| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beautiful. Now that was adroit.
You can see why I like having him in my home game when he's able to make it.
TOZ is a really smart guy. More so than a lot of people give him credit for.
I don't know. What's your opinion on the matter?
Would this be a case where one person decides unilaterally what is a meaningful benefit?
That I have no idea what an individual's idea of what is meaningful for them is, and thus to not unilaterally claim that a thread is dead, when some people are continuing to post in it. That is my opinion. If I tire of a thread, I leave and go find something more interesting.
*Yawn* Sorry, I don't take claims of Rule 0 (I'm a DM so I can cheat as much as I want so there!) Seriously. Yes Rule 0 is in place. In my opinion is more for issues of houserules and rule interpretations than for free rein for the DM to cheat/fudge/whatever at a whim.If you want to claim Rule 0, great, just let everyone know when you are doing it? Would that be so much to ask. If a player does a "lame" encounter ender, why not just say, "I ENVOKE RULE ZERO! THIS DOES NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT!" Why hide behind the screen and...
I understand that you prefer a restrocted interpreatation of Rule Zero. Lots of players do. Mostly they are those who consider the DM just another player with a different role, and mostly they are people who want to play RAW only. that's cool with me. It's not the way we play, but that's still cool.
I'm confused, are you judging or not?
Depends... what's the object of the word 'judging'?
Is it the person whom I do not know? Certainly not.
Is it the action of cheating in a game? Certainly yes.
Is that more clear?
-James
I understand that you are trying to draw a distinction between judging the person himself, which you seem to want to avoid being seen as doing, and judging his actions, which you find acceptable. I understand the distinction you are trying to make, and in another context, might agree with you.
Unfortunately, when you casually throw around bombshell words like "lying", "cheating" and "morally wrong", that distinction is quickly lost. Hard to say those kind of things about someone's actions without them taking it like a judgment on them personally. Also requires considerable suspension of disbelief to accept that you don't mean it to be a judgment on that person personally.
I don't know you personally, so have no reason to doubt your stated intent. But can you understand how someone might not be willing to give you that benefit of the doubt?
Doesn't seem like a lot of difference to me.I'd point out these differences:
1. It's transparent. Everyone knows when you are doing it.
2. It's limited. There are clear guidelines as to what its use entails, and how many times it can be done.
3. It's done most often at the player's instigation, not the DM's.If those three differences are inconsequential to you, I assure you that they're important to me. Especially the first one.
Those differences frankly aren't significant to me. The limited fudging that goes on at my table is transparent in that i openly acknowledge that I do it occasionally, and my players accept it, just as I accept it when I'm playing and one of them is DM. They don't know when I'm doing it, because acknowledging it would break immersion, in my opinion, and serve no good purpose. As I indicated it is limited, but the guidelines aren't clearset, but are rather a DM's judgment call. As for your third difference, it seems to stand the world on its head, saying that player-instigated fudging is more acceptable than DM-instigated. Not sure why that would be the case.
Then we're not nearly so apart on this as we might originally have thought, it seems.I see six views being put forth here, which fall along something of a spectrum:
1. Lying is good, and the DM always knows best. He or she should fudge whenever desired and not burden the players' pretty little heads about it, because they lack the insight or ability to know it's all for their own good.
2. Sometimes fudging is needed to avoid totally anticlimactic stuff. Keep it to a minimum, and keep it under the radar.
3. If you're going to fudge, make sure you at least make a token mention of it at the start of the campaign. That way you've sort of included the players in the decision.
4. Fudging may be desireable in some rare cases, but lying to the players is not. If you're going to fudge things, do it openly and without deception. You might even employ some strategy of limitations, checks and balances, and/or player-initiated fudges.
5. Fudging is basically cheating. Doing it with consent sort of robs the game of an important element of risk. Doing it without consent constitutes an irreparable breach of trust.
6. Fudging in any way is always wrong.
--
Geraint ("I lie to everyone!") seems to be at #1. There are a lot of 2's in the early part of the thread. You actually seem like a #3 sort of guy. I'm at #4. James Maissen is at #5. Aardvark is unabashedly #6.
Not too bad a summation, although I'm not sure anyone really proposed #1 that arrogantly, although a couple were moving in that direction. I would say I'm pretty much between #2 and #3, although I'd restate #3 to say something more like: A DM should discuss any houserules, and his general DMing style, including whether he ever fudges dice, with players before the campaign starts, and ensure they have buy-in.
