Both options maintain the risk inherrent to the game, without cheating. Letting characters die, means victories will be that much sweeter. And if the campaign does end prematurely, that's just an excuse to break out the next character concept.
And the saving one character and not another thing wasn't intended as a comment on maturity. I was trying to point out that every player wants his or her character to survive. When the DM decides to step in and stop a character from dying, then anytime the DM lets a character die that DM is essentially saying "Well this time it doesn't matter.", or worse, "this time I want the character to die". Whether or not that's the itent behind it, that's what is happening. How do you decide when a character should be "saved" versus when you can just let the character die? Or do you just save all of the characters, creating a game where the PC's can't lose?
What's the point of playing an adventure based game if there's no risk?
None, but what is the point in playing an adventure game when it is so unfairly balanced that the party doesn’t have a chance?
I’m just saying, sometimes, because of the nature of the complexity of the constantly changing D&D rules (soon to change again to 4th edtion) a DM might decide in mid-game “Hey, maybe this was unfairly difficult,” in which case he must determine – as I feel is the DM’s prerogative – whether to continue with the game or try to salvage it making necessary adjustments as he sees fit.
Do you see what I’m saying and why I draw the comparison between D&D and Checkers? When the rules are very simple, it’s much easier to say the game is fair. Checkers doesn’t require an impartial person to referee and oversee game play.
Which brings up another point: DM stands for Dungeon Master. This tile infers a degree of authority and control. Isn’t it the prerogative of the Dungeon Master to determine where the line of fairness is?
Lastly, if the DM needs to blindly and impartially enforce the rules and never fudge dice rolls, why do they market a Dungeon Master Screen?
What's the point of playing an adventure based game if there's no risk?None, but what is the point in playing an adventure game when it is so unfairly balanced that the party doesn’t have a chance?
Lastly, if the DM needs to blindly and impartially enforce the rules and never fudge dice rolls, why do they market a Dungeon Master Screen?
To hide spot checks behind.
Now a ton of DMs fudge things behind the screen and I guess it must work for them. So I can kind of see where your coming from.
That said there are alternatives to cheating. Personally if I were to mess up so badly that I designed an unfair encounter that my players could not escape from or beat I'd stop the game - admit that I screwed up and was not doing my job properly. Explain how we are going to fix it, here in particular I would take input from the players, and then continue on.
T
Personally if I were to mess up so badly that I designed an unfair encounter that my players could not escape from or beat I'd stop the game - admit that I screwed up and was not doing my job properly. Explain how we are going to fix it, here in particular I would take input from the players, and then continue on.
Keep in mind that I am not necessarily talking about adventures I designed. In my last post, I made the example of converting modules from earlier editions. Also, I know I am not alone in realizing that even play-tested, published adventures can be a bit off kilter in some places. This message board is filled with discussions about what to do with specific scenarios in specific adventures and paths.
Don’t get me wrong. I have done exactly what you describe, as have other DMs I’ve played with (well, one other, anyway). However, that is an extreme case. Sometimes all can be made right by dropping one puzzle (or adding an extra clue), downgrading or beefing up one creature, or by fudging a roll.
(Mmm, a fudge roll sounds really good now. <Homer gurgle>)
Doesn't seem like cheating to me more like a DM working a little harder to make the game a better experience. More enjoyable and memorable for his players. Sounds like a fun game.
Doesn't seem like cheating to me more like a DM working a little harder to make the game a better experience. More enjoyable and memorable for his players. Sounds like a fun game.
Thank you! I like to think so. (And, apparently, my players agree, too)
T
Personally if I were to mess up so badly that I designed an unfair encounter that my players could not escape from or beat I'd stop the game - admit that I screwed up and was not doing my job properly. Explain how we are going to fix it, here in particular I would take input from the players, and then continue on.Keep in mind that I am not necessarily talking about adventures I designed. In my last post, I made the example of converting modules from earlier editions. Also, I know I am not alone in realizing that even play-tested, published adventures can be a bit off kilter in some places. This message board is filled with discussions about what to do with specific scenarios in specific adventures and paths.
I just don't see cheater dice as a particularly good solution to this problem. If the adventure needs to be fixed then I'd fix the adventure. Not use cheater dice.
