Here's an interesting question: what happens when someone rolls in the open and the dice are patently unfair? I've known a player many years who as a DM and a PC has a perversely high average for rolling 20's, regardless of the dice used
... Nothing "happens". ??? (I do not understand the question nor the concept inplied in the question.)
The only time I've ever fudged dice rolls with a group I GM'ed for was during a summer campaign in college where a new addition to my long-time group by marriage made a point to randomly attempt to kill innocent bystanders, local guardsmen and key NPC's just to be a complete <expletive deleted> and show us all how cleaver he was and generally wreck everyone's good times. I simply began ignoring his fantastic to-hit rolls vs. the group of children nearby or the town watchman with 'you miss' and my pathetic retaliation with 'threatened a critical...achieved critical.' This just pissed him off, pissed me off, and escalating into people skipping game days, me shouting instead of storytelling etc. Unfortunately, as a group, we were compelled to ask our long-time friend not to game with us if her husband was going to be in attendance. Allowing the situation to escalate to such a nasty level was a failure on my part. Now I make sure to explain to newcomers what our style of play is and a number of other table rules, expectations, etc.
I bring up the above scenario because fudging dice removes a fundamental portion of any dice-based role playing (at least in my opinion). The game really ceases to be a game is it was intended, and it becomes about someone "winning." The idea that players or GM's have to win is something I've been battling for 24 years now. We're telling collaborative stories and the dice results are a major major component of that.
Sometimes Goldy Locks gets eaten by the Three Bears, and sometimes she loots their household of valuables and detonates the C4 bomb that she placed in Baby Bear's bed from a mile away. There are always better ways the dice can turn out. That hit could have been a crit, that caster level check could have succeeded and turned the tide of battle, if only <so-n-so> had made their fortitude save. There are going to be campaigns..entire months worth of preparatory work that can be undone in a single night if the players roll badly, or if the GM does. Conversely there will also be entire campaigns that balance on one single edge of the die and it comes up perfectly, as if the Intergalactic Dice Council wanted your story to have an epic climiax.
I realize that problems tend to come about with unanticipated character choices, optimization, unintentional power creep, house rules, etc. In my opinion these issues should be resolved out of game and with a compromise that satisfies both sides of the GM screen (increased power of monsters, decreased power of characters, whatever).
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the Fact's of Life...wow...not sure where the FoL ref came from. Hello random Wednesday brain...
The point of the game is to have fun, and hope the players succeed. Another part of the game, IMHO is to challenge the players. Fudging can help ensure both.I disagree, as at least for me, I've seen that it erodes both.
Perhaps some people want different things out of the game and thus while fudging I think removes certain aspects of it, that this might not mater to certain groups.
In fact you can have a completely story based game, in which the DM rather than dice determine successes or failures. I'm sure that this system could work for some gaming groups, while not as much for others.
I hate narrative gaming, which is why later on I said it is situational. I definitely would not have fun in such a game, and I can figure out pretty quickly the abilities of the players, and the DM to use tactics so I will normally know if we were allowed to escape.
I did not even know about the concept until a year or two ago when I was in a huge debate on the WoTC boards with the topic being should the DM have coup de grace'd his players. I thought it was a fair move, but many were highly upset. I think his players were used to expecting the DM to be nice(use less lethal tactics), and the DM was a little more hardcore. I do think that if a DM hates certain tactics he should say so, but that if he negates character builds that is an honesty issue, not necessarily a fudging issue. In many narrative based games the players know the DM is fudging.Sometimes after a fight my players will ask me did I "help them". I tell them the truth, and tell them how they could have avoided needing help if they had cast spell _____ or use the item that does _____. I don't do it all the time. Most of the time I am content to let them die, but if it might get the entire group killed, such as trying to fight the boss(assuming he is around the corner) with a missing member I try to help out within reason. In short, it has its place.
Here's an interesting question: what happens when someone rolls in the open and the dice are patently unfair?
I've known a player many years who as a DM and a PC has a perversely high average for rolling 20's, regardless of the dice used. I'm sure other people have similar stories of luck so good or bad it defies chance. Anyone who uses Maptool or something with online number generation has likely encountered this phenomenon far more often.
Players who want the dice in the open should discuss it with their DMs, since I'm sure it's not a big deal for most campaigns to add a house rule. Personally, I like having it as a tool in my arsenal because I make mistakes that my monsters and players don't. Particularly if it's round ten of an epic combat and I'm too tired to remember which spells are left on my list or I overlook who's threatening what. And then there are the dice...sometimes the dice are just mean.
