Lots of interesting stuff, some of which I agree with.
I understand where you are coming from. As you say, people are judged by their actions. The point I was trying to make was that they are also judged by the words they choose. I simply wanted to let you know that the words you have chosen will be taken as accusatory and insulting by others. If you are aware of that, and are doing so deliberately, so be it. That's your right.
As for your chess/checkers analogy, it just doesn't hold, as I've mentioned before. Chess and checkers are wonderful, but relatively simple games with immutable rules that have remained unchanged for centuries,and about which there is no dispute. PF/D&D, on the other hand is a game with less than 40 years of history, during which it has gone through at least 4 major revisions, and innumerable additions/subtractions, etc. It is also a tremendously complex ruleset that was deliberately designed to be flexible enough to accommodate different playstyles and allow the imagination and preferences of DMs and players to define the boundaries more than the rules do. That is one of the true beauties of the game, that it is flexible enough to accomodate all of us, in all our wonderful variety. So we aren't playing different games, just different styles of the same game. Like the difference between professional and Olympic boxing, for example.
I wish you peace and good gaming, brother.
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.If they jumped on different prey, probably. If they're still being attacked, or the party is trying to get their friend's bodies out of there absolutely.
If they just abandoned them and ran, they might be ok.
Which was my point, a TPK in that situation usually is caused by players not knowing when they are in over their head, maybe due to a poorly balanced encounter or (un)lucky dice rolls. If a party decides to not fight it to the last man, some(one) should survive the encounter. But running away? Who wants to do that?
Vermin are less intelligent than animals by the way.
Which is why I said, "things of similar intelligence/instincts", the "instincts" was there for the mindless types.
*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.
Aside: It is likely vermin (insects, etc) will never stop eating. There are a surprising number of creatures that will eat themselves to death, actually.
/tangent
|
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).
Not sure how viable that would be with my group. Kind of short attention spans. :)
*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.Aside: It is likely vermin (insects, etc) will never stop eating. There are a surprising number of creatures that will eat themselves to death, actually.
/tangent
Right, which makes more sense that they would immediately stop "hunting" as soon as food "drops". They would rush to start feeding, unless of course something kept attacking them.
If you're the type that lavishes loving attention on and meticulously records the exploits of the 22nd level bard you've played regularly for twelve years, you may not be inclined to inquire too deeply into the nature of his or her seemingly miraculous survival/victory. On the other hand, if you create characters on a whim, laugh as they die, roll up another and are ready to game again five minutes later ... ain't gonna affect you the same way.
It fosters a certain reserve early on in a PC's career, I'll grant you. You can love a character and have great fun detailing his idosyncrasies until 6th level as well as until 22nd -- but you most likely hold off writing his memoirs. The one PC you have who does make it to higher levels is all the more cherished because of it.
That's why I always have two groups of PCs active.Interesting.
While there's nothing overtly wrong with such a contingency (and it's arguably quite prudent and foresighted from a particular perspective), certain DMs and/or players might consider having a spare party in your back pocket indicative of insufficient emotional investment in the characters you are—or, rather, were—playing. The "That's Some Cold $h!+, Man" school of DMing, as it were.
I think the success of such might well, for some, be inversely proportional to just how long and how intently the group's been playing its (now late) characters. For a one-nighter or short-term game, hey ... why not? Saves time on creation.
I also wonder how much of this fudging dispute is at least tangentially related to the perception of characters' disposability. If you're the type that lavishes loving attention on and meticulously records the exploits of the 22nd level bard you've played regularly for twelve years, you may not be inclined to inquire too deeply into the nature of his or her seemingly miraculous survival/victory. On the other hand, if you create characters on a whim, laugh as they die, roll up another and are ready to game again five minutes later ... ain't gonna affect you the same way.
For some, D&D is more a tactical exercise than a chance to method act, and that's an entirely valid mode of play. For others, the combat and puzzle-solving is secondary or even tertiary to their opportunity for immersing themselves in a part. The gamer vs. the role-player, in a sense—which is not to say the two have to be mutually exclusive, by any means.
Takes all kinds, I suppose.
Have to agree. It's usually a warning sign of a killer campaign/adventure path/dungeon when the DM tells you to have a spare character ready. The first time that happened with me was Tomb of Horrors in 1st Edition. My first character, a gnome thief/illusionist, didn't even make it into the real dungeon before he died!