If the first time I realize that the adventure is broken is right in the middle of the encounter then again my solution would not be cheater dice. If its broken in the players favour I'd just let them win and keep a closer eye on encounter power later on.
If its broken against the players then I'd probably inform the players to take 5 while I fix things. Some DMs might well simply grab a pencil and change some of the monsters stats (lower the AC say) or choose to fudge by deciding that all crits are downgraded to simple hits.
However I'd not go for cheater dice. As Mary mentioned - if a specific die roll is going to ruin the campaign then the DM does not want to change the odds of rolling that result from 1 in 6 to 1 in 10. He wants to blatantly cheat and presume that there is actually no possibility at all that the campaign gets destroyed.
I just don't see cheater dice as a particularly good solution to this problem. If the adventure needs to be fixed then I'd fix the adventure. Not use cheater dice.T
Personally if I were to mess up so badly that I designed an unfair encounter that my players could not escape from or beat I'd stop the game - admit that I screwed up and was not doing my job properly. Explain how we are going to fix it, here in particular I would take input from the players, and then continue on.Keep in mind that I am not necessarily talking about adventures I designed. In my last post, I made the example of converting modules from earlier editions. Also, I know I am not alone in realizing that even play-tested, published adventures can be a bit off kilter in some places. This message board is filled with discussions about what to do with specific scenarios in specific adventures and paths.
I agree, Jeremy. I'm not the one who suggested this is why I'm using the cheater dice. They really don't have much impact on a game. If you look back in this thread, you'll see that I state that I use them for dramatic effect (or to increase the chance of the dramatic effect).
Frankly, I just got off the topic in defense of DM fudging, in general.
DM stands for Dungeon Master. This tile infers a degree of authority and control. Isn’t it the prerogative of the Dungeon Master to determine where the line of fairness is?
Lastly, if the DM needs to blindly and impartially enforce the rules and never fudge dice rolls, why do they market a Dungeon Master Screen?
Well, the title of Dungeon Master does infer authority and control. You actually populate the dungeon, the world even, and determine what events your players encounter. You control what choices your players have available, be they in game or rules they use to build their characters. And you're right, it's your responsibility to determine what is fair.
So let me ask you: Is it fair to let a player build his character under certain assumptions and then change the odds on that player on a whim?
And I don't think DM screens were created so that a DM can fudge rolls. I'm pretty sure they are intended to hide a DM's notes and hide the dice so that players can't figure out an opponent by just doing the math. I don't use a screen and my players roll all the dice, so this isn't really an issue anyway.
As I previously stated I prefer to use story elements to save a campaign when the party falters. Recently in one of my games the party was dropped to a man. They were helping out a tribe of lizardfolk, so it wasn't much of a stretch to have the lizardfolk recover the bodies, half of which had stablized. Those who died were reincarnated. Then the party regrouped and took down the previously overpowering encounter with a vengeance. Nobody quit the game or called me a jerk. And the prior faiure made the rematch plenty dramatic.
I've run through 90% of the AoW campaign, so my players have encountered the meat grinders. I didn't cheat my way through them, though. If I caught the unbalanced encounters before game, I cleaned them up. But the players had to deal with a few of them, and even after the whole party was dropped, the campaign continued.
Tell me what is more dramatic. One party gets into a fight with a dragon and half the party gets dropped so the DM starts fudging. The first two rounds the dragon was hitting with 3 or 4 attacks and the attacks were doing about 10 points of damage each.The fight continues with a lot of "bite miss, claw miss, claw miss, wing miss, wing miss" or "He hits for ... 2!".
The other party fights a dragon, and again half the party gets dropped. The party refuses to flee, and it looks like a TPK. Instead the dragon grabs a wizard and tells the others to start stripping off magic items. The party is allowed to leave without those items, and they get to take the bodies with them. Back in town they have to pull in favors and suck up to wealthier NPC's to get loans. Once reequipped they formulated a plan and went back for vengeance.