I understand that you prefer a restrocted interpreatation of Rule Zero. Lots of players do. Mostly they are those who consider the DM just another player with a different role, and mostly they are people who want to play RAW only. that's cool with me. It's not the way we play, but that's still cool.
*Yawn* Sorry, I don't take claims of Rule 0 (I'm a DM so I can cheat as much as I want so there!) Seriously. Yes Rule 0 is in place. In my opinion is more for issues of houserules and rule interpretations than for free rein for the DM to cheat/fudge/whatever at a whim.If you want to claim Rule 0, great, just let everyone know when you are doing it? Would that be so much to ask. If a player does a "lame" encounter ender, why not just say, "I ENVOKE RULE ZERO! THIS DOES NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT!" Why hide behind the screen and...
Just to clarify, since your comment might be taken by someone, that you are suggesting I am a player ("Lots of players do."). I GM two different groups weekly for 4 hour sessions. And have been for the last 8 years or so pretty consistently.
|
I'd put myself as a 3 or a 4 on the KG Scale of Fudging, rarely do it then only to increase the hit points of a good fight if the party are doing well. Mostly I find it more tense and enjoyable to not use a screen and let the dice speak for themselves.
However as a player I'm probably a 5 or a 6. Does anyone else have double standards?
I did not intend to come across so intense as to be an "unabashedly" #6. I thought I peppered my whole post around "I feel", "I think", "I believe". It's not I think that fudging in any way is always wrong. I live by the idea followed under #3. Any rule changed at any time from that of RAW should be clarified before any campaign begins. As long as all players know where they stand and accept it to play the game then fudging becomes a houserule, therefore a rule, therefore not cheating/lying.
To me I would fall under a 5.5, "Fudging in any way is always unecessary". If rules result in the need to fudge... change the rules, don't change the die rolls.
If in your game fudging is preferred, then by all means. I, however, as a player in any game would ask that you not do it on my behalf. I feel that it robs me of my enjoyment of the game, and I tend to roll on the low side of average consistently. I die by the dice more than I live by them. At least I know that there is no chance of them having even an inkling of a subconcious bias towards either my successes or failures.
As a GM, I'll fudge for only two reasons:
1) To prevent a normal encounter from becoming insane by the occassional string of 4-5 natural twenties in a row. (Or, in the same strain, to drop the hp of a standard-level enemy if my players are hopelessly botching attack rolls.)
I really don't like the idea of luck ruining my players' day.
2) To keep a story-line character looking like a story-line character. If my main bad-guy is intended to do something and the die end up saying "nope, not happening," it will happen anyway. If my big bad is designed with a grapple that needs only a 2 on the die to fail, and I consistantly fail anyway, I'll fudge to make it succeed just so the players realize he's supposed to be doing that. If the story-line involves the big bad mercifully capturing and releasing the party (to give them a moral quandry later about killing him,) then my party is going to get captured. No poor dice rolling will change that (though exceptional inginuity by the players will.)
My players complain if they feel they beat a main-bad by the result of my bad luck that day.
As a player, I expect my GMs to do the same.
That said, I still feel a little cheapened when the GM openly debates negating a kill-shot that was ridiculously lucky on the die...I prefer the GM keep me immersed by keeping GM fiats private.
I did not intend to come across so intense as to be an "unabashedly" #6. I thought I peppered my whole post around "I feel", "I think", "I believe". It's not I think that fudging in any way is always wrong. I live by the idea followed under #3. Any rule changed at any time from that of RAW should be clarified before any campaign begins. As long as all players know where they stand and accept it to play the game then fudging becomes a houserule, therefore a rule, therefore not cheating/lying.
To me I would fall under a 5.5, "Fudging in any way is always unecessary". If rules result in the need to fudge... change the rules, don't change the die rolls.
If in your game fudging is preferred, then by all means. I, however, as a player in any game would ask that you not do it on my behalf. I feel that it robs me of my enjoyment of the game, and I tend to roll on the low side of average consistently. I die by the dice more than I live by them. At least I know that there is no chance of them having even an inkling of a subconcious bias towards either my successes or failures.
