|
In my case, fudging is extremely rare. It's something I do when I screw up. I made a fight too hard on accident. I've seen some say that fudging is a tool for a lazy DM. In some ways, this is true.You know, I'd view that as legit. For a DM to come out and admit they made a mistake is rare -- even a DM who's perpetually pressed for prep time. So, I guess my stance might change if the DM said, "sorry, I totally flubbed this encounter setup, I'm gonna go ahead and alter it a bit," as opposed to one who said, "I like long fights, so all saves automatically succeed until the 27th round of combat."
Oh, I screw up! I'm running Kingmaker for anywhere from 6-9 characters right now, and I'm trying to balance treasure and experience and encounter difficulty on the fly to make things fun and keep the group on the right experience and treasure level for their place in the AP. I'm generally doing this by adding to the number of enemies in a particular combat, but sometimes the situation prevents that, and I have to beef up the individual instead. If I go too far one way or the other, I can really mess up - especially since I don't know from one session to the next how many players I may have.
Heh, I had one game where the big bad boss at the end of the adventure went down to a save or suck like a chump. I was very sad. But...them's the breaks! Besides, he was a jerk anyway. :D
especially since I don't know from one session to the next how many players I may have.
Mea culpa. This one can really play hell with encounter planning.
P.S. 6-9 players? I can't handle that many and still maintain anything resembling an enjoyable game -- but then again, I spent years DMing for much smaller groups. Still, respects for your DMing prowess!
*Lots of good stuff*One thing I thought you implied but I don't think you said directly is one of the dangers of fudging, especially (as you so wisely pointed out it happens most often) on the fly, is that when you fudge/lie/change things up/whatever it is often harder to keep track of those changes.
One round you say that a 25 does not hit the creature, only to forget you fudged the AC, and say a 21 hits the next round. When called on it, you then have to fudge even more (special circumstances in play), and it starts to spiral out of control.
The advantage of "playing it how it lays" is you don't have to remember that you changed anything. If 25 doesn't hit, then it will never hit because that is how it was planned out.
Fudgers secret tool: a pencil.
Make sure to just change the number in the block so you don't forget. :P
True, and that helps. Of course, some of the pro-fudging camp have suggested that they may play it one way for a round and play it another way for a different round. When such things are constantly in flux, it becomes easier for a player to recognize it.
New player hits on an AC 19 while the experienced player has to get a 23 is going to get figured out pretty quick. Not suggesting that is common practice, but something to keep in mind. The reason most people get caught lying in RL is because you have to remember the exact details of the lie. With the truth it is much easier.
|
*Lots of good stuff*One thing I thought you implied but I don't think you said directly is one of the dangers of fudging, especially (as you so wisely pointed out it happens most often) on the fly, is that when you fudge/lie/change things up/whatever it is often harder to keep track of those changes.
One round you say that a 25 does not hit the creature, only to forget you fudged the AC, and say a 21 hits the next round. When called on it, you then have to fudge even more (special circumstances in play), and it starts to spiral out of control.
The advantage of "playing it how it lays" is you don't have to remember that you changed anything. If 25 doesn't hit, then it will never hit because that is how it was planned out.
Fudgers secret tool: a pencil.
Make sure to just change the number in the block so you don't forget. :P
True, and that helps. Of course, some of the pro-fudging camp have suggested that they may play it one way for a round and play it another way for a different round. When such things are constantly in flux, it becomes easier for a player to recognize it.
New player hits on an AC 19 while the experienced player has to get a 23 is going to get figured out pretty quick. Not suggesting that is common practice, but something to keep in mind. The reason most people get caught lying in RL is because you have to remember the exact details of the lie. With the truth it is much easier.
Best excuse of why you forget something: Oh, I forgot before that he drank a potion... but I didn't feel like interrupting the flow of the game. :P
I've heard that one before.
In other parts of the game, I have fun in exploring and role playing and problem solving. In combat, I have a lot of fun if it's totally uncertain whether I, or anyone else, will survive, and if it's quick and deadly, like the big gunfight scene in "Appaloosa"
Spoken like someone who remembers pc hit dice maxing out at nine! 3.# combat can really drag, huh? And, as a DM myself, I don't know if I would have any fun at all if I was actively trying to control and know the few things in this game that are uncontrolled by and unknown to me.