Or how about a situation without an emminent TPK, where more drama was needed? In my AoW game, at the climax of Kings of the Rift, the players fight a Gargantuan Red Dragon. In the first round of combat the fighter crits and forces a save against massive damage (I know there are alternate rules for this, but I use the standard DC 15 Fort save). The player that forces it rolls the save for the dragon, and the dragon fumbles, dead. I could have just knocked over the mini and handed out the xp, but I instead decribed an elaborate scene about a well-timed strike to the neck and it worked for the players. How many characters kill a dragon with one strike? It was a suitably high-five moment for them. It wasn't how I wished the fight to end, but the players thought it was great. And hey, no cheating.
Doesn't seem like cheating to me more like a DM working a little harder to make the game a better experience. More enjoyable and memorable for his players. Sounds like a fun game.
I disagree with one sentiment here. Your game might be great fun, though I don't know how they would feel if they knew some of their dramatic moments weren't earned, but handed to them. I disagree with fudging the dice as the sign of a DM working harder. In fact, I think cheating and fudging dice is the sign of a lazy DM. Working harder would be putting that extra effort in that would ensure that one bad roll doesn't end the game, not just the gut response of "Oh crap, I better fudge this roll."
Doesn't seem like cheating to me more like a DM working a little harder to make the game a better experience. More enjoyable and memorable for his players. Sounds like a fun game.I disagree with one sentiment here. Your game might be great fun, though I don't know how they would feel if they knew some of their dramatic moments weren't earned, but handed to them. I disagree with fudging the dice as the sign of a DM working harder. In fact, I think cheating and fudging dice is the sign of a lazy DM. Working harder would be putting that extra effort in that would ensure that one bad roll doesn't end the game, not just the gut response of "Oh crap, I better fudge this roll."
I've said before several times that theses "cheater" dice don't have that big of an impact on the overall game, or even the individual encounter, for that matter. So "one bad roll doesn't end the game," with or without special dice.
And I have to say I kind of resent being called "lazy." To me, Lazy is opening a module and running it blindly and enforcing the letter of every rule. No thought, no decision making or evaluation of the circumstance. I mean, if that's how you want to play, what do you need a DM for? Just go play Baulder's Gate or some other computerized game.
Look, thanks, everyone, who commented. As I said, I can see there is a wide range of opinions on this topic, which I find very encouraging, but I don't appreciate the abuse. Just tell me you disagree and leave it at that.
I've said before several times that theses "cheater" dice don't have that big of an impact on the overall game, or even the individual encounter, for that matter. So "one bad roll doesn't end the game," with or without special dice.
And I have to say I kind of resent being called "lazy." To me, Lazy is opening a module and running it blindly and enforcing the letter of every rule. No thought, no decision making or evaluation of the circumstance. I mean, if that's how you want to play, what do you need a DM for? Just go play Baulder's Gate or some other computerized game.
Look, thanks, everyone, who commented. As I said, I can see there is a wide range of opinions on this topic, which I find very encouraging, but I don't appreciate the abuse. Just tell me you disagree and leave it at that.
I'm sorry that I implied you were lazy. That wasn't my intent. I was trying to convey that I think cheating on the die rolls is lazy compared to doing the work so that the cheating isn't necessary. Just my feelings on the subject and not a personal attack against you. We're all friends here. I had to think about that when you said my mentality opposes having fun. I took a minute and figured hopefully it wasn't your intent. And I only argued the "game hinges on a roll" point because you brought it up. So, for the record, no abuse intended from this end and I'm sorry I stated my opinions in a way that would let you infer that.
I'll just go DM without thought someplace else. (Sarcasm intended)
I'm sorry that I implied you were lazy. That wasn't my intent. I was trying to convey that I think cheating on the die rolls is lazy compared to doing the work so that the cheating isn't necessary. Just my feelings on the subject and not a personal attack against you. We're all friends here. I had to think about that when you said my mentality opposes having fun. I took a minute and figured hopefully it wasn't your intent. And I only argued the "game hinges on a roll" point because you brought it up. So, for the record, no abuse intended from this end and I'm sorry I stated my opinions in a way that would let you infer that.I'll just go DM without thought someplace else. (Sarcasm intended)
Yeah, I'm sorry too. (I didn't realize I was so sensative). That thoughtless DMing thing was out of line. I was being unnecessarily retaliatory.