What if the group does not want a TPK, but they don't want to restart the campaign in any fashion. Is it wrong to fudge, or is it wrong to end their fun?
What if the group does not want a TPK, but they don't want to restart the campaign in any fashion. Is it wrong to fudge, or is it wrong to end their fun?I did not intend to come across so intense as to be an "unabashedly" #6. I thought I peppered my whole post around "I feel", "I think", "I believe". It's not I think that fudging in any way is always wrong. I live by the idea followed under #3. Any rule changed at any time from that of RAW should be clarified before any campaign begins. As long as all players know where they stand and accept it to play the game then fudging becomes a houserule, therefore a rule, therefore not cheating/lying.
To me I would fall under a 5.5, "Fudging in any way is always unecessary". If rules result in the need to fudge... change the rules, don't change the die rolls.
If in your game fudging is preferred, then by all means. I, however, as a player in any game would ask that you not do it on my behalf. I feel that it robs me of my enjoyment of the game, and I tend to roll on the low side of average consistently. I die by the dice more than I live by them. At least I know that there is no chance of them having even an inkling of a subconcious bias towards either my successes or failures.
Did the party a) try to run away or b) try to surrender (assuming an intelligent foe)?
Often times there can be roleplaying reasons for a foe not to kill all members of a group. Even evil characters don't necessarily "waste" all the lives of others if they see some value in keeping them alive, even if just for a short time.
What about T-Rexs?
See option (a).
Also, most creatures with animal intelligence (including animals of course), only kill to eat or defend their territory. If you run, then their territory is defended, so no continued attack. If they kill one party member and eat them, then they have fed so no continued attack.
Again, a GM should look for roleplaying reasons why the foe(s) wouldn't need/want to kill the entire party. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with some.
Now if the party continues to attack a T-Rex, even after half the group has dropped, then claiming they didn't "want" a TPK is a bit of a stretch. If they truly didn't "want" a TPK, they should have changed tactics, when the foe did.
Part of the problems is players are notorious about not wanting to (a) run away and (b) surrender. They, most players, hate to do that. I'm not saying a GM should go out of their way to force them to do one of those, but a group that doesn't consider either option shouldn't complain too much if they get a TPK.
What if the group does not want a TPK, but they don't want to restart the campaign in any fashion. Is it wrong to fudge, or is it wrong to end their fun?I did not intend to come across so intense as to be an "unabashedly" #6. I thought I peppered my whole post around "I feel", "I think", "I believe". It's not I think that fudging in any way is always wrong. I live by the idea followed under #3. Any rule changed at any time from that of RAW should be clarified before any campaign begins. As long as all players know where they stand and accept it to play the game then fudging becomes a houserule, therefore a rule, therefore not cheating/lying.
To me I would fall under a 5.5, "Fudging in any way is always unecessary". If rules result in the need to fudge... change the rules, don't change the die rolls.
If in your game fudging is preferred, then by all means. I, however, as a player in any game would ask that you not do it on my behalf. I feel that it robs me of my enjoyment of the game, and I tend to roll on the low side of average consistently. I die by the dice more than I live by them. At least I know that there is no chance of them having even an inkling of a subconcious bias towards either my successes or failures.
Did the party a) try to run away or b) try to surrender (assuming an intelligent foe)?
Often times there can be roleplaying reasons for a foe not to kill all members of a group. Even evil characters don't necessarily "waste" all the lives of others if they see some value in keeping them alive, even if just for a short time.
I did not make up a situation. The point is that in my hypothetical situation you can kill them or fudge dice. They can't run away, and the bad guy whether it is intelligent or not can't/won't let them live without breaking immersion.
I also consider changing a legit strategy(one that could TPK) to save the party to be no different than fudging.slightly off-topic: I have had parties in this king of trouble when the dice gods turned against me so players can get lucky.
What if the group does not want a TPK, but they don't want to restart the campaign in any fashion. Is it wrong to fudge, or is it wrong to end their fun?
I don't know if it's a product of Military gaming groups (players come and go a lot due to players getting stationed elsewhere), or a product of the gamers I tend to befriend (or both). I have never run a group, or been in one where the errant TPK wasn't just taken as another opportunity for a different DM to run a game they had in mind. Or an opportunity for the players to make character concepts they had as alternate ideas when they made their toons for the just finished game.