I'm not into fudging dice, but the reasoning of posters like mista green ("win conditions?" Including getting a magic sword? I honestly don't understand...) seems a little to, I don't know, "alien." Does anyone else not "fudge" simply because they're playing the game, too, and want it to be interesting? Isn't it my job as DM to /explain/ how wonky dice twist the story, and not hand-wave them away?
|
|
In other parts of the game, I have fun in exploring and role playing and problem solving. In combat, I have a lot of fun if it's totally uncertain whether I, or anyone else, will survive, and if it's quick and deadly, like the big gunfight scene in "Appaloosa"Spoken like someone who remembers pc hit dice maxing out at nine! 3.# combat can really drag, huh? And, as a DM myself, I don't know if I would have any fun at all if I was actively trying to control and know the few things in this game that are uncontrolled by and unknown to me.
I'm not into fudging dice, but the reasoning of posters like mista green ("win conditions?" Including getting a magic sword? I honestly don't understand...) seems a little to, I don't know, "alien." Does anyone else not "fudge" simply because they're playing the game, too, and want it to be interesting? Isn't it my job as DM to /explain/ how wonky dice twist the story, and not hand-wave them away?
I prefer that no fudging go on, but if it would enhance the experience or prevent something from becoming boring (such as in Jess' experience) then I would be absolutely accepting of fudging. It's supposed to be fun. I'm of the philosophy that if it sounds really cool or would look really cool then you should let it happen.
I prefer that no fudging go on, but if it would enhance the experience or prevent something from becoming boring (such as in Jess' experience) then I would be absolutely accepting of fudging. It's supposed to be fun. I'm of the philosophy that if it sounds really cool or would look really cool then you should let it happen.
In the same situation, I'd probably see what I could do with the narrative before I messed with dice. The dice provide results. I tell you what happens next. Reconciling the two provides the creative work-out that gives the game value. (If you're at my table and you want to chime in, go ahead. Sometimes I'll call out a result and see if somebody else gets an idea...) But that's just my play style, and I don't think you're "wrong" at all.
And...how come when a DM changes a die roll for "story reasons" it's called "fudging", but when a player decides he want's his character's narrative go a certain way and changes a die roll it's called "cheating"?
I mean, goose and gander and all that...
Best argument against fudging so far, honestly.
Only real answer is the fact that the rules (at least in D&D 3.X) specifically encourage the GM to alter the rules as they go along to enhance the fun/story, but discourage GMs from allowing players to do so.
That said, it assumes the end goal of the GM is always the players' fun rather than thir own ulterior motive. Admittedly not always the case.
|
|
And...how come when a DM changes a die roll for "story reasons" it's called "fudging", but when a player decides he want's his character's narrative go a certain way and changes a die roll it's called "cheating"?
I mean, goose and gander and all that...
Well, there is an appropriate double standard. The GM in this case is not just trying to be fair, he's also attempting to entertain. If the players aren't entertained still, or worse are getting mad, then something else is wrong you'll need to evaluate and solve as GM.
It's a little different when it's between players, though. If one guy decides he's gonna pick up his die before anyone can see it and read off "his" number instead of the total he rolled then it better not be because he wants to beat someone else at the table. If you're that afraid in a campaign that you need to "cheat", then you should talk to your GM about toning it down some or giving you a boost in some other way to increase your level of fun. If you're doing it because you feel you're in competition with the other players, that's a piss poor reason to do it.
|
|
I prefer that no fudging go on, but if it would enhance the experience or prevent something from becoming boring (such as in Jess' experience) then I would be absolutely accepting of fudging. It's supposed to be fun. I'm of the philosophy that if it sounds really cool or would look really cool then you should let it happen.In the same situation, I'd probably see what I could do with the narrative before I messed with dice. The dice provide results. I tell you what happens next. Reconciling the two provides the creative work-out that gives the game value. (If you're at my table and you want to chime in, go ahead. Sometimes I'll call out a result and see if somebody else gets an idea...) But that's just my play style, and I don't think you're "wrong" at all.
Well, I'm not explicitly talking about fudging the dice. I'm talking about modification to encounters on the fly. I'm not a fan of doing things arbitrarily, but I do see the value in that in *some* situations. I can also see the problems they cause.