I have a guy in my game who rolls a couple nat 20's a night, and in my group whoever DM's get bless by the dice gods, but when we go back to the player side of the table they ignore us.
I've had a GM explode at me because I watched his dice rolls.
He was rolling out in the open.
I told him he should use a screen if it was that big a deal.
He said he didn't use a screen in Pathfinder due to it being portrait rather than landscape (he can't see the battle map easily with it in his way).
There was no forewarning whatsoever that we were not allowed to watch the dice being rolled out in the open. How unfair is that?
The other players even took his side! (Why do they always do that? They must fear him.)
I do think that if a DM hates certain tactics he should say so, but that if he negates character builds that is an honesty issue, not necessarily a fudging issue.I tend to see fudging as a subset thereof, rather than something separate.
Otherwise why keep it secret? And if it's not secret then how is it really different from a narrative game? Is it just that most of the time you don't want to come up with the answer so you let the dice, unless they give something that you don't want?
I'm sorry, I just don't care for it. I see it as dishonest and abusing your players' trust on one side, and narrative gaming on the other. Either way I don't care for it and see it as a bad thing (at least for me).
-James
Maybe if your players expect to win you are abusing their trust by not fudging for them. Once again, that playstyle is not for me, but different strokes for different folks, which is why I cant say it is inherently bad, but I can say it is generally not my cup of tea because I don't want to play if I know I will win.
I've had a GM explode at me because I watched his dice rolls.
He was rolling out in the open.
I told him he should use a screen if it was that big a deal.
He said he didn't use a screen in Pathfinder due to it being portrait rather than landscape (he can't see the battle map easily with it in his way).
There was no forewarning whatsoever that we were not allowed to watch the dice being rolled out in the open. How unfair is that?
The other players even took his side! (Why do they always do that? They must fear him.)
If he rolls out in the open he should stop his whining or he should have stated it up front. He could also cover the rolls with his hand, or take cardboard that is low enough for him to see over it to use as a shield.
|
I'm sorry, I just don't care for it. I see it as dishonest and abusing your players' trust on one side, and narrative gaming on the other. Either way I don't care for it and see it as a bad thing (at least for me).
Correct, but there are those who see D&D/PF as an interactive story. I DM narrative style games but in no way do I reduce the players options during the game. Combat for me is only a part of the game, how the players get to the point of being in a combat is far more important in my games. Optimizers tend to find my games very dull as I'm more about the interaction rather than the dice rolling.
Again problem with the rule mechanics with respect to encounter design leads to situations with can only be corrected by DM intervention. I'm not thinking only of dice-fudging, but things like allowing a skill roll to pass by dropping the DC or the like.
Then again I'm the person who plays games like Halo at a difficulty where I don't die much. For me it's the unfolding story rather than the intense/frustrating combats that make the game.
S.
|
|
I occasionally have the issue where i adjust the difficulty based on an assumption that i would be able to roll worth a damn, and then roll really well. Since my error in judgement caused the massive pc damage, i will generally fudge in the pcs favor.
Fudging can also be arranging for the dead pc to get a resurrection where even at mid-high levels such magic is not easy in my campaign. and then charge a "favor" that allows me to bring in a side quest at any time.
It is just a matter of playstyles and fun.
|
|
I occasionally have the issue where i adjust the difficulty based on an assumption that i would be able to roll worth a damn, and then roll really well. Since my error in judgement caused the massive pc damage, i will generally fudge in the pcs favor.
Fudging can also be arranging for the dead pc to get a resurrection where even at mid-high levels such magic is not easy in my campaign. and then charge a "favor" that allows me to bring in a side quest at any time.
It is just a matter of playstyles and fun.
|
|
Fudging can also be arranging for the dead pc to get a resurrection where even at mid-high levels such magic is not easy in my campaign. and then charge a "favor" that allows me to bring in a side quest at any time.
It is just a matter of playstyles and fun.
I've used that lucky res fudge also. Usually when you can tell the player was really enjoying their character.
|
I do think that if a DM hates certain tactics he should say so, but that if he negates character builds that is an honesty issue, not necessarily a fudging issue.I tend to see fudging as a subset thereof, rather than something separate.
Otherwise why keep it secret? And if it's not secret then how is it really different from a narrative game? Is it just that most of the time you don't want to come up with the answer so you let the dice, unless they give something that you don't want?
I'm sorry, I just don't care for it. I see it as dishonest and abusing your players' trust on one side, and narrative gaming on the other. Either way I don't care for it and see it as a bad thing (at least for me).
-James
If you have a group of players that has a mix of players in it that half like it when the DM fudges for them and the other half hates it. What would YOU as a DM do then?
