Big epic battle. Player casts spell that would if successful end the encounter in round 1. You, the DM roll the save, and it fails. You decide to fudge and say the BBEG made his save. A round or two later, the BBEG drops a PC. Do you now attempt to fudge that outcome, which wouldn't have happened if you hadn't fudged the initial BBEG save? Or is the player out of luck because he doesn't have the fudge power? Or are you one of those DMs that either keeps track of everyone's hps for them or you before you tell them the damage asks, "How many hps you got right now? 42? Well he does fif...ty... I mean he does 41 points of damage."
Good example. That's why I like hero points -- they allow limited fudging, but in an open, honest, transparent way. If the BBEG has one hero point and the PC has one when they meet, then they each have the potential to reroll one save. Having spent that point, though, their "plot immunity" has worn off, and a bad roll can kill them -- either one of them.
Let me translate what you have described.
DM: You finally come face to face with the opponent you have been after. Roll initiative.
*bunch of rolls later*
DM: Ok what does Gled the enchanter do?
Gled: I cast Dominate Person on him and tell him to leap into the lava.
DM: *rolls dice, thinks for a second* You lose your turn.
Gled: Wait, what, how do I lose my turn?
DM: You cast something that would make the encounter lame. You lose your turn.If a player had done what you described here ("You fail your save." "Nah, uh!"), we would all agree that was cheating. I fail to see how it is any different when the DM does it, except for the lame claim of "DMs can't cheat, by definition."
Your translation (an extreme example IMO) has helped me understand your position. I would call that cheating for the same reasons Kirth outlined as well.
I disagree that it is always bad. I think it has to be an open houserule that the players agree to. Some players are okay with rampant tampering, some want strictly by the fall of the dice.
Neither is bad unless the player does not agree to it.
I agree. I have had players run over BBEG's before, and while it is I dislike it they earned the victory so I don't interfere. If I did not have time to prep/review the BBEG I will either try to alter the start time for the game or add more things to the story so they don't get to meet him during that session.
While I do fudge my players know I do it from time to time, and they trust me enough to accept it. Now if you are playing with a DM you don't trust such as my earlier climbing example, then it becomes unacceptable.
Die fudging seems to fit in the "how much do yout trust/defer to" your DM category. As I said, however, I really think it is more of a preferred play style than age/experience thing, though.I hinted at this in another thread, but it is the very behavior of fudging that would lead players to not trust a DM. Both in terms of specifically distrusting him or her, and a general distrust of the guy running the game. This is because most people don't distrust others without a reason, and even those who are naturally distrustful of others tend to quickly revise their views when there is no cause for suspicion.
There is a reason why young children play Mother May I, only to shift their focus to other games as they grow up. And a good part of that reason is because they have things like 'jobs' where their success is also governed primarily by the whim of another, but you actually gain something substantial from it.
I think we are talking about two different types of trust.
You are talking about trusting the DM to be an absolutely impartial moderator with limited discretion who is brutally honest, letting the dice fall where they may so the players can know that it was their own skill and luck alone that caused success or failure. I understand why you like it that way, and appreciate it as a perfectly excellent way to play the game.
I am talking about trusting the DM to be the master storyteller/entertainer with unlimited discretion who will do whatever is necessary to make the story and the gameplay experience awesome, even if it means bending the rules or fudging some rolls. Do you understand why I like it that way, and acknowledge that it is also a valid way to play the game?
And, FYI, I never played Mother May I even when I was five. Wouldn't even know how to play. I kicked ass at Cowboys and Indians, though. :)
Hu ? I don't understand why a DM couldn't reward good creativity done by his players by giving them some non-RAW bonus (yes this is fudging)to touch and trying to restrain Save or Die by giving malus or specifically giving items against it at the players AND their ennemis if the party abuse it to go straight line without thinking (yeah it's fun at the begining when Molly the Witch put everyone to sleep at each encounter but let's face it, it quickly became boring for everyone if it work everytime...)
For info I roll in front of my players, and they literally "shiver" each time beacause I'm a very very lucky guy... I crit often and when they see cemetery in the hand of their ennemies they start thinking fast... :p
Oh and I almost forgot : I can "save the life of a player" because he has had a very great plan idea but rolled badly, resulting in failure of plan but not death, one time and let him die two session later because he roll badly on a lame plan two session later... Same with two different player in the same encounter, I reward creativity and style, trying to just "play RAW" like a video game is NOT the purpose of a PRPG...
I think we are talking about two different types of trust.