I'll let the game change too. I'm a mixed bag of GM, I let the players do a lot of on the fly things and come up with their own solutions to problems. I still like to let them know they have an objective, but I will let them tell me how they get there.
I also made my above statement from the perspective of a player, and not just a GM. I can see situations where fudging could be a little more fun, such as Ice Titan's Linnorm.
|
|
And...how come when a DM changes a die roll for "story reasons" it's called "fudging", but when a player decides he want's his character's narrative go a certain way and changes a die roll it's called "cheating"?
I mean, goose and gander and all that...
Well, there is an appropriate double standard. The GM in this case is not just trying to be fair, he's also attempting to entertain. If the players aren't entertained still, or worse are getting mad, then something else is wrong you'll need to evaluate and solve as GM.
It's a little different when it's between players, though. If one guy decides he's gonna pick up his die before anyone can see it and read off "his" number instead of the total he rolled then it better not be because he wants to beat someone else at the table. If you're that afraid in a campaign that you need to "cheat", then you should talk to your GM about toning it down some or giving you a boost in some other way to increase your level of fun. If you're doing it because you feel you're in competition with the other players, that's a piss poor reason to do it.
See, that's it. I don't have fun if I think the GM is going to fudge rolls to enhance the "fun". If he has players that want story hour, she should make paper cannons for them to fight. I want to play a game. I want to know I got to 15th level through luck, forethought, some skill and good planning, not because the GM held my hand. I like to earn what I get.
And...how come when a DM changes a die roll for "story reasons" it's called "fudging", but when a player decides he want's his character's narrative go a certain way and changes a die roll it's called "cheating"?
I mean, goose and gander and all that...
Best argument against fudging so far, honestly.
Only real answer is the fact that the rules (at least in D&D 3.X) specifically encourage the GM to alter the rules as they go along to enhance the fun/story, but discourage GMs from allowing players to do so.
That said, it assumes the end goal of the GM is always the players' fun rather than thir own ulterior motive. Admittedly not always the case.
It "should" be the DM's goal to provide a good time to everyone, that is why it is assumed. The DM is given more power because he has more responsibility. If the game falters the DM often has to shoulder the blame. Now I do think DM's can cheat, but what is cheating depends upon the code agreed upon verbally or in spirit by the group. My fudging is cheating to many people here, but I would not fudge in those cases because I know they don't like it. In my group fudging is ok because it is accepted(to an extent).
|
|
See, that's it. I don't have fun if I think the GM is going to fudge rolls to enhance the "fun". If he has players that want story hour, she should make paper cannons for them to fight. I want to play a game. I want to know I got to 15th level through luck, forethought, some skill and good planning, not because the GM held my hand. I like to earn what I get.And...how come when a DM changes a die roll for "story reasons" it's called "fudging", but when a player decides he want's his character's narrative go a certain way and changes a die roll it's called "cheating"?
I mean, goose and gander and all that...
Well, there is an appropriate double standard. The GM in this case is not just trying to be fair, he's also attempting to entertain. If the players aren't entertained still, or worse are getting mad, then something else is wrong you'll need to evaluate and solve as GM.
It's a little different when it's between players, though. If one guy decides he's gonna pick up his die before anyone can see it and read off "his" number instead of the total he rolled then it better not be because he wants to beat someone else at the table. If you're that afraid in a campaign that you need to "cheat", then you should talk to your GM about toning it down some or giving you a boost in some other way to increase your level of fun. If you're doing it because you feel you're in competition with the other players, that's a piss poor reason to do it.
I wonder how many GMs you've had that have fudged, though. I know thinking back on it might detract, but not knowing that they fudged is the secret of a successful story telling GM. They've got to be willing to let things go still if the dice will it, even if they feel they need to get the campaign "back on track".
Honestly, getting to 15th level isn't just because of luck, forethought, skill and good planning. Even in a campaign where the GM isn't fudging at all you'll be trusting him to create appropriate encounters for your character to deal with as you progress. It's a community process, in this case, and not one that you can gain through singular play.