There is ALWAYS a fine line with any group in my opinion each has their own way of doing things and most groups has a mix of the above and not all will even walk that line where they don't want to know or do want to know if the DM is fudging. What it all boils down to in my opinion again is that the DM needs to run it the way he/she can and as long as everyone is having fun then let it go at that and keep up what they are doing as the DM. If it is NOT fun then it is up to the DM to question his or her group and find out why they are not having fun and make some changes if they are able to. Sometimes the DM has to compromise as well as the players too.
If the players do not like the way the DM is running things then they have some choices as well. One of those choices is not disrupting the game constantly though because that would take away from the other players in the group chance at having some fun in the game.
Choice one: Change the way you as a player play, and compromise so that it does not detract from everyone and just enjoy the social aspect of getting together.
Choice two: Ask for a change of DM or even go so far as to offer to DM the WAY you want to play AFTER the DM that is running thier game at the moment is DONE :)
Choice Three: Find another group, if you as a player are unwilling to compromise and the group is unwilling to give up the DM as a DM or (choice two) then you have no other choice but to find another group.
DMing and playing there is always going to be a certain amount of compromise as no one group is there a perfect combination of one style of player or even DM. The amount is where you draw the final line in the sand to say hey, I am no longer willing to do so. At that time then it is up to you to say so in a constructive manner and see where it goes from there and make your decision when the group here's you out.
Correct, but there are those who see D&D/PF as an interactive story. I DM narrative style games but in no way do I reduce the players options during the game.
I'm sorry, I just don't care for it. I see it as dishonest and abusing your players' trust on one side, and narrative gaming on the other. Either way I don't care for it and see it as a bad thing (at least for me).A question here.. why do you use dice in your games? What's the purpose to using them? Wouldn't it be easier if a lot of the rules surrounding the dice and the actual dice didn't need to be there?
And to the other poster, what would I do if some of the players wanted me to run a game where I would make sure that if I rolled a 20 that I could say 'miss' if it would kill their character? I would have to talk with the entire group about what they expected out of the game.
But seeing as for many people this issue needs to be based on the DM doing this surreptitiously with the assumption that the players believe that he is not fudging.. I find it a dishonest practice.
Now if after something bad happened to the party of PCs if a player brings up 'why didn't I ignore the roll and just make up something so that they lived' then I'd certainly talk with the group on what they wanted.
I tend to believe in a lassiaz-faire style of DMing. I don't normally think of NPCs as a BBEG or the like, nor do I mandate that certain encounters be epicly hard and others trivially easy. Rather I might design them in such a way that I recognize that one of those is likely, but if luck or player choice comes around and changes one to the other so be it. But instead of making an encounter being the climax of challenge (or warm up to such) I put in what is reasonable to the situation.
I don't think fudging has a place. If it is done in secret I find it dishonest. If it is done out in the open, then why are we using dice? To save the DM work to choose, but rather just have him as a veto? At...
Honestly...I wouldn't want you as a player with that attitude. Why do we have dice in my games? For a degree of random chance. Why is it wrong to give someone a second chance of surviving when, to the player, losing a character means flushing weeks of development and character creation down the toilet, and possibly driving them away from the game? Yes, I have seen this happen. It's just as bad as a former GM of mine who had NPCs constantly upshow the party and make them feel useless. You seem to think fudging is a complete black or white situation. I find it to be a whole spectrum of grays, depending on how it is used. But then, I'm simply thankful I've never met or gamed with you. I've met enough unreasonable people in the gaming community already.
|
A rant directly challenging other people for their playstyle which you obviously regard as inferior and 'dishonest'.
Stop, please, just be nice to other people.
It's not hard. It probably took a lot more effort to get worked up and write that long rant than it would to just think: "Fair enough, we're all different."
I'm not perfect but the games I GM are fun, for me and my players: I haven't told you whether I fudge or not, but I have told you everything you need to know.
Generally, I've found this thread really interesting.
|
I fudge dice on occassion, both for the players and against them. My feeling is that you should provide a challenge to your players. It is better to win a fight where you have had to work at it than win a fight in seconds without breaking sweat.
Generally I fudge rolls in three different situations
1) If the players are taking a beating through no fault of their own. (sometimes the dice just screw you)
2) If the players are easily dealing with a creature that is supposed to be a challenge (i.e. a final encounter in a scenario against Bob the Evil Lord of Biscuits or whatever)
3) If by success or failure a roll will seriously mess the plot up in a boring or uninteresting way. (I'm cool with it going in an interesting or unexpected way however)
My job as a GM is to challenge the players. If you mow through the bad guys with little more than scratches then that gets dull. It's like winning the Superbowl on Madden 147-0. Yeah you won but there's no sense of achievement.