You are talking about trusting the DM to be an absolutely impartial moderator with limited discretion who is brutally honest, letting the dice fall where they may so the players can know that it was their own skill and luck alone that caused success or failure. I understand why you like it that way, and appreciate it as a perfectly excellent way to play the game.
I am talking about trusting the DM to be the master storyteller/entertainer with unlimited discretion who will do whatever is necessary to make the story and the gameplay experience awesome, even if it means bending the rules or fudging some rolls. Do you understand why I like it that way, and acknowledge that it is also a valid way to play the game?
I'm not sure we are talking about two types of trust, so much as we are talking about two types of expectations.
One expectation is that the GM is going to be fair and impartial. He is not going to gun for specific PCs, he isn't going to "cheat" to save his GM-pet NPC BBEG. He isn't going to use kid gloves against his girlfriend/significant other or his best friend, but pull out the steel glove versus everyone else.
The other expectation that is being discussed is that the GM will do whatever it takes to keep the game "jumping". If that means the mountain falls on top of the party, so they all leap to the outer planes for a quick ghost quest only to be brought back, so be it. If it means that when they fall off a cliff they land on the back of a sleeping gold dragon who smiles and offers to fly them up to the top, so be it. The rules are loose and the play is looser and cool descriptions are more important than random rolls (Player: I grab a rope from the mast and swing out at the kraken saying "Tally Ho!"; DM: Don't bother rolling, that is too cool. The kraken is totally shocked by your daring that he doesn't move and you poke his eye out with your rapier before he can recover.").
Certainly, both can be fun. Of course, it is better to have clear expectations, then to try to sneak the second type of play into the first or vice versa.
Why do I fudge well because for the last 3 years I've been gaming I have never rolled higher then a ten before modifications for any save, skill check, attack damage, stat, etc.
I know the probablility of this clame (I had to look it up because I didn't belive it was abnormal) But for some reason I keep playing, it got to the point right before I started Fuging that I rolled 6 stat lines in frount of the GM and the Group and had nothing higher then a 6, ya I got free dinner for a week but the fact remained that my first 6 characters all died in the first hour. Now I GM and fuge everything because dice HATE me
I'm seeing a lot of "if you don't do things X way you are evil/wrong/bad person/bad gm" type of attitude. Regardless of what side of the argument you are on (and the attitude has appeared on both sides) this attitude does not help you case.
When you take that attitude the first thing you are doing is precluding a real discussion. A real discussion requires the acknowledgement (not agreement with) of the other side’s points and the give and take of healthy debate.
Just as importantly it makes you unable to convince anyone who is not already in total or near total agreement with you. The attitude comes off as insulting or accusatory to anyone with a different opinion. Instead of making them think it generally makes them react poorly to any points you might have. Instead of possibly bringing them to your side thought reasonable arguments the point you are trying to make gets drowned out by negative reactions.
This is not a black or white issue. Extreme examples do not represent the real situation. Other people have points and perspectives that are valid.
To everyone (with apologies to anyone who already realizes this): you are not god, your opinion is not the defining point of right and wrong and other people's fun is not something it is your place to judge.
I have already made all the points I have to make. I have found some (but not the majority) of arguments from the other side of the issue have been reasonable and given me food for thought. Thank you for your insights. While it has not convinced me, it has shown me where I need to proceed carefully and some things to bear in mind if I want to ensure everyone's fun. If anyone has any specific questions about points I have made previously I would be happy to explain anything that might be unclear. Barring that I see no reason to continue posting on this thread, particularly when there is so little evidence that my opinion will be given any consideration by those still posting.
To everyone (with apologies to anyone who already realizes this): you are not god, your opinion is not the defining point of right and wrong and other people's fun is not something it is your place to judge.This is an interesting counter to the pro fudging crowd. Well played, and very clever sir.
The same has already been said by both sides except for the extremist on both side. I personally prefer to play a no fudge game, but when I DM I know the players want to live, so I help them out, mostly at lower levels, and a lot less at higher levels. I also tell them in advance before I take all help away.
The same has already been said by both sides except for the extremist on both side. I personally prefer to play a no fudge game, but when I DM I know the players want to live, so I help them out, mostly at lower levels, and a lot less at higher levels. I also tell them in advance before I take all help away.To everyone (with apologies to anyone who already realizes this): you are not god, your opinion is not the defining point of right and wrong and other people's fun is not something it is your place to judge.This is an interesting counter to the pro fudging crowd. Well played, and very clever sir.