The question of fudging is really: did the GM create an appropriate encounter?
|
|
See, that's it. I don't have fun if I think the GM is going to fudge rolls to enhance the "fun". If he has players that want story hour, she should make paper cannons for them to fight. I want to play a game. I want to know I got to 15th level through luck, forethought, some skill and good planning, not because the GM held my hand. I like to earn what I get.And...how come when a DM changes a die roll for "story reasons" it's called "fudging", but when a player decides he want's his character's narrative go a certain way and changes a die roll it's called "cheating"?
I mean, goose and gander and all that...
Well, there is an appropriate double standard. The GM in this case is not just trying to be fair, he's also attempting to entertain. If the players aren't entertained still, or worse are getting mad, then something else is wrong you'll need to evaluate and solve as GM.
It's a little different when it's between players, though. If one guy decides he's gonna pick up his die before anyone can see it and read off "his" number instead of the total he rolled then it better not be because he wants to beat someone else at the table. If you're that afraid in a campaign that you need to "cheat", then you should talk to your GM about toning it down some or giving you a boost in some other way to increase your level of fun. If you're doing it because you feel you're in competition with the other players, that's a piss poor reason to do it.
I wonder how many GMs you've had that have fudged, though. I know thinking back on it might detract, but not knowing that they fudged is the secret of a successful story telling GM. They've got to be willing to let things go still if the dice will it, even if they feel they need to get the campaign "back on track".
Honestly, getting to 15th level isn't just because of luck, forethought, skill and good planning. Even in a campaign where the GM isn't fudging at all...
I didn't play in a game for over twenty years until I played with Kirth DMing (DMed exclusively from 85 to 08). He rolls in the open, so I really have no idea if my DM fudged when I was 14. I don't fudge, and I've never had a complaint. I had one player from my college game tell me he stopped playing because he couldn't find a game where he ever really felt like his character was in danger after our group disbanded.
I would start to wonder about the DM if no one died, or there was never a TPK. The odds of a campaign never having a TPK or random player death are so astronomical that the only ways it would realistically happen is if all of the encounters were paper dragons (or the players were some 30 point buy beneficiaries of Monty Haul), or the DM was fudging his butt off.
I would bore quickly if I didn't think there was a real chance my character could die from taking a dangerous occupation.
See, that's it. I don't have fun if I think the GM is going to fudge rolls to enhance the "fun". If he has players that want story hour, she should make paper cannons for them to fight. I want to play a game. I want to know I got to 15th level through luck, forethought, some skill and good planning, not because the GM held my hand. I like to earn what I get.
Honestly, getting to 15th level isn't just because of luck, forethought, skill and good planning. Even in a campaign where the GM isn't fudging at all you'll be trusting him to create appropriate encounters for your character to deal with as you progress. It's a community process, in this case, and not one that you can gain through singular play.
I find myself agreeing with both of these completely, and yet unable to articulate what it is that connects them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, that's it. I don't have fun if I think the GM is going to fudge rolls to enhance the "fun". If he has players that want story hour, she should make paper cannons for them to fight. I want to play a game. I want to know I got to 15th level through luck, forethought, some skill and good planning, not because the GM held my hand. I like to earn what I get.Honestly, getting to 15th level isn't just because of luck, forethought, skill and good planning. Even in a campaign where the GM isn't fudging at all you'll be trusting him to create appropriate encounters for your character to deal with as you progress. It's a community process, in this case, and not one that you can gain through singular play.I find myself agreeing with both of these completely, and yet unable to articulate what it is that connects them.
Funny thing is, I don't care if he makes level appropriate encounters. I care if I'm smart enough to run if the encounter is too much for me to chew. Kirth has thrown some definitely NOT LA encounters at us. And...we ran. Or we got our heads kicked in.
To be fair, though, one of those was my character committing hari kari because the freaking wizard took all evocation spells to a freaking museum robbery...
|
|
I didn't play in a game for over twenty years until I played with Kirth DMing (DMed exclusively from 85 to 08). He rolls in the open, so I really have no idea if my DM fudged when I was 14. I don't fudge, and I've never had a complaint. I had one player from my college game tell me he stopped playing because he couldn't find a game where he ever really felt like his character was in danger after our group disbanded.
I would start to wonder about the DM if no one died, or there was never a TPK. The odds of a campaign never having a TPK or random player death are so astronomical that the only ways it would realistically happen is if all of the encounters were paper dragons (or the players were some 30 point buy beneficiaries of Monty Haul), or the DM was fudging his butt off.