On the other hand no one wants to play a game whereby you get the living snot beaten out of you by a bunch of elderly villagers (unless said villagers are actually Barbed Devils in disguise... hmmm... might have to use that one...) That's no fun either. Players want to test themselves against memorably evil foes, they don't want to be smashed into unconciousness by simple encounters.
The trick is balance and fudging is a tool in that armoury. If the players are feeling victimised, ease up. If the players are feeling invulnerable throw in a challenge for them to get to grips with. That's what they want, not a cakewalk...
The only proviso I will slap on this is PFS play because that should be uniform across the board for fairness sake. No fudging there.
But then, I'm simply thankful I've never met or gamed with you. I've met enough unreasonable people in the gaming community already...
Personally, I find his attitude totally reasonable, but then again I like a game in which my PC dies if I make foolish mistakes. James' game would be exactly the kind I like to play in.
Combat in games I DM is quick and deadly -- rush in headlong and get wiped out, or rig things in your favor, and the bad guys go down like chumps. So most of the game is non-combat, with the PCs setting things up so that when a fight happens, the odds break their way and they minimize the effects of the dice.
So I throw the dice in the open, and stick to the results.
That said, I do use hero points, as mentioned before. That allows for very limited fudging -- but under the players' control, not mine. Once those are gone, though, the dice fall where they fall.
I accept that a lot of people don't like that; I've personally had players leave because that style grated on them, so I can totally understand the mind-set of wanting story hour in which all fights are perfectly fair -- except the PCs magically always win, like in the A-Team TV show. But it should be understood that Mr Maissen, while not in favor of those games, clearly and eloquently speaks for a different set of games that some people like very, very much.
Combat in games I DM is quick and deadly --
And how! I still have a tunnel in me from that 20pt crossbow bolt!
But then, I'm simply thankful I've never met or gamed with you. I've met enough unreasonable people in the gaming community already...Personally, I find his attitude totally reasonable, but then again I like a game in which my PC dies if I make foolish mistakes. James' game would be exactly the kind I like to play in.
Combat in games I DM is quick and deadly -- rush in headlong and get wiped out, or rig things in your favor, and the bad guys go down like chumps. So most of the game is non-combat, with the PCs setting things up so that when a fight happens, the odds break their way and they minimize the effects of the dice.
So I throw the dice in the open, and stick to the results.
That said, I do use hero points, as mentioned before. That allows for very limited fudging -- but under the players' control, not mine. Once those are gone, though, the dice fall where they fall.
I accept that a lot of people don't like that; I've personally had players leave because that style grated on them, so I can totally understand the mind-set of wanting story hour in which all fights are perfectly fair -- except the PCs magically always win, like in the A-Team TV show. But it should be understood that Mr Maissen, while not in favor of those games, clearly and eloquently speaks for a different set of games that some people like very, very much.
Who said that my PCs always win? I dislike his attitude about how 'If you're fudging, there's NO point to the dice, so why are you even using them?' as I interpret it. I fudge on occasion. Mostly to give either side a ghost of a chance, if nothing else. And then there are the times that the party runs into something totally out of their league through their own actions, and I'll throw dice as they land at them. I fudge no more than about once every 6 months or so, if that. I've killed a character three times in a single combat. I've also had a level 25 party run into a group of 12 medium fire elementals. In my most recent game I've added a version of hero points, but ones that refresh each session. They're for the characters to 'fudge' if they want to. I tell my characters that I reserve the right to adjust an opponent mid-combat if necessary, though I always try to make such make sense. I could go on, but there's no point.
Actually, this discussions reminds me of one of the happiest couple of months I have had as a DM.
As part of the plot line, every one of the players had a dream. The dream came directly from their chosen god, and after this dream they started becomming "Chosen", think FR Chosen of Mystra. As part of the dream each of them got a wish. One of my players made a very unselfish but very vague wish. "I wish for no harm to come to my party" I chose to interpret harm as death, so I rolled a 1d4+1 (4) + 1 = 5, the next 5 times one of the players would have died they instead ended up stabilized at -9 hp. So I had a get out of jail free card as a DM. I could do throw some pretty nasty encounters at the players without the need to fudge.
After about 2 or 3 "Oh god I should have died from that" moments, the players were all looking at me funny and wondering WTF. When they finally called me on it, I looked at the player who had made the wish and said "You want to tell them or should I?" At that point the player figured out it was the effect of the wish he had made many sessions ago. I basically told the players roughly what the effect was and that it had limited charges. Since they didn't know how many charges were left, they had no choice but to play as normal and hope it had not run out.