Honesty is always the best policy.
Frankly, I've felt the urge to punch a GM in the face before for saying, "Ok it hit you. How many hps do have right now?" Because I know they are getting ready to fudge the results. I always respond, "Enough, just tell me the damage." If my character goes down, I want it to go down, not be fudged for my "benefit". It is not a benefit to me, but to the GM's conscious. They don't want to "feel bad" for killing off my character. Sorry, my character's name ain't Blackleaf. I'll get over it.
Seriously... the "pro fudging" crowd seems to believe that some degree of fudging (even very small amounts or with restrictions) is acceptable.
This, by it's nature, isn't an extreme view.
And I have not seen any "pro fudging" posters who do take an extreme view - which I'd imagine would be "I ALWAYS MAKE EVERYTHING UP ON THE FLY, 24/7 SON! RULES AND DICE BE DAMNED!"
But those who wish to frame this discussion as a polar, fudge/or don't, trust/no trust, lies/no lies sure do look extreme to me.
|
Frankly, I've felt the urge to punch a GM in the face before for saying, "Ok it hit you. How many hps do have right now?" Because I know they are getting ready to fudge the results. I always respond, "Enough, just tell me the damage." If my character goes down, I want it to go down, not be fudged for my "benefit". It is not a benefit to me, but to the GM's conscious. They don't want to "feel bad" for killing off my character. Sorry, my character's name ain't Blackleaf. I'll get over it.
That's why my players keep their hp secret from me and I don't track them. In different rpgs they have to tell me if they hit a pain threshold (50% and 25%), but even then I don't know their exact hit points and I trust them to manage their PCs in a honest and legit fashion. So if they get dropped - it happens, no fuss no guilt.
The same has already been said by both sides except for the extremist on both side. I personally prefer to play a no fudge game, but when I DM I know the players want to live, so I help them out, mostly at lower levels, and a lot less at higher levels. I also tell them in advance before I take all help away.To everyone (with apologies to anyone who already realizes this): you are not god, your opinion is not the defining point of right and wrong and other people's fun is not something it is your place to judge.This is an interesting counter to the pro fudging crowd. Well played, and very clever sir.Honesty is always the best policy.
Frankly, I've felt the urge to punch a GM in the face before for saying, "Ok it hit you. How many hps do have right now?" Because I know they are getting ready to fudge the results. I always respond, "Enough, just tell me the damage." If my character goes down, I want it to go down, not be fudged for my "benefit". It is not a benefit to me, but to the GM's conscious. They don't want to "feel bad" for killing off my character. Sorry, my character's name ain't Blackleaf. I'll get over it.
I never ask how many hit points they have left. I know DM's that do however. I recently had a player tell me he only had X HP left. I attacked him anyway and dropped him into negatives. Luckily and through the good graces of the party cleric he did not die. I do understand how you don't like fudging without the DM telling you does it. I think a player has the right to die. I see it as an issue of honor to be able to survive on your own merits.
While I do fudge my players know I do it from time to time, and they trust me enough to accept it. Now if you are playing with a DM you don't trust such as my earlier climbing example, then it becomes unacceptable.
Just a point about your earlier climbing example, without context we really can't tell if thats reasonable or not.
At face value it seems like favoritism but what if the case is the surface is nigh unclimbable but reachable by a high jumping monk?
I agree with your example at face value, but when things come from real experience context is important.
The character in question was not a monk. If it was monk I would have been fine. It was actually a Star Wars game, and the player did not have the ability to jump that high through equipment, stats, or jedi powers.
I think that one just zipped over your head.The same has already been said by both sides except for the extremist on both side. I personally prefer to play a no fudge game, but when I DM I know the players want to live, so I help them out, mostly at lower levels, and a lot less at higher levels. I also tell them in advance before I take all help away.To everyone (with apologies to anyone who already realizes this): you are not god, your opinion is not the defining point of right and wrong and other people's fun is not something it is your place to judge.This is an interesting counter to the pro fudging crowd. Well played, and very clever sir.
No. It didn't. After the first sentence I just kind of went off topic.
|
Seriously... the "pro fudging" crowd seems to believe that some degree of fudging (even very small amounts or with restrictions) is acceptable.
This, by it's nature, isn't an extreme view.
And I have not seen any "pro fudging" posters who do take an extreme view - which I'd imagine would be "I ALWAYS MAKE EVERYTHING UP ON THE FLY, 24/7 SON! RULES AND DICE BE DAMNED!"