When I DM, and a TPK happens, I Fast Forward a few years and the new characters deal with a world that was affected by the results of the BBEG succeeding earlier.
Our groups always seem to have at least 2 other DM's at the table. When one game ends, the group shrugs, looks back at all the cool things that our party did, and start a different game. We have memorable characters and stories, and see a chance to add one more to our list. It may just boil down to attachment to the character (I like mine no less when they die), or possibly there being a feeling of win/lose when they do/do not finish a campaign.
/shrug, I don't know, but I do know that when I or the groups I've been in lose a character, we just pick ourselves up, dust off, start over.
I did not make up a situation. The point is that in my hypothetical situation you can kill them or fudge dice.
So you are making up a (extremely vague) situation.
They can't run away,
Why not?
and the bad guy whether it is intelligent or not can't/won't let them live without breaking immersion.
Again, why not? Doesn't the bad guy like to torture people? Or save them to be eaten later?
I also consider changing a legit strategy(one that could TPK) to save the party to be no different than fudging.
So to you, roleplaying means coming up with an idea of how the character should act and never deviating from that course based on the actually circumstances of the situation? Because that is what it sounds like. An intelligent foe intent on "stopping the adventurers", who is faced with half of the targets dead and the other half trying to surrender, will always, 100% of the time, try to finish killing the rest? You can't come up with any believable in-character reason for the not doing that?
What about T-Rexs?
T-Rex? T-Rex we kill. No value in keeping them alive. At. All. They're supposed to be extinct anyway.
I play with a lot of new players. Beacause they don't know the information, there is not a lot of fudging and when there is, it comes across as part of the story. I found with my old group, that contained several meta-gamers (who owned alomst as many RPG books as I did) fudging had to be subtle and happen in odd ways (when it was needed at all for story advancement or game enjoyment) to avoid the questions and complaints of rules lawyers and metagame knowledge.
I love new players for this reason. They are all wonder and awe with no preconceived notions of how many hit points a goblin has or what a vampire can and can't do.
Actually Pres, I have TPK'd a party with a random roadside encounter.... with weak centipedes.
They couldn't run.. they failed the saves vs Paralysis
The centipedes weren't High enough Int to stop whent he party was half dead, they are vermin they eat.
And Wraith, in that instance... the party died. It is a joke amongst the friends I was playing with about the deadliness of centipedes. No more, we moved on it was funny. Made new characters.
It could be also that I run a little more sandbox, I get backstory from every character and create an overarching goal that gives each toon a vested interest in doing it. How, is up to them. If they die, their new toons have new stories and new goals, I connect them to a rough overall goal and it starts anew.
The centipedes weren't High enough Int to stop whent he party was half dead, they are vermin they eat.
They eat, yes. So when they have enough food to satisfy themselves, they continue to kill and eat?
|
I roll in the open (and so do my players), so if I'm going to fudge, it won't be by fudging the dice rolls. But I definitely fudge by adjusting the story and if I'm the one who wrote the story, I don't think of it as fudging at all.
For example, two of my players were in a trap and had to fight their way down a gauntlet of animated swords. The trap was set up so that only two PCs could be in the trap at any time. The entryway would only open if one of the trapped PCs died. The rest of the party had no teleportation magic to get themselves inside. During the battle, I rolled 4 natural 20s in 8 rolls. Everyone saw the rolls and groaned as they happened. The two PCs were in a tough fight and probably would have both been killed since they had no healing magic left, so I fudged the plot. The PCs hadn't yet figured out the mechanics of the trap, so I had the entryway open a little earlier (12 hours later) to allow two more PCs to enter the trap and provide healing support to the first two. Either way it was a tough fight and everyone felt a great sense of accomplishment that they'd had figured out a way to survive for those 12 hours.
My players don't need to know that I changed how the trap functioned midway as long as the story seems consistent. Now, if they had already been able to figure out how the trap worked in the first place, I wouldn't have changed it. But it didn't seem fair to kill off two PCs because of some really improbable dice rolling.
I think this kind of fudging has got to happen -- unless you are running a published adventure and your players really want to see how their characters handle the same adventure others are playing. So it really depends on what you are looking for going into the adventure, both the PCs and the GM.
|
And any good, fair-minded DM should take what is important to you into account.