Some groups and players are fine with that and others aren't. Even within my own group, I have several players who don't mind at all if their character dies heroically (although none of them really like it when they die because of stupidity or sheer random bad luck). I also have a couple who are very attached to their characters, and take it pretty hard and will sulk for weeks if their character dies.
Have to agree. It's usually a warning sign of a killer campaign/adventure path/dungeon when the DM tells you to have a spare character ready.
The thing is, I'd do the same even if I were one of you carebear coddler types who refuses to allow PCs to die. It breaks any semblance of verisimilitude for me if somehow the world rigidly has only has one (1) set of adventurers at a time who hang out together at all times. An additional group provides another set of adventurers, a break on alternate sessions for players wanting to try something different -- even if the first group is immortal by DM fiat.
Have to agree. It's usually a warning sign of a killer campaign/adventure path/dungeon when the DM tells you to have a spare character ready.The thing is, I'd do the same even if I were one of you carebear coddler types who refuses to allow PCs to die. It breaks any semblance of verisimilitude for me if somehow the world rigidly has only has one (1) set of adventurers at a time who hang out together at all times. An additional group provides another set of adventurers, a break on alternate sessions for players wanting to try something different -- even if the first group is immortal by DM fiat.
Of course there are many adventuring groups in any given world. For example, when my group needs a real challenge I throw a group of similar capabilities at them, just so they can taste how miserable they are making life for the world's monsters. I just don't have them create alternate characters or parties up front (although a couple usually have a spare characters ready on their own). I'm afraid they wouldn't invest much in their current character if they knew a spare was waiting just around the next plot bend. Unfortunately, we don't usually get enough game time to permit playing more than one party and/or adventure at a time. :(
I agree with you on not being a cuddler. Of the three DMs we have, I'm the one most likely to kill characters. I take a lot of grief because I put a mark on my DM screen for every character death, something I started doing back in 2nd Edition. The screen has 34 marks on it now (not sure how many I killed in 1st edition, probably more due to less experience with balancing encounters), which translates out to only about 2 or 3 deaths a year. I do it so they know they can die, even if it doesn't happen often. I've never done a TPK, and do work actively to avoid it, for a wide variety of reasons, including because I like to finish adventures and it's always a little awkward to just press reset with new characters. I've killed characters for both of my daughters (who are good sports about it), and my wife (who is not) still holds a grudge because her character was swallowed by a giant frog the first time she ever played. I still know I'm going to hear about it every time they encounter anything amphibian, even though it was 16 years ago. :)
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.
This.
I make a decision when I choose to roll the dice that I'm going to let random chance decide an outcome. By the time I chose to let the dice decide I accepted ALL the consequences that may result in the die roll.
I do as a DM and Storyteller, have the distinct ability to not leave the outcome to the dice, by choosing not to roll. Why roll the dice if you're not willing to take the results?
As far as not investing in the character. I'm invested in my toon from the minute I make the concept a reality, and all my toons have a backstory before they have all the numbers down (most have the voice I'm gonna use for them as well). The difference is, I'm just as vested in all my characters, and all my concepts. It has nothing to do with not role-playing, it's more the idea that my character could die at any time, so I better make every decision as if his life depends on it, because in the game it does. It's this level of verisimiltude that I find exciting. When I start with a new DM, and the adventure begins with the PC's as part of a prophecy, I actually get worried that it means that there's no risk, because from the beginning he had plans for us, and our PC's plans are not as important as the DM's. To me, fudging rolls either for or against the PC's feels railroaded, because ifthe DM want's the story to go a certain way.. then they will fudge rolls to make it happen.
Just how I see it when I'm a player, not saying that's how or why for anyone here. It just feels like my experience is cheapened, and what I've done wasn't truly mine to begin with, it was their story not ours.
I do as a DM and Storyteller, have the distinct ability to not leave the outcome to the dice, by choosing not to roll. Why roll the dice if you're not willing to take the results?
Quick answer...to make it unclear to my players that I decided an attack or ability that they have to roll for will auto-succeed/fail.
Interesting thread.
I find it remarklable that so many DMs roll behind the screen as a default.