But those who wish to frame this discussion as a polar, fudge/or don't, trust/no trust, lies/no lies sure do look extreme to me.
+1. Well said.
|
I have 6 players turning up tonight so I must be doing something right.You can be the greatest DM on the planet in every way except one, and still have room to improve in that one area. Obviosuly, to keep 6 players interested you run an exciting, interesting game. That's to your credit, and nothing I said takes away from that in any way. However, your example made it clear that you still have a glaring weak spot when it comes to taking the PCs' capabilities into account when planning encounters. You can work on that -- or just declare yourself to be infallible.
That isn't snark; it's constructive criticism.
Wow that's impressively patronising. But I'll let it go :).
So the conversation has come down to "Some people fudge and some people don't like to fudge but either approach is acceptable so long as you are having fun"
Sounds reasonable to me. TBH I have no problem with people banning fudging, I can see the merits of it, it's just not the way I do things. We all run our games differently. I prefer to fudge on occassion (i.e. once or twice per campaign). I have done that for the past 27 years of GMing I will continue to do that and as far as I am concerned that is not a weakness. That's the last I will say on the matter.
For everyone's information my big battle against the BBEG happened last night, I killed one player (through the judicious application of greater shadows). One other was bleeding out. The BBEG was finally taken out by the raging PC barbarian (who was blind but still fighting) and the PC ranger who made the BBEG into a pincushion. Yes it was epic, no I didn't have to fudge.
the campaign was Mongoose Publishing's Drow War (the first book) and the enemy was the leader of the Drow known as "the Terror". As written in the book she was a Drow Clr 6/Ftr 4 with 39hps. Not exactly terrifying so I rewrote her as a 13th Level Cleric. Far more satisfying for the PC's.
[
I'm not sure we are talking about two types of trust, so much as we are talking about two types of expectations.One expectation is that the GM is going to be fair and impartial. He is not going to gun for specific PCs, he isn't going to "cheat" to save his GM-pet NPC BBEG. He isn't going to use kid gloves against his girlfriend/significant other or his best friend, but pull out the steel glove versus everyone else.
The other expectation that is being discussed is that the GM will do whatever it takes to keep the game "jumping". If that means the mountain falls on top of the party, so they all leap to the outer planes for a quick ghost quest only to be brought back, so be it. If it means that when they fall off a cliff they land on the back of a sleeping gold dragon who smiles and offers to fly them up to the top, so be it. The rules are loose and the play is looser and cool descriptions are more important than random rolls (Player: I grab a rope from the mast and swing out at the kraken saying "Tally Ho!"; DM: Don't bother rolling, that is too cool. The kraken is totally shocked by your daring that he doesn't move and you poke his eye out with your rapier before he can recover.").
Certainly, both...
I agree with you on the expectations part. Everyone at the table should have an understanding of what the dominant playstyle is and what kind of game is being run, so they can make a decision on whether they want to play or not. I would, however, urge people to be flexible and try different styles. Sometimes you might actually find you like something you didn't think you would. Same argument I use with my kids on trying different foods. Just as valid for many other life experiences, including gaming.
As for the rest of your post, it is clear what style of game you prefer. Great for you. Is it really productive to try and demonize or belittle other styles by throwing out worst case scenarios? Do you really think that will convince anyone other than yourself of your superiority? Your first example of the DM who favors or discriminates against a particular player or NPC is a problem no matter what type of game you run. Just because the die rolls are in the open doesn't mean the DM doesn't have a million other ways to favor or slam a player. Someone who does that shouldn't be DMing, period.
As for your multiple examples in dissing the die-fudging, whatever makes a great story style of play, none of them make for great story-telling, and I've never seen anything like it at any table I've played at, even when I was a kid and playing with other kids. I, too, would probably be offended at that ridiculous level of DM intervention. Never seen it, though, so don't see how it applies. If you have seen it, you have my sympathies and I understand better why you prefer the style you do.
Wow that's impressively patronising. But I'll let it go
No -- think of it this way. Pretend Person A is Da Vinci -- he's an artist, a scientist, an inventor, an all-around genius. Person B is a cave man who knows how to make stone tools, and that's about it. He sees Da Vinci constructing an assortment of works of art -- one of which is a crude stone tool -- and he says, "Listen, Thag can help make better tool."