Obviously, were I DMing for Kirth, James, Green and Aardvark, they would make clear in the pre-campaign discussion that fudging was not, by any means, acceptable. Thus, if we decided to move forward, it would be set aside for the duration—which is, of course, not to imply that any of them would want me DMing for them in the first place. >:)
Whose responsibility is it to bring the issue up? Because I wouldn't.
Surely, the default assumption is that, if people are meeting for a game, that all present will abide by the rules of the game, and not have one member cheat and lie to them.
If I'm joining a new game, I give the GM the benefit of the doubt that he is honest and fair, unless and until I see evidence to the contrary. To suspect otherwise, and quiz him, before the game's even started, on what we'll do if he ever feels like lying to kill our PCs, or throwing the game to let us win, would be the height of bad manners.
I'd no more ask a GM "Please outline your favoured method of cheating", than I'd ask him "When we come to your house, will you remember not to kick me in the balls?". Or is that normal behaviour among today's gamers?
"Well, officer, we'd been playing for several minutes, and you see, he never came right out and told me not to do it..."
Okay, I've been lurking here for a good chunk and here's my 2 coppers
I have 2 groups that I DM for....I'm it, the only DM, poor blighters. Anyhoo, one group I've been running since the mid 80s and the other since the mid 90s.
The older group has always known that I run a very sandbox and loose game. They make the campaign rock! They know that I will fudge rolls to keep the story going and entertain us all so we have a good time. After all, if it ain't fun, why do it. Especially since we have to travel up to 6 hours to get to each other.
The new group wanted their game up front, no screens, no hidden rolls, nada. Okay, after the first dozen quick deaths, in Table Top Miniature Gaming style, they let me give it a go with the screen. Do I fudge rolls? They have no idea, they just know they have a great time and sometimes, the dice fall for them, and some times, they fall on them. I even ask them at some times if they want to see certain 'key' rolls in the open and they all emphatically say no.
My groups know that I am rooting for them to have a great time at the games. I've told them many times, especially with recurring BBEGs that are after them that they are here to kill them, and go after them with extreme prejudice. I haven't TPK'd them yet and they love those games the most when the backs are against the wall.
As to any fudging being morally reprehensive and vile, bite me. My groups like the way we play and if that ain't your cup o tea, don't sit at my table.
Now, to soften this a bit, both styles have their fans and both are right as long as they are all having fun. That being said..
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~
retype due to eaten post, summary follows
Pres, they were low-level, small vermin easily eat to -10
TOZ, I don't AP (or pre-published campaign in general), if I did we would end. Start over a new one. Never played with people that didn't just shrug off TPK's as a learning experience, and that's from 4 yrs overseas in 2 diff countries, 9 yrs stateside in 4 diff duty stations and all with rotating players due to reassignments. As I said before, maybe military lifestyle leads to a mentality of not expecting a campaign to run longer than a year, so less need to finish a story or see a toon to the end.
I did not make up a situation. The point is that in my hypothetical situation you can kill them or fudge dice.So you are making up a (extremely vague) situation.
They can't run away,Why not?
and the bad guy whether it is intelligent or not can't/won't let them live without breaking immersion.Again, why not? Doesn't the bad guy like to torture people? Or save them to be eaten later?
I also consider changing a legit strategy(one that could TPK) to save the party to be no different than fudging.So to you, roleplaying means coming up with an idea of how the character should act and never deviating from that course based on the actually circumstances of the situation? Because that is what it sounds like. An intelligent foe intent on "stopping the adventurers", who is faced with half of the targets dead and the other half trying to surrender, will always, 100% of the time, try to finish killing the rest? You can't come up with any believable in-character reason for the not doing that?
I can make up a very detailed reason to fit my vague description, but why go through the trouble? The point was for the question to be answered. So far it is only being dodged.
If the DM allows the characters to live when the NPC does not need them alive then he is fudging, which has nothing to do with RP'ing the NPC in question. You only want me to give you a detailed scenario so you can try to ask me a whole lot of questions to avoid my previous question.The NPC wants the PC's dead for (insert reason). If he lets them live they may escape as they have done before. If he kills them this time his plan can go on without any interference. The PC's have nothing to offer by living. The NPC designed the room so that it is easy to get in but nigh impossible to get out, maybe 2ft thick adamantine doors that only he has the key too, and the party is not high enough in level and/or does not have the means to bypass the doors in the amount of time needed, which is most likely 3 rounds or less since they are on the verge of death.