I wouldn't do that as a DM. The reason I wouldn't do it as a DM is that I wouldn't want it done to me as a player. I invest plenty of time in my PC characters. That doesn't mean I want to be treated with kid gloves; quite the opposite. I want to be the hero, tragic or comedic or happily-ever-after-ish...or even the hero's sidekick, that would do. In any case, I don't want my fate fudged one way or the other. Show me the rolls.
As a group we're completely at home with this - open rolling - and I guess I thought it was pretty normal these days. Was I wrong? My hunch is that the whole DM-as-God/author is distasteful to many people...and I do think rolling behind the screen feeds in to this power balance; fuels DM-as-God, if anything. These days the author is dead and the DM is a navigator, not a god. Which is fine by us. To the point, in fact, where I'd certainly look suspiciously at any game where the DM is rolling behind some Magic Faraway kind of of Screen.
I DM/play about 50/50, love em both, and never fudge. Sorry to sound LG about it, but I don't think there's any excuse*. If you're fudging, you're (a) playing God where God isn't needed (b) making up for bad encounter writing (your own, or someone else's) or (c) bowdlerising the variety of drama a great campaign can offer - comedic, tragic, grand heroic. ie: you may not think the boss going down in a round is a 'good' ending, but the players might. Let em have it.
* edit: unless you're just starting out DMing...and perhaps then it's no excuse either. It's just a bad habit to form.
Interesting thread.
I find it remarklable that so many DMs roll behind the screen as a default.
I wouldn't do that as a DM. The reason I wouldn't do it as a DM is that I wouldn't want it done to me as a player. I invest plenty of time in my PC characters. That doesn't mean I want to be treated with kid gloves; quite the opposite. I want to be the hero, tragic or comedic or happily-ever-after-ish...or even the hero's sidekick, that would do. In any case, I don't want my fate fudged one way or the other. Show me the rolls.
As a group we're completely at home with this - open rolling - and I guess I thought it was pretty normal these days. Was I wrong? My hunch is that the whole DM-as-God/author is distasteful to many people...and I do think rolling behind the screen feeds in to this power balance; fuels DM-as-God, if anything. These days the author is dead and the DM is a navigator, not a god. Which is fine by us. To the point, in fact, where I'd certainly look suspiciously at any game where the DM is rolling behind some Magic Faraway kind of of Screen.
I DM/play about 50/50, love em both, and never fudge. Sorry to sound LG about it, but I don't think there's any excuse*. If you're fudging, you're (a) playing God where God isn't needed (b) making up for bad encounter writing (your own, or someone else's) or (c) bowdlerising the variety of drama a great campaign can offer - comedic, tragic, grand heroic. ie: you may not think the boss going down in a round is a 'good' ending, but the players might. Let em have it.
* edit: unless you're just starting out DMing...and perhaps then it's no excuse either. It's just a bad habit to form.
I might be going sligtly off-topic here, but...
Whether a GM fudges or not, I still think it's important for a GM to use the screen. Maybe it's just around my circle, but many players find it far too tempting to use the info gained to metagame an enemy. As is, it's far too frequent for my players (all of whom are very intelligent) to quickly determine the general stats of their opponents just from the kinds of results the opponent can get...
And, on the occassions that I forget to use a screen, I almost always regret it, because the players start immediately redesigning their battlefield strategy based on the bonuses the enemies have, rather than what their characters see.
Again, maybe that's just my experience...
Why write a line of prose if you're willing to edit it seconds later in favor of something better ... ?
Oh. Yeah.
When you're writing, you have complete control and get to decide the actions of everything involved in that writing.
When you're role-playing, by rolling the dice you are choosing to relinquish that control to the results of a die roll that affects the actions and decisions of the other players.
Quick answer...to make it unclear to my players that I decided an attack or ability that they have to roll for will auto-succeed/fail.
So you roll to make them think that their choice mattered? And to not let them know that you decided the outcome whether they agree or not? How is this not lying to them to get what you want?
Quick answer...to make it unclear to my players that I decided an attack or ability that they have to roll for will auto-succeed/fail.So you roll to make them think that their choice mattered? And to not let them know that you decided the outcome whether they agree or not? How is this not lying to them to get what you want?
You misunderstand me. I never fudge a player's roll...EVER. I might fudge an NPC's skill roll, attack roll, or (rarely) saving throw. And, even then, only to make the NPC do what it's supposed to do...never to thwart an player's ingenuity.