I've had a GM explode at me because I watched his dice rolls.
He was rolling out in the open.
I told him he should use a screen if it was that big a deal.
He said he didn't use a screen in Pathfinder due to it being portrait rather than landscape (he can't see the battle map easily with it in his way).
There was no forewarning whatsoever that we were not allowed to watch the dice being rolled out in the open. How unfair is that?
The other players even took his side! (Why do they always do that? They must fear him.)
That's pretty rediculous. Even worse I remember when another player had that attitude. He would roll on a pad of paper below the level of the table and if you stared at the dice when he was rolling he would get pissed off.
|
After reading many posts, I would like to pose a question:
If you're a DM who likes to "make it close", how do you deal with players who brings out the big guns at round 1? Going back to the first post of this thread, I am playing a wizard who has limited spells. If my DM wants every boss fight to be long and drawn-out, am I forced to cast buff spells and save my disintegrate for the moment of truth?
BTW, my GM has already read this thread and we have discussed this concern in private. I am NOT asking for help. I simply want to know what everyone thinks of this situation. All replies (both GM and players) are welcome. Again, please keep it civil.
After reading many posts, I would like to pose a question:
If you're a DM who likes to "make it close", how do you deal with players who brings out the big guns at round 1? Going back to the first post of this thread, I am playing a wizard who has limited spells. If my DM wants every boss fight to be long and drawn-out, am I forced to cast buff spells and save my disintegrate for the moment of truth?
BTW, my GM has already read this thread and we have discussed this concern in private. I am NOT asking for help. I simply want to know what everyone thinks of this situation. All replies (both GM and players) are welcome. Again, please keep it civil.
Multiple encounters. I am not going to throw the big boss at you when you are full on spells.
Or when the boss shows up, I give you are good reason to not use disintegrate right off the bat. Maybe the big bad has some defensive spells or a nice amount of cover you want to get rid of to make sure the disintegrate lands. Maybe there is a horde of minions coming at you and your group that you need to deal with that first.
Correct, but there are those who see D&D/PF as an interactive story. I DM narrative style games but in no way do I reduce the players options during the game.
I'm sorry, I just don't care for it. I see it as dishonest and abusing your players' trust on one side, and narrative gaming on the other. Either way I don't care for it and see it as a bad thing (at least for me).A question here.. why do you use dice in your games? What's the purpose to using them? Wouldn't it be easier if a lot of the rules surrounding the dice and the actual dice didn't need to be there?
And to the other poster, what would I do if some of the players wanted me to run a game where I would make sure that if I rolled a 20 that I could say 'miss' if it would kill their character? I would have to talk with the entire group about what they expected out of the game.
But seeing as for many people this issue needs to be based on the DM doing this surreptitiously with the assumption that the players believe that he is not fudging.. I find it a dishonest practice.
Now if after something bad happened to the party of PCs if a player brings up 'why didn't I ignore the roll and just make up something so that they lived' then I'd certainly talk with the group on what they wanted.
I tend to believe in a lassiaz-faire style of DMing. I don't normally think of NPCs as a BBEG or the like, nor do I mandate that certain encounters be epicly hard and others trivially easy. Rather I might design them in such a way that I recognize that one of those is likely, but if luck or player choice comes around and changes one to the other so be it. But instead of making an encounter being the climax of challenge (or warm up to such) I put in what is reasonable to the situation.
I don't think fudging has a place. If it is done in secret I find it dishonest. If it is done out in the open, then why are we using dice? To save the DM work to choose, but rather just have him as a veto? At...
James you are looking at this as an either/or issue. It does not work like that, even in a narrative group. The group can still fail. Maybe they have a time limit to beat the boss guy or bad things happen. If they don't beat the clock the story just got grittier. If they do beat the clock things wont be so hard. Even in fudging the dice have a place. The playstyle not being for you does not make it bad. I have a hard time getting my head into a game if I know I can't die, but I understand that some people just want to be the hero, where as even in my games I only give you the opportunity to become the hero. You might save the day, you might not, but most importantly you should have fun trying to do so.
For all those of you who HATE fudging I have a couple of questions.
Once I saw a player spend an entire 6 hour session where his highest d20 roll was a 7. In fact that one roll of 7 was his only roll highter than a 4. If that happened to the GM while you guys are fighting the BBEG would the fight be fun/satifying for you?
On the reverse. Let's say that your group came across a small band of goblins and the goblins kept rolling 19's and 20's for all their rolls would you want the GM to have a TPK?
I'll answer for myself the question of "why use dice at all?"