The NPC was not overpowered but the PC's have been rolling below 10's, and the DM was blessed by the dice gods.
I guess that could be bad encounter design to trap them, so let's say the PC's put up a force wall to block the way out, and the caster that put it there is dead so he can't dismiss it.
You can alternatively think of another way for the PC's to be trapped whether it is their fault or not. That still does not change my question of do you fudge, or kill them.
What if the group does not want a TPK, but they don't want to restart the campaign in any fashion. Is it wrong to fudge, or is it wrong to end their fun?I don't know if it's a product of Military gaming groups (players come and go a lot due to players getting stationed elsewhere), or a product of the gamers I tend to befriend (or both). I have never run a group, or been in one where the errant TPK wasn't just taken as another opportunity for a different DM to run a game they had in mind. Or an opportunity for the players to make character concepts they had as alternate ideas when they made their toons for the just finished game.
When I DM, and a TPK happens, I Fast Forward a few years and the new characters deal with a world that was affected by the results of the BBEG succeeding earlier.
Our groups always seem to have at least 2 other DM's at the table. When one game ends, the group shrugs, looks back at all the cool things that our party did, and start a different game. We have memorable characters and stories, and see a chance to add one more to our list. It may just boil down to attachment to the character (I like mine no less when they die), or possibly there being a feeling of win/lose when they do/do not finish a campaign.
/shrug, I don't know, but I do know that when I or the groups I've been in lose a character, we just pick ourselves up, dust off, start over.
Maybe the group is tired of not finishing campaigns for whatever reason.
Actually Pres, I have TPK'd a party with a random roadside encounter.... with weak centipedes.
They couldn't run.. they failed the saves vs Paralysis
The centipedes weren't High enough Int to stop whent he party was half dead, they are vermin they eat.
And Wraith, in that instance... the party died. It is a joke amongst the friends I was playing with about the deadliness of centipedes. No more, we moved on it was funny. Made new characters.
It could be also that I run a little more sandbox, I get backstory from every character and create an overarching goal that gives each toon a vested interest in doing it. How, is up to them. If they die, their new toons have new stories and new goals, I connect them to a rough overall goal and it starts anew.
Well if the party is paralyzed there is not much fudging can do. Having the random super NPC save them would break immersion for my group. They would probably rather go with the TPK, and try different ideas next time.
The centipedes weren't High enough Int to stop whent he party was half dead, they are vermin they eat.They eat, yes. So when they have enough food to satisfy themselves, they continue to kill and eat?
There may have been a centipede on each PC.
I can make up a very detailed reason to fit my vague description, but why go through the trouble? The point was for the question to be answered. So far it is only being dodged.
If the DM allows the characters to live when the NPC does not need them alive then he is fudging, which has nothing to do with RP'ing the NPC in question. You only want me to give you a detailed scenario so you can try to ask me a whole lot of questions to avoid my previous question.
The NPC wants the PC's dead for (insert reason). If he lets them live they may escape as they have done before. If he kills them this time his plan can go on without any interference. The PC's have nothing to offer by living. The NPC designed the room so that it is easy to get in but nigh impossible to get out, maybe 2ft thick adamantine doors that only he has the key too, and the party is not high enough in level and/or does not have the means to bypass the doors in the amount of time needed, which is most likely 3 rounds or less since they are on the verge of death.
The NPC was not overpowered but the PC's have been rolling below 10's, and the DM was blessed by the dice gods.
I guess that could be bad encounter design to trap them, so let's say the PC's put up a force wall to block the way out, and the caster that put it there is dead so he can't dismiss it.
You can alternatively think of another way for the PC's to be trapped whether it is their fault or not. That still does not change my question of do you fudge, or kill them.
So basically your question comes down to, "If I as a GM paint myself into a corner where the only options I am willing to entertain is either TPK or fudge, which should I do?" Obviously, you should do what is most desireable for the group and yourself. Since those are the only two options you are allowing, I guess if you are fine with fudging or your group is full of Blackleafs, then you should probably fudge. If you don't feel like fudging and your group is full of mature players that can deal with making new characters or maybe want to play a ghost walk campaign, or maybe get new temporary characters until their old characters can be resurrected, then don't fudge.