You misunderstand me. I never fudge a player's roll...EVER. I might fudge an NPC's skill roll, attack roll, or (rarely) saving throw. And, even then, only to make the NPC do what it's supposed to do...never to thwart an player's ingenuity.Quick answer...to make it unclear to my players that I decided an attack or ability that they have to roll for will auto-succeed/fail.So you roll to make them think that their choice mattered? And to not let them know that you decided the outcome whether they agree or not? How is this not lying to them to get what you want?
I did indeed misunderstand the they in your statement. This changes my response a little. It still upsets me when I see a DM does it to get the outcome they want, even to the PC's benefit. I have even challenged DM's as a player by intentionally going against the story, and standing up to NPC's who tried to scare me into following his path. I was right they didn't want to follow through because they wanted me to live for their story. After that happened, I cared less for my PC and began looking for a different group. The challenge was gone, I knew he wouldn't kill me, I was too important to the story he was telling whether I liked it or not.
Example 1
You roll the dice in private, use your pre-determined outcome, the players take it as fate/luck (good or bad)/random
Example 2
You don't roll the dice, use your pre-determined outcome, the players take it as DM fiat/Railroad/DM's story trumps
I see it as the only difference between the two is that the players don't feel like they're being railroaded, even if they always come out on top. Some of the greatest triumphs I've seen enjoyed by players is when their actions change the outcome of the story. That just means the Dm has to adapt and evolve the story. I understand that in the case of pre-published there are events that need to happen (I don't use published, they feel railroady to me too), and sometimes you need to let things by for that to happen, fine. I personally would rather lose an AP and not finish the story, than feel like my actions mattered less because I was bound to complete it due to DM intervention.
|
Have to agree. It's usually a warning sign of a killer campaign/adventure path/dungeon when the DM tells you to have a spare character ready.The thing is, I'd do the same even if I were one of you carebear coddler types who refuses to allow PCs to die. It breaks any semblance of verisimilitude for me if somehow the world rigidly has only has one (1) set of adventurers at a time who hang out together at all times. An additional group provides another set of adventurers, a break on alternate sessions for players wanting to try something different -- even if the first group is immortal by DM fiat.Of course there are many adventuring groups in any given world. For example, when my group needs a real challenge I throw a group of similar capabilities at them, just so they can taste how miserable they are making life for the world's monsters. I just don't have them create alternate characters or parties up front (although a couple usually have a spare characters ready on their own). I'm afraid they wouldn't invest much in their current character if they knew a spare was waiting just around the next plot bend. Unfortunately, we don't usually get enough game time to permit playing more than one party and/or adventure at a time. :(
I agree with you on not being a cuddler. Of the three DMs we have, I'm the one most likely to kill characters. I take a lot of grief because I put a mark on my DM screen for every character death, something I started doing back in 2nd Edition. The screen has 34 marks on it now (not sure how many I killed in 1st edition, probably more due to less experience with balancing encounters), which translates out to only about 2 or 3 deaths a year. I do it so they know they can die, even if it doesn't happen often. I've never done a TPK, and do work actively to avoid it, for a wide variety of reasons, including because I like to finish adventures and it's always a little awkward to just press reset with new characters....
I Dmed one session before letting Silverhair take over. And I killed one character. Lesson learned? Don't go toe to toe with an ogre at first level. The rest of you did fine with your hit and run tactics, and fairly won a VERY non-CR appropriate encounter.
I figure I should weigh in here. If I find out the DM fudged for "story" reason (or, really, for any reason), I tend to find another game. I want to feel like I EARNED my levels. Not that I was handed them to facilitate some bad novelist's story.
And TOZ, I'm not hording the hero points, I forget I have them until I'm at negative nine and the other players yell "Use a hero point, you idgit!"
I did indeed misunderstand the they in your statement. This changes my response a little. It still upsets me when I see a DM does it to get the outcome they want, even to the PC's benefit. I have even challenged DM's as a player by intentionally going against the story, and standing up to NPC's who tried to scare me into following his path. I was right they didn't want to follow through because they wanted me to live for their story. After that happened, I cared less for my PC and began looking for a different group. The challenge was gone, I knew he wouldn't kill me, I was too important to the story he was telling whether I liked it or not.