I would bore quickly if I didn't think there was a real chance my character could die from taking a dangerous occupation.
So, you're saying that the appropriate encounter for you guys is one where you feel the danger of looming death? I can run that kind of thing, and I know a lot of GMs can. It's all dependent on a few variables, however. Things such as party make up, point buy, available gold, access to splatbooks, spell choices, etc. all affect the ability of a GM to create the kinds of encounters that you're looking for.
It sounds like Kirth has a lot of rules in place in his game that are different than the core rules of the game. That means that he's more familiar with what he needs to do in order to create the kinds of things that you as a group would like to experience.
|
|
See, that's it. I don't have fun if I think the GM is going to fudge rolls to enhance the "fun". If he has players that want story hour, she should make paper cannons for them to fight. I want to play a game. I want to know I got to 15th level through luck, forethought, some skill and good planning, not because the GM held my hand. I like to earn what I get.Honestly, getting to 15th level isn't just because of luck, forethought, skill and good planning. Even in a campaign where the GM isn't fudging at all you'll be trusting him to create appropriate encounters for your character to deal with as you progress. It's a community process, in this case, and not one that you can gain through singular play.I find myself agreeing with both of these completely, and yet unable to articulate what it is that connects them.
Derek and I can do that to people. :P
|
|
Derek and I can do that to people. :PSee, that's it. I don't have fun if I think the GM is going to fudge rolls to enhance the "fun". If he has players that want story hour, she should make paper cannons for them to fight. I want to play a game. I want to know I got to 15th level through luck, forethought, some skill and good planning, not because the GM held my hand. I like to earn what I get.Honestly, getting to 15th level isn't just because of luck, forethought, skill and good planning. Even in a campaign where the GM isn't fudging at all you'll be trusting him to create appropriate encounters for your character to deal with as you progress. It's a community process, in this case, and not one that you can gain through singular play.I find myself agreeing with both of these completely, and yet unable to articulate what it is that connects them.
We are evil like that, huh? ;)
|
|
Funny thing is, I don't care if he makes level appropriate encounters. I care if I'm smart enough to run if the encounter is too much for me to chew...See, that's it. I don't have fun if I think the GM is going to fudge rolls to enhance the "fun". If he has players that want story hour, she should make paper cannons for them to fight. I want to play a game. I want to know I got to 15th level through luck, forethought, some skill and good planning, not because the GM held my hand. I like to earn what I get.Honestly, getting to 15th level isn't just because of luck, forethought, skill and good planning. Even in a campaign where the GM isn't fudging at all you'll be trusting him to create appropriate encounters for your character to deal with as you progress. It's a community process, in this case, and not one that you can gain through singular play.I find myself agreeing with both of these completely, and yet unable to articulate what it is that connects them.
Thing is, I'll try to make an encounter that you'll want to participate in though, if I can. I want you to experience what you feel like your character should be experiencing, and I'll try to entertain you as best I can as GM.
|
|
I didn't play in a game for over twenty years until I played with Kirth DMing (DMed exclusively from 85 to 08). He rolls in the open, so I really have no idea if my DM fudged when I was 14. I don't fudge, and I've never had a complaint. I had one player from my college game tell me he stopped playing because he couldn't find a game where he ever really felt like his character was in danger after our group disbanded.
I would start to wonder about the DM if no one died, or there was never a TPK. The odds of a campaign never having a TPK or random player death are so astronomical that the only ways it would realistically happen is if all of the encounters were paper dragons (or the players were some 30 point buy beneficiaries of Monty Haul), or the DM was fudging his butt off.
I would bore quickly if I didn't think there was a real chance my character could die from taking a dangerous occupation.
So, you're saying that the appropriate encounter for you guys is one where you feel the danger of looming death? I can run that kind of thing, and I know a lot of GMs can. It's all dependent on a few variables, however. Things such as party make up, point buy, available gold, access to splatbooks, spell choices, etc. all affect the ability of a GM to create the kinds of encounters that you're looking for.
It sounds like Kirth has a lot of rules in place in his game that are different than the core rules of the game. That means that he's more familiar with what he needs to do in order to create the kinds of things that you as a group would like to experience.