Does Da Vinci reply, "Wow, that's impressively patronizing"?
|
|
Just to throw an idea out there, in response to The Admiral's post upthread:
The anti-fudging crowd is bound to come off looking bad in this debate because our view allows for NO FUDGING. The other side of the coin, however, allows for various degrees of fudging ranging from "I will fudge only to avoid a TPK" all the way to "I fudge all the dang time". So, of all the possible responses to the question "Do you fudge rolls?", by far the greatest amount of possible responses answer the question in one way, which is "Yes, to one degree or another".
This is all to say, please don't come down on us for saying that any fudging is wrong. That is our view, and we are entitled to it. Anyone is welcome to fudge rolls in their game, as far as I'm concerned, I just won't play in those games - or rather, I probably will, but I won't have as much fun. I get that people fudge - great - but if asked to explain my views on why I think it's a bad approach, all I can really do is tell you the reasons I think it's a bad idea. If those reasons cause personal offense to someone, I'd ask that person to examine why that is the case.
Just to throw an idea out there, in response to The Admiral's post upthread:
The anti-fudging crowd is bound to come off looking bad in this debate because our view allows for NO FUDGING. The other side of the coin, however, allows for various degrees of fudging ranging from "I will fudge only to avoid a TPK" all the way to "I fudge all the dang time". So, of all the possible responses to the question "Do you fudge rolls?", by far the greatest amount of possible responses answer the question in one way, which is "Yes, to one degree or another".
This is all to say, please don't come down on us for saying that any fudging is wrong. That is our view, and we are entitled to it. Anyone is welcome to fudge rolls in their game, as far as I'm concerned, I just won't play in those games - or rather, I probably will, but I won't have as much fun. I get that people fudge - great - but if asked to explain my views on why I think it's a bad approach, all I can really do is tell you the reasons I think it's a bad idea. If those reasons cause personal offense to someone, I'd ask that person to examine why that is the case.
I don't think anyone wants to interfere with someone expressing their opinions, so long as they are clearly acknowledged as just that, opinions. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. What various folks, including myself, react to is when various posters present their opinions as fact and try to force them on others, without any acknowledgement that any other opinion could hold any validity.
Some of the problem is with language, and one of the weaknesses of the Internet as a communications device, in that nuance is frequently lost.
For example, even in your own excellent, moderately phrased and thoughtful post, you use the phrase "any fudging is wrong", without any modifiers such as "I believe that" or "in my experience". By just using "is", you've transformed your statement from subjective opinion to objective fact. I don't think that was your intent, and please excuse me for picking on you, but I thought it would make the point. In my opinion, it is far better/more cordial in these types of debates to state your point like "I prefer DMs not fudge rolls" and then give your reasons, rather than "Fudging rolls is wrong."
I don't think anyone wants to interfere with someone expressing their opinions, so long as they are clearly acknowledged as just that, opinions. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. What various folks, including myself, react to is when various posters present their opinions as fact and try to force them on others, without any acknowledgement that any other opinion could hold any validity.
Some of the problem is with language, and one of the weaknesses of the Internet as a communications device, in that nuance is frequently lost.
For example, even in your own excellent, moderately phrased and thoughtful post, you use the phrase "any fudging is wrong", without any modifiers such as "I believe that" or "in my experience". By just using "is", you've transformed your statement from subjective opinion to objective fact. I don't think that was...
Well, Brian, to advocate the other side for a moment, the full phrase was, "please don't come down on us for saying that any fudging is wrong. That is our view, and we are entitled to it." That sounds like one hell of a modifier.
There are plenty of valid examples upthread of folks begging the question in their phrasing of fudging as objective wrong. You chose the wrong example.
I don't think anyone wants to interfere with someone expressing their opinions, so long as they are clearly acknowledged as just that, opinions. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. What various folks, including myself, react to is when various posters present their opinions as fact and try to force them on others, without any acknowledgement that any other opinion could hold any validity.
Some of the problem is with language, and one of the weaknesses of the Internet as a communications device, in that nuance is frequently lost.
For example, even in your own excellent, moderately phrased and thoughtful post, you use the phrase "any fudging is wrong", without any modifiers such as "I believe that" or "in my experience". By just using "is", you've transformed your statement from subjective opinion to objective fact. I don't think that was...
Well, Brian, to advocate the other side for a moment, the full phrase was, "please don't come down on us for saying that any fudging is wrong. That is our view, and we are entitled to it." That sounds like one hell of a modifier.
There are plenty of valid examples upthread of folks begging the question in their phrasing of fudging as objective wrong. You chose the wrong example.