Example 1
You roll the dice in private, use your pre-determined outcome, the players take it as fate/luck (good or bad)/randomExample 2
You don't roll the dice, use your pre-determined outcome, the players take it as DM fiat/Railroad/DM's story trumpsI see it as the only difference between the two is that the players don't feel like they're being railroaded, even if they always come out on top. Some of the greatest triumphs I've seen enjoyed by players is when their actions change the outcome of the story. That just means the Dm has to adapt and evolve the story. I understand that in the case of pre-published there are events that need to happen (I don't use published, they feel...
Would it make you feel better about my choice if you knew my players want to be railroaded and complain if I don't give them clear GM-set goals? >.>
On principle, I don't like railroading my players. But, sometimes it's what the game as a whole calls for, and it otherwise dies...
That's something that you should take them to task for doing.
This is a bad habit to get into either as a player or as a DM.
My advice is talk to them directly about this and see what they are capable of doing.
-James
It's been discussed, but they honestly can't help it...They're the same people that'd "accidentally" look at your hand in card games if they have a chance and base their plays on the info.
If I didn't also have 100% trustworthy players in the group, I wouldn't feel safe leaving the room for the bathroom without packing my GM notes up and carrying them with me each time...
A logical flaw that persists, that keeps bugging me, is that fudging rolls = cheating. Lying, sure. But lying within the rules is part of many games, and does not make it cheating.
+1 this is not a zero-sum game.
...my wife ... still holds a grudge because her character was swallowed by a giant frog the first time she ever played.That character will make another appearance someday. Eventually, she'll break you. They always do. ;)
I agree with you on not being a cuddler.And how does your wife feel about that, Freud? ;)
Fortunately, I cuddle just fine outside the game. In fact, I've probably got about 40 pounds of cuddliness I could do without.
Interesting thread.
I find it remarklable that so many DMs roll behind the screen as a default.
I wouldn't do that as a DM. The reason I wouldn't do it as a DM is that I wouldn't want it done to me as a player. I invest plenty of time in my PC characters. That doesn't mean I want to be treated with kid gloves; quite the opposite. I want to be the hero, tragic or comedic or happily-ever-after-ish...or even the hero's sidekick, that would do. In any case, I don't want my fate fudged one way or the other. Show me the rolls.
As a group we're completely at home with this - open rolling - and I guess I thought it was pretty normal these days. Was I wrong? My hunch is that the whole DM-as-God/author is distasteful to many people...and I do think rolling behind the screen feeds in to this power balance; fuels DM-as-God, if anything. These days the author is dead and the DM is a navigator, not a god. Which is fine by us. To the point, in fact, where I'd certainly look suspiciously at any game where the DM is rolling behind some Magic Faraway kind of of Screen.
I DM/play about 50/50, love em both, and never fudge. Sorry to sound LG about it, but I don't think there's any excuse*. If you're fudging, you're (a) playing God where God isn't needed (b) making up for bad encounter writing (your own, or someone else's) or (c) bowdlerising the variety of drama a great campaign can offer - comedic, tragic, grand heroic. ie: you may not think the boss going down in a round is a 'good' ending, but the players might. Let em have it.
* edit: unless you're just starting out DMing...and perhaps then it's no excuse either. It's just a bad habit to form.
I might be going sligtly off-topic here, but...
Whether a GM fudges or not, I still think it's important for a GM to use the screen. Maybe it's just around my circle, but many players find it far too tempting to use the info gained to metagame an enemy. As is, it's far too frequent for my players (all of whom are very intelligent) to...
Good point. Even rolling behind the screen, players will frequently begin to narrow in on stats if combats last more than a couple of rounds. Rolling in the open, they would do it just about immediately. Also, I would say that seeing the rolls and being able to do the math would tend to focus players on the mechanics, rather than the narrative. Not good for immersion, in my opinion.
A logical flaw that persists, that keeps bugging me, is that fudging rolls = cheating. Lying, sure. But lying within the rules is part of many games, and does not make it cheating.
How I see it (as an anti-fudger), is that it's not the fudging that is cheating. If you have a houserule saying you will fudge some rolls, fine all the rules are mutable.
It's not the lying that is cheating, there is some lying and information in obscurity in the game to retain an air of mystery and wonder.