Our game is houseruled to bring back a lot of 1E sensibilities to a 3x system, yeah. With a bunch of other 80s systems ideas thrown in as well.
Funny thing is, I don't care if he makes level appropriate encounters. I care if I'm smart enough to run if the encounter is too much for me to chew...
I knew this was going to come up, I really did. I wanted to say something about it, to head off the subconversation, but I couldn't. Suffice it to say, studpuffin didn't say LEVEL appropriate encounters. He said Appropriate encounters. Had he the word "level" been there, I would've liked it much less.
|
|
Funny thing is, I don't care if he makes level appropriate encounters. I care if I'm smart enough to run if the encounter is too much for me to chew...I knew this was going to come up, I really did. I wanted to say something about it, to head off the subconversation, but I couldn't. Suffice it to say, studpuffin didn't say LEVEL appropriate encounters. He said Appropriate encounters. Had he the word "level" been there, I would've liked it much less.
Yeah, I avoided that word intentionally. It's not about the character, it's about the player. Your character has fun if you say they have fun, but that's more difficult with a real flesh and blood person.
I feel that if you want a combat to be close you can easily do that within the confines of the rules.
For instance. Typically I use the average Hit points for monsters. However if I really don't want a combat to end early I might increase the number of hit points up to the maximum. I feel this is within the confines of the rules.
If I don't want to kill the entire party off I could have the monsters retreat after more then half of the party falls. The monsters might feel that they have taken out the threat for the moment and wish to recoup there resources.
I feel that fudging dice rolls (that is coming up with numbers so attacks will hit when they normally wouldn't) is a little silly and I feel that you loose the trust of your players when you don't play by the same rules that they do.
The only time when I might... and this is a big might... fudge rolls is when it means the party will die if I don't.
Even in such a case as this everything from powerful magic to divine intervention can put such situations squarely within the confines of the rules.
No, all editions of D&D have been a combat game. That is what the rules are about. All the roleplaying and such is a game of Mother May I. The point you are missing is that while Mother May I is a terrible idea when it is replacing rules, when it's just for stuff like talking to people it's fine.
Individual campaigns do not matter because high combat or low combat, you will fight something at some point, and if you cannot deal with that you will die. The only difference the individual campaign makes it determining how long it will take you to hit that brick wall. In short it merely delays the inevitable. Having a mechanically sound character is a prerequisite to roleplaying, not a separate or conflicting goal.
Uh ? What ? Sorry ?
I thought that D&D is whatever type of game you wanted it to be, and this from the begining... You know you can have an entire adventure without a fight right ? You can involve your player in politics, have them to rule a territory, have to go to the embassador party and talk to diverse noble etc.
Has a player 99% of my character sucks at combat... I'm more the rogue/bard type, I always try to get through encounter by cunning, deceipt or by talking my way out.
Yes D&D has a lot of rules for combat, this doesn't mean it's a combat game, it means if you want to make a fight you'll find a lot of thing to help you find out who win.
And talking about fudging, what about the level 1 character who met one hour earlier and fight like a highly trained swat team ? Isn't that a kind of fudge from the players ? Is it normal for you ?
Yes, it is fine if you want to ignore 99% of the rules and not have any combat actions occur while playing D&D/PFRPG. But one then has to start wondering if you are using the best system for what you are trying to accomplish. At that point, you are more trying to force a square peg into a round hole. As an analogy, if you purchased a moving truck, but only ever drove yourself places with it and never moved anything, one would wonder why you just didn't purchase a car instead. It would seem a better use of your resources.
Lots of unintentionally funny stuff
OK. I'll try to put the sarcasm aside, even though it is so, so tempting when confronted by someone as unflinchingly sure of himself as you are. In turn, I would ask that you drop the ridiculous and insulting Mother May I analogy, which is neither instructive nor amusing, and clearly intended to be derogatory.
First off, I never said you don't do any roleplaying. You said yourself that PF/D&D is a combat game, with no qualifiers. In fact. you expanded on that somewhat extreme statement by saying it always has been, in every edition, despite not even having been born when D&D first came out. You further expanded on that point in your most recent response to me. You have thus staked out a pretty exreme position within the gaming community, if you judge by these messageboards, which I think are a fair representation of the people who are most passionate about the game. There is nothing wrong with taking extreme positions if you believe in them. I even applaud it. Failing to recognize that you are taking an extreme position is understandable, as most extremists don't believe they are. However, representing your opinions as absolute truth that everyone must agree to is what I find objectionable. There is a strong tendency toward that on these boards, and I call people on it every time I can.