Conceded, although "saying any fudging is wrong" is significantly different than "in my opinion any fudging is wrong" or the even better "I prefer DMs don't fudge." Part laziness on my part not to find a better example upthread. Also, partially picked Jeremiziah because he seemed like a reasonable chap who probably wouldn't take too much offense, as opposed to some others who would see it as an open invitation for a flame war. And I did, of course, apologize for picking on him and highly compliment his post. I do try not to be a cyberbully.
If I fudge, and it's been I long time since that was a regular part of my DM arsenal it's pretty much always on the side of "rescuing" the PCs. The simple fact of the matter is that while you can be an excellent DM and actually plan balanced encounters there are times when those encounters can come back and bite you in the ass.
Sometimes conditions on the part of the PCs change and what should've been an easy encounter is suddenly harder because the PCs have expended a limited use ability in a previous encounter. Sometimes boneheaded play (dividing the group, going off solo, not retreating from superior forces) can doom an otherwise good encounter.
But the number one reason for failed encounters is that while probability is generally on your side, the average length of fights in 3.x means that combat can experience a ton of variance in actual play because the dice rolling sequence is so short.
If a typical encounter is on average 2-3 rounds in duration the number of d20 rolls has far too much variance. The PCs could all roll horribly on to hit rolls and saves and the NPCs can get an unusual number of crits and made saves. This can result in average encounters going really bad vs the PCs and can potentially turn challenging encounters into TPKs.
NPCs are limited duration constructs I don't really care if they go down like chumps (even if I occasionally wince if an important NPC gets dry gulched) but most players have more than a marginal amount invested in their characters and while PC death isn't a major issue in D&D, the risk of accidental TPKs is very real.
I really see no issue with avoiding TPKs through fudging. I'd probably conceal it during the fight to preserve immersion but I'd fess up later if I felt that it wouldn't diminish player enjoyment.
|
|
It's alright, no offense taken, and of course I know what you mean.
The only problem is, it's not so much that I prefer that DM's not fudge as that I think it's actually wrong to do. That's my opinion. Anything short of saying so misrepresents my opinion, which I don't want to do. Sometimes language is harsh unnecessarily, but other times it is by necessity direct and blunt, and that's what happened in my post.
My thing is this: I've been on the players side of the table with a player playing a Witch who uses Misfortune liberally. The DM has gone on record as saying that he hates having to roll two dice and take the lower- he thinks it's far too strong an ability. Oddly enough, monsters make about 65-70% of their saves against Misfortune (we've tracked it). That number is skewed. There's no way it can be accurate, the mechanics of the game just don't allow for it. We have been up against Fighter/Brute/Animal types 8 out of 10 matches, the Witch has a 20 INT - it's just not an accurate figure. Based on rudimentary statistical analysis, the DM is fudging against the player, and the player is having a really hard time staying interested in the game as a result.
Now, rather than sit back and split hairs, saying "Well, I think it's bad in that example, but in this example over here it MIGHT be alright, and I definitely think it's OK in this case or that case", I prefer to just say "The whole thing is both a slippery slope and a bad idea." (If you need to assume an "I Think" or an "In my opinion" in that last sentence in order to not have a coronary, please do so :-p ). Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with TOZ when he says "It's only a bad approach if the players don't like it" - that's almost an irrefutable fact. The problem comes in when the players don't know it's been done to hurt their cause, not help it. In that case they certainly wouldn't like it, but they'll never know for sure, so they don't have the chance to /dislike.
Another reason for the need for strong statements as to why fudging can be bad (note: "can be," not "is") -- judging from the replies, it seems to be a default assumption ("Of course I can fudge -- I'm the DM!"). Challenging the status quo always requires a bit of extra commitment.
It's alright, no offense taken, and of course I know what you mean.
The only problem is, it's not so much that I prefer that DM's not fudge as that I think it's actually wrong to do. That's my opinion. Anything short of saying so misrepresents my opinion, which I don't want to do. Sometimes language is harsh unnecessarily, but other times it is by necessity direct and blunt, and that's what happened in my post.
My thing is this: I've been on the players side of the table with a player playing a Witch who uses Misfortune liberally. The DM has gone on record as saying that he hates having to roll two dice and take the lower- he thinks it's far too strong an ability. Oddly enough, monsters make about 65-70% of their saves against Misfortune (we've tracked it). That number is skewed. There's no way it can be accurate, the mechanics of the game just don't allow for it. We have been up against Fighter/Brute/Animal types 8 out of 10 matches, the Witch has a 20 INT - it's just not an accurate figure. Based on rudimentary statistical analysis, the DM is fudging against the player, and the player is having a really hard time staying interested in the game as a result.