To me, it's the lying ABOUT fudging that is cheating. It's when players aren't aware that rolls are being falsified that I consider cheating.
In games like D&D dice have always been the great equalizer. They exist to avoid kids playing cowboys and indians situations:
Player: I hit the BBEG
DM: no you didn't
Player: yes I did
DM: Nuh uh
Player: Yuh huh
etc..
With the dice the players are given a feeling that no matter what happens in the story, the dice will always be impartial (granted there's always those that consider the dice out to get them). As long as the DM tells them up front "Hey, sometimes during the story I may alter the results of the dice to increase the drama, but you'll never know when I choose to do it." then good for them. As long as the players are aware what rules will be changed before they start play, and kept informed of what rules changed when they change, then they all know where they stand when the game begins and can decide up front whether it's the game for them or not. Playing a game for months, only to find out the DM has been using a rule change that you were not made aware of that you vehemently disagree with is upsetting.
Again this is all just IMO as both a DM and player, I just ask that DM's be considerate enough to inform their players anytime they step out of commonly accepted RAW. I know, Rule 0, but if it's not done in PFS/tournament play, maybe it's more a statement of "feel free to houserule all you want, but here are the core standards".
I have to wonder if the people declaring fudging to be lying to your players consider poker an immoral game.
I REALLY want to play poker with anyone who considers lying to be always wrong. I have college payments for two kids coming up. :)
Personally I think that trust is the most important factor for maintaining immersion. If your first thought as to why something you wanted your PC to do didn't work was that the DM decided he didn't want that to work then there is always a man behind the curtain.-James
I agree. However, trust is at least as much a question of how trusting the player is by nature as it is of how the DM runs his game. Some folks trust easily and others don't.
It's also a matter of experience. If you have a group that has gamed together for years, as I do, and enjoyed the experience, trust comes easier. I will admit that when I walk into a new group, I tend to be more skeptical and less trusting. I still tend to defer to the DM and not challenge him, but I am watching closer for danger signs. What I'm looking for is not fudging but things I see as really eggregious for a DM: favoritism, extreme egotism, railroading to an unacceptable level, a view of the game as DM vs. players, or control freak issues. I'm also looking for positive things, like a DM who sees his role as doing his best to make sure everyone has a good time, or a DM who has done his/her prepwork and knows their material.
In games like D&D dice have always been the great equalizer. They exist to avoid kids playing cowboys and indians situations:Player: I hit the BBEG
DM: no you didn't
Player: yes I did
DM: Nuh uh
Player: Yuh huh
etc..With the dice the players are given a feeling that no matter what happens in the story, the dice will always be impartial (granted there's always those that consider the dice out to get them). As long as the DM tells them up front "Hey, sometimes during the story I may alter the results of the dice to increase the drama, but you'll never know when I choose to do it." then good for them. As long as the players are aware what rules will be changed before they start play, and kept informed of what rules changed when they change, then they all know where they stand when the game begins and can decide up front whether it's the game for them or not. Playing a game for months, only to find out the DM has been using a rule change that you were not made aware of that you vehemently disagree with is upsetting.
Again this is all just IMO as both a DM and player, I just ask that DM's be considerate enough to inform their players anytime they step out of commonly accepted RAW. I know, Rule 0, but if it's not done in PFS/tournament play, maybe it's more a statement of "feel free to houserule all you want, but here are the core...
See, in my opinion, it is the DM that is the final arbiter and great equalizer, not the dice. How the hell does the player "know" he hit the BBEG? Because he has memorized the Bestiary? How does he know this particular BBEG isn't different from the standard, or immune to whatever attack is being made? It's just silly for a player, with limited knowledge of the situation, to challenge the ruling of the DM, who has full knowledge of the situation, on something like an attack roll. Doesn't stop people from doing it, but it is silly, and should be squashed quickly by the DM and others at the table.
As for yout PFS/tournament play example, that is admittedly a different scenario with more codified rules. I don't think that should be accepted as the norm for play, however, but rather a specific case that stands on its own.
When I was going through Crimson Throne, I played a fighter who hacked and slashed his way through the campaign. I found out later that the GM had fudged certain rolls throughout the story to “make it close.” In hindsight, although it breaks the suspense of disbelief for me (“so that 50 you rolled to grapple and almost kill me was made up?!”) it did not matter much because my character was a tough bastard.