Because I want some random chance in the game. Still the point of the game is fun, NOT the holyness of randomosity. If I think the random factor will reduce then fun then I need to modify the random factor so that it will still be fun for my players. This means that the way I modify it has to take into account my players personalities. If I had mostly players who hate fudging the rolls as much as most of the people here do then I wouldn't do it at all, because it would not be enhancing the fun. But for my players the way I do it seems to keep them happy.
But then, I'm simply thankful I've never met or gamed with you. I've met enough unreasonable people in the gaming community already...Personally, I find his attitude totally reasonable, but then again I like a game in which my PC dies if I make foolish mistakes. James' game would be exactly the kind I like to play in.
Combat in games I DM is quick and deadly -- rush in headlong and get wiped out, or rig things in your favor, and the bad guys go down like chumps. So most of the game is non-combat, with the PCs setting things up so that when a fight happens, the odds break their way and they minimize the effects of the dice.
So I throw the dice in the open, and stick to the results.
That said, I do use hero points, as mentioned before. That allows for very limited fudging -- but under the players' control, not mine. Once those are gone, though, the dice fall where they fall.
I accept that a lot of people don't like that; I've personally had players leave because that style grated on them, so I can totally understand the mind-set of wanting story hour in which all fights are perfectly fair -- except the PCs magically always win, like in the A-Team TV show. But it should be understood that Mr Maissen, while not in favor of those games, clearly and eloquently speaks for a different set of games that some people like very, very much.
I don't agree with his either/or mindset, but since I like gritty games I would not mind playing under him as a player. If my character dies then it dies. I won't be happy about it, but I am not so attached that I start throwing books, and keying cars, and yes these things happen. I just roll up the next guy, and wait for him to be introduced. I normally have my backup guy premade so I can avoid an sitting at the table for too long with nothing to do, but I also understand that it may break immersion to bring in a new character until you get to a new area in the story. In these cases I normally do things like track initiative or anything else to stay useful.
After reading many posts, I would like to pose a question:
If you're a DM who likes to "make it close", how do you deal with players who brings out the big guns at round 1? Going back to the first post of this thread, I am playing a wizard who has limited spells. If my DM wants every boss fight to be long and drawn-out, am I forced to cast buff spells and save my disintegrate for the moment of truth?
BTW, my GM has already read this thread and we have discussed this concern in private. I am NOT asking for help. I simply want to know what everyone thinks of this situation. All replies (both GM and players) are welcome. Again, please keep it civil.
The DM has no right to tell you how to play your character. If he wants longer fights he should put more monsters on the boards. The fact of the matter is that the longer a fight last the better the chance is of a PC dying so it is in your best interest to end it quickly. Now if he is willing to fudge the dice to help you live so he can have is epic fight then I might cooperate, other than that the DM has more power to control the length of a fight than the player does. There are also enough posters on the board that if he post the problem in detail someone can tell him how to make the encounters longer.
PS: I am not scolding the DM, just putting an opinion out. :)
For all those of you who HATE fudging I have a couple of questions.
Once I saw a player spend an entire 6 hour session where his highest d20 roll was a 7. In fact that one roll of 7 was his only roll highter than a 4. If that happened to the GM while you guys are fighting the BBEG would the fight be fun/satifying for you?
On the reverse. Let's say that your group came across a small band of goblins and the goblins kept rolling 19's and 20's for all their rolls would you want the GM to have a TPK?
I'll answer for myself the question of "why use dice at all?"
Because I want some random chance in the game. Still the point of the game is fun, NOT the holyness of randomosity. If I think the random factor will reduce then fun then I need to modify the random factor so that it will still be fun for my players. This means that the way I modify it has to take into account my players personalities. If I had mostly players who hate fudging the rolls as much as most of the people here do then I wouldn't do it at all, because it would not be enhancing the fun. But for my players the way I do it seems to keep them happy.
I had a session of 3's as a player, and one night where the 20's keep coming as a player and a DM. We generally live and die by the dice. TPK's don't happen because we are all smart enough to run away, no matter who is DM'ing. If the players don't at least try to run away I have no sympathy for them.
Rule #14: A ref should not get "attached" to his monsters or NPC's.
No one has to be more right or more wrong in this debate. It's simply a matter of communication that all GM's owe their players BEFORE a single rule book is opened. If you fudge dice on occaision, let your players know. If you don't, let your players know. If you tend to take your pants off and do yoga before a big boss fight...please for the love of Rovagug let your players know.
There is ample room for everyone to have a kick ass time, no matter how things are judicated. It just tweaks people up when they don't have forewarning and all of a sudden monsters aren't dying or a single goblin kills an entire party.