Now, rather than sit back and split hairs, saying "Well, I think it's bad in that example, but in this example over here it MIGHT be alright, and I definitely think it's OK in this case or that case", I prefer to just say "The whole thing is both a slippery slope and a bad idea." (If you need to assume an "I Think" or an "In my opinion" in that last sentence in order to not have a coronary, please do so :-p ). Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with TOZ when he says "It's only a bad approach if the players don't like it" - that's almost an irrefutable fact. The problem comes in when the players don't know it's been done to hurt their cause, not help it. In that case they certainly wouldn't like it, but they'll never know for sure, so they don't have the chance to /dislike.
Good response, and I understand a little better where you are coming from. The slippery slope point is an excellent one, and I think any DM who fudges the dice occasionally needs to know how slippery that slope is and tread carefully. I do, however, based on my own experience and those of several other posters here, believe that it is quite possible to tread that slope effectively.
Regarding the right to voice extreme positions, I think I'll concede that as well, so long as it is done civilly, and you don't go out of your way to dis opposing viewpoints or seek to impose your views on others. I've actually stated the same thing as an open question before with regards to a tolerant society. In a tolerant society can we/should we/must we tolerate intolerant opinions? I would say yes. As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion. :)
Regarding your specific witch example, my only observation would be that the real problem seems to be less with fudging the rolls than the fact the DM is essentially houseruling a nerf on the class that the players, and particularly the witch player, don't agree with. I have no problem with either houseruling or judicious nerfing, but you have to be upfront and open about it, and it's much better done before character creation even starts than once a game gets going. Very understandable for a player to be unhappy with a mid-game nerf, even if it is justified (haven't played enough with the witch class yet to have an opinion). At least your DM acknowledges that he dislikes the witch RAW and why. He should go a step further and have a whole conversation with the players about this and other proposed houserules so that everyone can get on the same page.
Anyway, thanks for being a good sport.
Another reason for the need for strong statements as to why fudging can be bad (note: "can be," not "is") -- judging from the replies, it seems to be a default assumption ("Of course I can fudge -- I'm the DM!"). Challenging the status quo always requires a bit of extra commitment.
Conceded.
Of course, I'm a big proponent of the notion that the DM is almost always in a position where that same logic applies. To my mind, any DM who begins and ends his/her justification for anything with "I'm the DM!" is one with whom I've no interest in playing.
Whether the possibility of an occasional fudged roll exists or not, the DM is in a position of unbridled power with regards to the characters in his game (note: not over the players, who've the ability to walk away from the table or pour sugar into his gas tank). Nothing stops him from dropping an adult red dragon on a party of 1st level adventures. Nothing stops him from sticking an all-caster party in a dead magic dungeon. There are many, MANY ways for a DM to abuse the power he has over the games he runs. Fudging rolls is, indeed, one of those ways. For DMs prone to adversarial attitudes, or those with issues about control, giving them license to fudge a roll so that things go their way is like putting a live grenade in the hands of a downsized dot-com programmer with a grudge. It will work out poorly.
So, it is certainly cleaner and easier, in looking at all the ways a fudged roll can be abused, to issue a blanket statement that all fudging is bad, at all times. This statement may in fact be completely true.
Of course, as some mystics have said, "Nothing is true; everything is permitted." A quote originally attributed to Sabbah, but echoed in the writings of Taoism and numerous other sects throughout history (yeah, they didn't just make it up over at Ubisoft). A more Westernized expression of the same notion might be, "Rules are made to be broken."
That shouldn't be read as a license for DMs to fudge dice rolls at whim. Merely an acknowledgment that circumstances may exist in which a judiciously fudged roll (objectively a bad thing, at all times and in all ways) may improve the gaming experience at your table, in a specific circumstance about which we cannot now hypothesize.
Your mileage may, as in all things, vary.
If a typical encounter is on average 2-3 rounds in duration the number of d20 rolls has far too much variance.
For some of us, that variance is a good thing.
Once, a few editions ago, a mid-sized group of PCs ran into a small group of Hook Horrors - a perfectly defeatable foe (not that my players should really know what's "defeatable" - but that's another thread) - in a dungeon. In a bit of a hurry, and hoping they could overwhelm the monsters quickly, the p.c. group attacked. Many horribly lopsided rolls, several lost hit points and two dead characters later, the group - having failed to kill a single 'horror - decided it was time to run. Assuming these large-ish monsters were faster than the party, one of the fighters (played by a new player) bravely remains behind.