All that said, I think this conversation has run its useful course. I think I've learned everything I can from you (and you have indeed provided some interesting points for me to consider about that segment of the gaming community you represent) on this subject. And I'm pretty sure nothing I say has or will have any impact whatsoever on you, so I sign off now.
I'm sure you will want to respond and have the final word, because you are who you are, and I gladly surrender that privilege to you. I will not respond on this thread.
Good luck and good gaming to you, brother.
Yes, it is fine if you want to ignore 99% of the rules and not have any combat actions occur while playing D&D/PFRPG. But one then has to start wondering if you are using the best system for what you are trying to accomplish. At that point, you are more trying to force a square peg into a round hole. As an analogy, if you purchased a moving truck, but only ever drove yourself places with it and never moved anything, one would wonder why you just didn't purchase a car instead. It would seem a better use of your resources.
Well at that I can only answer : you're probably right, but I didn't choose the game my friends are willing to DM, so yes, D&D is probably not the best choice for me (mine would have been something like Nightprowler or even M&M, but I'm the only one who really love comics) :(
And that don't answer to the swat team issue... ;)
Sorry, Mistah Green, the swat team issue is not directed at you, it's more a general issue, where players always seems to know exactly how to optimize their movement on a battlefield, fear nothing, knows axactly who to hit first etc.
You know what -- this just occurred to me, because I'm usually the DM. But from a player perspective, I find long fights to be incredibly boring. In other parts of the game, I have fun in exploring and role playing and problem solving. In combat, I have a lot of fun if it's totally uncertain whether I, or anyone else, will survive, and if it's quick and deadly, like the big gunfight scene in "Appaloosa" ** spoiler omitted **. If the fights were long and dragged out, AND if I knew the DM was fudging to (a) make them even longer!, or (b) remove the element of risk that's their main saving grace -- or even worse, both -- I'd go totally out of my mind.This is interesting to explore. Thinking about it:
I am playing in a long standing 4E game. We are 18th level. And fights are long and boring. Literally, combat will generally take us about 3-4 hours. It will last, in game, for about 20 rounds. Two sessions ago we had a game where we were slugging out the fight with at wills, round after round. They weren't damaging us. We were barely damaging them. At about 3 in the morning, after 3+ hours of at will power exchanges, with the need to drive 3 hours the next morning to San Antonio to meet my brother's fiancee, I turned to the DM and said "Are they going to bust out with something that will hurt us?" "No." "Are we going to beat them?" "Yes." "Can we quit now? I need you guys to go home, because I need to get some sleep." "Er....yeah, I guess so."
This was horrible.
I have enjoyed quick and deadly fights - but at high levels when everything is one or two rounds long, it gets a little...tiring? too. It gets a little something, anyway. I don't like 2 round "who has the best spells for this situation?" fights either. At least, not as a regular thing.
Adding a few thoughts from the clarification that vital strike can't be used with spring attack rule and analyzing the characters I have enjoyed playing most (my favorite is gish types, heavy on the...
+1 I occasionally have, long, epic fights, but I'm pretty much a dictator about keeping the pace moving, and routinely tell people who aren't prepared when their turn comes that they are holding action until they are ready (after all, if the round only lasts six seconds, you shouldn't be taking fifteen minutes to come up with the perfect thing to do). So it is a rare individual fight which will take more than 45 minutes of table time. I think I'd like playing at your table, Jess.
There are more rules where are needed more questions. You need more rules for play a combat than to play parental love, seeing a ballet, or a dinner with the Dukess.
Est Modus in Rebus even here, and several iterations of the game faced the problem differently, but don't let start this because it would deserve a multi-edition-wassry thread. :)
One can play the game 100% combat, but games with far less combat is enjoyable as well.
Myself, it's a 50-50. Even less combat recently maybe.
Mistah Green, why, why, WHY you always assume YOUR gamestyle is the right one and other people are wrong and soon or later will understand?
Not everybody plays like you. My group continue to play different classes, high level does not break, and I rule 0 almost nothing. I do not fudge.