After reading many posts, I would like to pose a question:
If you're a DM who likes to "make it close", how do you deal with players who brings out the big guns at round 1? Going back to the first post of this thread, I am playing a wizard who has limited spells. If my DM wants every boss fight to be long and drawn-out, am I forced to cast buff spells and save my disintegrate for the moment of truth?
BTW, my GM has already read this thread and we have discussed this concern in private. I am NOT asking for help. I simply want to know what everyone thinks of this situation. All replies (both GM and players) are welcome. Again, please keep it civil.
I'd tell you to go right ahead. I've had two bosses with over 1000 hp each die in 3.5 due to botched Death from Massive Damage saves. Mind, after that we discussed things and got rid of the rule, but that's beside the point. If the boss fails the save against a death effect that he didn't plan for, then he dies in my games. If I fudge on anything, I fudge on attack rolls, or occasionally on damage so that it isn't, oh...double any PC's life before I even roll. I might reduce it to where they have a chance of surviving, but that's about it. For bosses...it's rather stupid when they can't roll anything above a 2. So I let them get at least one hit in, even if the player's think 'He wasn't nearly as bad as we expected...' it wasn't a battle that they completely ignored. I consider such fights to be worse than no fight at all, because they turned out to be a complete waste of time. But if the party finds out what he is and preps for him? Their plans give them the full benefit, like when they feel justified by their anti-fire gear when they find out the bad guy is a fire mage. Sure, they ignored the damage...but he actually did something, even if it had no effect.
I'd still trust my GM to use fair and judicious discretion in interpreting rolls, rules, or situations, especially when the results are of those interpretations are still fair and judicious - no matter how it got there.
Not that I'd ever know, anyway.
The rolls of the dice I make (good or bad) don't make fights fun/satisfying, but rather the situation itself. And luck factors into that.
Some of the most memorable fights are based on crazy wacky things happening that shouldn't have. I still recall a PC's pseudodragon familiar's DC 11 sleep poison working on a HUGE phase spider because it rolled a 1 on it's save. It made the fight (against two of them) FAR easier for us because of it, but while I'm sure I've had PCs in fights like that before.. I don't recall them. I do recall that poor bastard of a spider rolling a nat 1 on it's FORT save though. Would the DM have been doing the table a service by 'fudging' that?
Fun is as you make it. Bad luck and good luck can be allowed without spoiling it.
If I rolled really poorly and because of that the fight was going badly then I would try to have my PC (and his party) run away (likely continuing to roll poorly for whatever tumble checks I might make along the way).
That story is a great one, and similar to a few I've told myself. I wouldn't fudge in that situation because it would reduce the fun.
Fudging all the time is stupid and bad GMing. Most game sessions I don't end up needing to fudge the dice at all, but every so often I do.However I do feel that if you are 'fudging' dice and concealing this from the players that you are abusing the trust that they place in you. That's simply how I feel. Others have said that they've felt cheated, or would feel that way. And some others have said that's why you shouldn't tell your players.
To me, if its something that they wouldn't like if you told them the truth, then it's likely something that you shouldn't be doing in the first place.
I disagree that it's about trust. I don't see that the players are trusting me to stick perfectly to the number and randomness. They are trusting me to provide them with a fun and entertaining game. Fudging is just one of the many, MANY tools at my disposal for doing so.
If I had a player who made clear that they felt as you and some of the other posters did then that would change things. I always have to quickly ask myself "if I fudge would it make it more or less fun?" At that point, particularly if those sentiments were present in a majority of the group, then the answer to that question will always end up being a "no".
It will always depend on the game I'm running and the players I have. I have yet to have anyone complain to me about it at the game, and people keep coming back to my games happy, so I'm inclined to continue using the practice as I always have.
|
|
A question here.. why do you use dice in your games? What's the purpose to using them? Wouldn't it be easier if a lot of the rules surrounding the dice and the actual dice didn't need to be there?
I think perhaps you take an extreme view of what narrative means. An RPG for me must have a story, and therefore a narrative. The narrative encompasses all those bits in canned adventures that say "read aloud". How the story unfolds is up to the players, most adventures have hooks or strange old men in pubs acting to guide the players. But other than nudges RPG's are up to the players. The DM "trusts" the players will listen and understand the story and follow the clues given. Actions of the players are never dictated to by the DM. Randomness (i.e. dice) provide branch points in the story. For me at least the actual combat is the least interesting part of an RPG, given that 'bad luck' aside, the game is designed so the players 'win' an encounter. So in someways the combat encounter is the most defined outcome of any part of an adventure.