But the issue isn't really one of fudging or not fudging, it is one of painting yourself into a corner and not entertaining any other options. For myself, if I was in that situation, I would see that as a flaw of creativity for myself.
One good case for fudging is in the first adventure. Its not fair to let your characters make big long-term characters who get killed immediately.
Pres, they were low-level, small vermin easily eat to -10
I assume there were quite a large number of them then. I mean it is probably not reasonable to assume that a small sized vermin is going to eat an entire medium sized character at one sitting by itself, is it? Now several small sized creatures could all feed on one medium sized character in one sitting.
|
As I said before, maybe military lifestyle leads to a mentality of not expecting a campaign to run longer than a year, so less need to finish a story or see a toon to the end.
It's not military life, just individual attitudes. My nine years with four overseas tours and only one PCS has made me want to keep story continuity as much as I can, as I usually have only a year to run the campaign in and I want to share as much of the adventure path as I can with my friends because they won't always be there.
So basically your question comes down to, "If I as a GM paint myself into a corner where the only options I am willing to entertain is either TPK or fudge, which should I do?"I can make up a very detailed reason to fit my vague description, but why go through the trouble? The point was for the question to be answered. So far it is only being dodged.
If the DM allows the characters to live when the NPC does not need them alive then he is fudging, which has nothing to do with RP'ing the NPC in question. You only want me to give you a detailed scenario so you can try to ask me a whole lot of questions to avoid my previous question.
The NPC wants the PC's dead for (insert reason). If he lets them live they may escape as they have done before. If he kills them this time his plan can go on without any interference. The PC's have nothing to offer by living. The NPC designed the room so that it is easy to get in but nigh impossible to get out, maybe 2ft thick adamantine doors that only he has the key too, and the party is not high enough in level and/or does not have the means to bypass the doors in the amount of time needed, which is most likely 3 rounds or less since they are on the verge of death.
The NPC was not overpowered but the PC's have been rolling below 10's, and the DM was blessed by the dice gods.
I guess that could be bad encounter design to trap them, so let's say the PC's put up a force wall to block the way out, and the caster that put it there is dead so he can't dismiss it.
You can alternatively think of another way for the PC's to be trapped whether it is their fault or not. That still does not change my question of do you fudge, or kill them.
No that is not the question. That is why I put the example of the player made force wall in there. The question is the same as it was before. In a situation where the players can't run away, through a mistake of theirs of the DM and the likely choices are fudge or TPK, what do you do?
They will be dead long before their bodies are entirely consumed.Pres, they were low-level, small vermin easily eat to -10I assume there were quite a large number of them then. I mean it is probably not reasonable to assume that a small sized vermin is going to eat an entire medium sized character at one sitting by itself, is it? Now several small sized creatures could all feed on one medium sized character in one sitting.
*facepalm* Yes, that is correct. But would the creatures continue to kill things, if they already have enough to feed themselves? Most animals (and things of similar intelligence/instincts) do not continue to kill even after they have enough to eat. The lion pride doesn't kill all of the zebras only to find out that they can eat only 3 of them before the rest go bad.
No that is not the question. That is why I put the example of the player made force wall in there. The question is the same as it was before. In a situation where the players can't run away, through a mistake of theirs of the DM and the likely choices are fudge or TPK, what do you do?
Wait. So they are in a situation that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to escape from. How in the world is fudging going to help them? Didn't you say earlier,
And wouldn't that be exactly what you are suggesting to do here? Huh?
|
|
WRT the centipedes, I'd certainly rule that if they were left alone, they'd crowd round one body to eat it, unless they were summoned critters, or somehow controlled by a vengeful enemy.
The surviving PCs can run behind a rock and wait till they're done, then go pick up poor Blackleaf's gear. Go to the next town, and sell it to buy some centipede-repellent.
The reason encounters like these go t#!&-up is because of the players, who won't let it lie, and keep bashing them. If you chase an animal and poke it with a stick, it'll fight back. And that's not the GM's fault if a second PC dies.
AB, if you were running an adventure path, and had a TPK halfway through, what would you do? I'm assuming have a new party come in and learn of the plot from a different angle.
That's why I always have 2 groups of PCs active. When I ran Spire of Long Shadows, for example, the first party had a TPK; group 2 played follow-up (and made excellent use of speak with dead on the bodies of their predecessors to find out what happened).