Stay out of weapon reach and geek the mage are not difficult concepts. If the players playing the game, who have no combat training for the most part can work these things out then why not the characters?
'cause field placement is something really difficult to do irl...
Well maybe this example was not the best I can choose...
Ah ! Metagaming !! That's the word I was trying to remember...
As player can you say that you have never matagame ? Isn't it the same issue, deep down, has fudging for a DM ?
Wow, it continues...
I have 2 groups I run....
The '84 Game is going well with updates from 1st Edition through and up to 3.5, haven't kicked them to PF yet. Some of those games, we don't roll a single friggin die in combat. We've had games that run for an entire weekend in the past. Nope, not a single combat roll. Are we doing it wrong? Get real.
The '93 Game is a Combat Geek group that thinks Roleplaying is a waste of time.... "Look, we know you did it, can't prove it but we're here to kick your sorry evil ass." Initiatives are rolled and the BBEG Monologue is filled full of cold steel and hot magic. Are we doing it right? Get real.
Any one who says one way is right over the other is a knotthead. Simple and easy. If your group is having fun, it's the RIGHT way.
If your group is a bunch of Tactical Combat Bunnies and they're having fun, you're doing it right. To make them roleplay a courtly dance and intrigue scenario is not.
If your group likes to verbal banter with the dragon/devil/BBEG and is having fun with the banter, you're doing it right. If you continually just jump them into fights they might get bored.
Either way, it's Your Group and DM that decide what is right. Not someone on a Message Board.
Now, as to fudging.... as long as it keeps the game rolling and not to the detriment of the groups wishes and goals.... all good here
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~
The misrepresentation. Knock it off.One can play the game 100% combat, but games with far less combat is enjoyable as well.
Myself, it's a 50-50. Even less combat recently maybe.
Mistah Green, why, why, WHY you always assume YOUR gamestyle is the right one and other people are wrong and soon or later will understand?
Not everybody plays like you. My group continue to play different classes, high level does not break, and I rule 0 almost nothing. I do not fudge.
Fair enough. If you stop of show opinion as facts.
To get back on point, I will provide an example of a time in the past when I did not fudge the dice, and in retrospect wish that I had. I once had the same player's character die twice in the same game session, back in 2nd edition when raise dead was not so easily come by and character death at lower or even lower middle levels meant rolling up a new character.
The first death came as his 5th level rogue character was picked off at night in the streets of Waterdeep by a poison-wielding assassin that was stalking the party (back then poison could actually kill a character). He failed the save against poison.
The second death came during a storm at sea. While 60' up in the rigging, his replacement character, a 4th level rogue, failed a fairly easy Climb Walls (or Climb Rigging) roll and started to fall. I gave him a Dex check to catch himself right away and be hanging by one hand from the rigging rather than falling, and he failed that. I gave him two more chances to make a Dex check and catch himself on the way down (although he would have taken some damage from the wrench to his arms). He had about a 75% chance to make each, but failed both. Then I allowed him a fifty/fifty roll to see if he would hit the deck or go into the sea, where he would take less damage and his friends would have a chance to save him from drowning. Remember this was back in the days when a fall could actually kill someone, too. He obviously failed that, too, hit the deck, and died.
That player did not have fun in the game that night. He failed not because he did something stupid, but because he acted heroically and had colossally bad luck. Rolling up a new character twice in the same night isn't a lot of fun for most people. Therefore, since I view my roll as DM, in part, as ensuring that people have a good time, I believe I partially failed that night. The player's a good guy, and we still game together to this day, but it took him a while to get over that, and I felt bad about it.
In retrospect I wish that I had either taken the last roll myself and fudged it, if necessary, or just flat-out ruled that he hit the ocean. How would others have dealt with the situation?
The RP and the system are not completely disjoined.
Depending on the gamestyle, again, your class, the role of the PG in your world (aybe partly related to game mechanics), can matter A LOT in RP.
How the class takes its powers (sorcere, witch) could matter a lot. There are not-combat uses of things used for combat (and your PG could be very good or very bad at them).
Moreover, as a DM, I build fluff inspired partially by new rules sometimes (it happened with cavaliers of the APG and my custom gameworld). Subsequent RP is influenced.