Currently, I am going through Legacy of Fire of as a Wizard. While there is a different DM, I sometimes wonder if fudging is happening. The impact of fudging against a wizard, imho, is greater because some of her best weapons are save-or-die spells. Once her spells are used up, her contribution to combat are very small.
Fudging seems to be a very prevalent tool. To all the DMs out there, why do you fudge? Is it to “make it close?” I once GMed a game where the BBEG fell prey to the PC’s grease spells. He could not walk or pick up his weapon to save his life. The PCs killed the boss and the players were happy with the way things went. Although a bit disappointed about the outcome, I felt I have upheld RAW and did not fail to do my job.
My story is NOT meant to engage in a debate on whether DM fudging is RIGHT or WRONG. I do not wish to judge others on their reasons (some of which I am sure will be perfectly valid) behind fudging. I simply want to know why it’s being done instead of letting the dice decide the outcome. All feedback are welcome (including non-fudgers). Please keep it civil.
I can't keep this civil, so I will not offer any feedback. Sorry...actually, I'm not...
|
|
I have to wonder if the people declaring fudging to be lying to your players consider poker an immoral game.You're comparing a game where you're supposed to be competing and faking out everyone at the table to a game where you are cooperating and working together with an impartial referee? If you really do think that they are the same, it would explain a lot.
Actually, no, I made no comparison to D&D. I'm wondering how someone who thinks lying is always bad views poker, a game in which you have to make your opponents think you have cards you do not. Which is lying.
Sorry for the poor wording, I had just gotten out of bed. Hadn't woken up yet.
Thanks to Brian for understanding.
Depends.. do you have an ace up your sleeve to 'fudge' with?
No, but when I only have a pair, and I raise the bet trying to trick people into folding, isn't that lying?
Example 1
You roll the dice in private, use your pre-determined outcome, the players take it as fate/luck (good or bad)/randomExample 2
You don't roll the dice, use your pre-determined outcome, the players take it as DM fiat/Railroad/DM's story trumps
I think part of the issue some anti-fudgers have is a fundamental misunderstanding. It may not be a pre-determined outcome at all that a fudging DM is angling for when he disregards a die roll. If, in the course of a fight, a relatively weak foe is on a streak and causing way more trouble than I expected, I may bump his great sword damage roll from 12 to 7 on a hit or two. The outcome of the encounter probably hasn't changed much, though the amount of resources devoted probably has.
Example 1
You roll the dice in private, use your pre-determined outcome, the players take it as fate/luck (good or bad)/randomExample 2
You don't roll the dice, use your pre-determined outcome, the players take it as DM fiat/Railroad/DM's story trumps
I think part of the issue some anti-fudgers have is a fundamental misunderstanding. It may not be a pre-determined outcome at all that a fudging DM is angling for when he disregards a die roll. If, in the course of a fight, a relatively weak foe is on a streak and causing way more trouble than I expected, I may bump his great sword damage roll from 12 to 7 on a hit or two. The outcome of the encounter probably hasn't changed much, though the amount of resources devoted probably has.
emphasis mine
a weak foe; more damage than EXPECTED.
The build of the encounter, even on a minimal scale had a preconceived idea of the effect it would have on the party/story. Therefore, though not grand, there was if not a pre-determined outcome, a pre-determined EXPECTED result (by the way of time/effort/party resources). As a DM, when building any encounter (that isn't a random wandering monster encounter) you have at least an idea of the expected base outcome of said encounter. Some people prefer that outcome to be as hard or easy as the dice result in it being, others prefer it to fill a (however small) role in the course of the session/adventure. I just happen to be the former, because what I enjoy are the times in the past where the BBEG or the Party, have beat the odds of something actually happening.
|
|
Which is still an attempt to directly compare a competitive game where your goal is to win at the expense of others to a cooperative game where your goal is to win in conjunction with others.
And saying someone missed when they hit is more like saying you have a winning hand after turning it over and showing that you do not.
I'm sorry. I've already stated that I should have said people who think lying is bad instead of fudging is bad. What more do you want?
And we've already stated that fudging is a personal preference. For someone lambasting me for doing it, why are you continuing the comparisons?