As to lying to my players. I do it ALL the time. My NPC who wants the players to kill his brother so he can be next in line to the throne is hardly going to tell the 'good' PC's of his real agenda.
This sort of brings me to why I dislike 'optimizers'. I don't not like optimization (double neg...), what I have issues with is the fact they have mapped out levels 1-20 (usually) completely independent of the story that will unfold. I far prefer the players to become part of the story and let their characters grow in a logical/organic way.
S.
|
|
Here's an interesting question: what happens when someone rolls in the open and the dice are patently unfair? I've known a player many years who as a DM and a PC has a perversely high average for rolling 20's, regardless of the dice used... Nothing "happens". ??? (I do not understand the question nor the concept inplied in the question.)
It's fudging when it's intentional. When the numbers are not random due to flawed dice, software glitches and(as I suspect in the case of the miracle dice thrower) so many years of throwing dice a particular way that they roll high more often than not. Unintentional fudging is what happens and I was implying that playing the game completely straight does not mean it will be. Dice are not perfect in their approximation of random chance, especially when thrown by human hands. But we do the best we can to keep things balanced and it's far better to fudge a few rolls than whip out the formulas to check whether someone or their dice may be "crooked" through accident or design(I'd wager it's accident more often than not, through a combination of die wear and muscle memory).
|
|
As to lying to my players. I do it ALL the time. My NPC who wants the players to kill his brother so he can be next in line to the throne is hardly going to tell the 'good' PC's of his real agenda.
That's certainly not what I meant by lying to my players. That's roleplaying an NPC that's lying to their characters, and something completely different.
-James
Ok perhaps I went a little extreme in my example. So, sometimes an adventure can get bogged down by a missed Knowledge or Spot or Search roll. In these cases, and where I think the players are now reaching the point of frustration rather than exploration/consideration, I usually 'fudge' the next roll using the outcome to dictate how much information I give out, rather than a simple pass/fail based on DC, to kick-start the story again. Not changing the outcome of the dice just not adhering 100% to the RAW for how the number is used.
That a better example of lying to my players?
|
|
After reading many posts, I would like to pose a question:
If you're a DM who likes to "make it close", how do you deal with players who brings out the big guns at round 1? Going back to the first post of this thread, I am playing a wizard who has limited spells. If my DM wants every boss fight to be long and drawn-out, am I forced to cast buff spells and save my disintegrate for the moment of truth?
BTW, my GM has already read this thread and we have discussed this concern in private. I am NOT asking for help. I simply want to know what everyone thinks of this situation. All replies (both GM and players) are welcome. Again, please keep it civil.
If I feel like it's not wildly out of balance(like rolling a natural 1 on a save and telling the spell caster his spell didn't work), I will SOMETIMES fudge things to keep an important combat from ending instantly if the first player up uses a combat-killer spell and the highly powerful target could believably avoid it. I would never make a habit out of it, but I would do it more often with a player who robotically tries to end every combat by casting sleep every round or something like that. I don't like combat to be a button-mashing video game where only one player gets to act. More often, if it looks like it will be over in one round flat, I fudge things so combat goes on long enough for everyone to feel like they contributed or took their shot. I would extend this to combats where players tend to oneshot the enemy...sometimes it's nice for the big gun to fall short of the killing blow and let the wizard that has one spell left and never kills anything get that glorious moment.
But that's how I run my group. Sometimes players metagame me into a corner and I switch things around out of annoyance, but mostly we play it square and there's ample risk and glory for everyone. Some combats are long, others are painfully brief with instantly hobbled foes. My advice to you as a player is to play more organically and feel things out before deciding if it's potentially a long epic battle where everyone wants a piece or a combat where it's kill or be killed and you'd better end it quickly or be lunch.
I hope my DM's (past present and future) don't fudge the dice. If they did, or are, or do, I hope I never find out.
I play a game with dice for a reason. The DM isn't my adversary nor is he especially on my side.
I don't expect him to save my character from death nor do I expect him to save the NPC's from death when we kill them.
We live and die by the dice. Myself, I prefer it that way. To have it any other way is to look questioningly at the DM when your character bites the dust and ask "Why didn't you save me?".
Its not his job to save you. The dice fall as they may.
-S
|
|
We live and die by the dice. Myself, I prefer it that way. To have it any other way is to look questioningly at the DM when your character bites the dust and ask "Why didn't you save me?".Its not his job to save you. The dice fall as they may.
-S
We seem to have blinders on about fudging being a combat-only thing to save PC's. Fudging happens in many aspects of the game. Right vs wrong time to use DM fiat is the why DMing is a craft and not a science.
S.
I never fudge dice.
I just fudge results.