The party runs into a room where they throw up some hasty defenses, spread the inevitable oil and wait. To save time, I roll all the dice for the horrors at once - and actually show the players the ocean of ones-and-twos I'd just rolled. Everyone - myself included - is thoroughly engrossed as the hook horrors continue to do that for about six more turns, while the player slays them until the final beast breaks, tries to flee, and is cut down.
At this point, the player notices that the rest of the table is looking at her in awe and seems at a loss for words: "Well ... my sheet says 'Fighter' right on it..."
Needless to say, nobody's forgotten this. Part of what made all of this so awesome is nobody expected any of it. I didn't have a script in my head as to how long this "throwaway fight" was going to last. (Dungeon Mastering "on a script" would be pretty boring for me.) I didn't get worried when the monsters started winning and alter a few die rolls. And if that character died, that PLAYER would have still gotten "mad props," and her next PC welcomed into the party like a long-lost sister.
To my mind, any DM who begins and ends his/her justification for anything with "I'm the DM!" is one with whom I've no interest in playing.
Amen.
That shouldn't be read as a license for DMs to fudge dice rolls at whim. Merely an acknowledgment that circumstances may exist in which a judiciously fudged roll (objectively a bad thing, at all times and in all ways) may improve the gaming experience at your table, in a specific circumstance about which we cannot now hypothesize.
I've condeded any number of times that those circumstances can indeed arise... but I've recommended a mechanism that (a) is transparent to players and DM both; (b) limits fudging to rare occasions; and (c) puts some of the choice in the players' hands. So far not one person seems willing to acknowledge that any of those three things might be preferrable to hidden DM fiat.
I've condeded any number of times that those circumstances can indeed arise... but I've recommended a mechanism that (a) is transparent to players and DM both; (b) limits fudging to rare occasions; and (c) puts some of the choice in the players' hands. So far not one person seems willing to acknowledge that any of those three things might be preferrable to hidden DM fiat.
I'm willing to acknowledge it, certainly. No worries there.
On the other hand, Hero Point mechanics can have issues of their own at some tables. But that's another thread.
Is it really productive to try and demonize or belittle other styles by throwing out worst case scenarios? Do you really think that will convince anyone other than yourself of your...
I think on this topic you are perhaps being a bit thin skinned. No insult was intended or implied. I certainly described extreme situations merely to illustrate the difference between the two expectations (fairness is the #1 priority vs. fun is the #1 priority). If you found my examples not enlightening, than I am sorry. I am not the most creative person in the world and have never claimed otherwise.
The fact that you seem to indicate you have never experienced a GM that has shown favoritism, I find amazing and I must say you are truly a blessed person. Many others of us have, and because of this, we are a bit distrusting of too much GM subjective calls and changing rolls mid-game. It is understandable then that you don't quite get the other side, you don't see why anyone should think fairness should be a high priority (perhaps the highest), because you have never experienced the lack of fairness in your gaming.
But I was not suggesting that all fudging-GMs cheat for someone they care about or other such reason. Merely that some do, and that is why others would favor not having fudging, because then the temptation is much less.
EDIT: Kirth, I am fine with Hero Points. We used them in a SW:SAGA game and it worked pretty good. I think we got too many, and I think one player "fudged" a little with how many they had left at times, but for the most part they worked great. I rarely used mine, just because I wanted to go a bit more "hard-core". Of course in the last encounter of the last session of the campaign, I bantha-rushed a guy on a landing ramp of ship that was taking off into orbit. I said, "If I roll a 1 on my check, my gamorrean will just launch off the ramp and fall to the planet below." (We don't usually do critical failures, but it was the last combat, what the hell.) And of course...I rolled a 1. The GM was even, "You might still live, you the damage caps out right." I just laughed, "Dude, he's dead, I'm fine with it and it was a great way to go."
EDIT 2: @Brian: I would say fudging is like other GM centric trust issues. Such as GMPCs. Some people are against any NPC character run by the GM joining the party (even Bob Manureshoveler who just watches the horses outside the dungeons). They fear the Gandalf Effect (This foe is beyond any of you. But not me, Hah!). Or the dead weight effect or whatever. Others, like myself, think it can be done right and increase the fun of the game. I see fudging in a similar vein, some people don't trust it because of the openness for abuse, while others know they won't abuse it.
I do wish more people would respond to my question I posed earlier. If you fudge to save the BBEG for the epic battle, and then later a PC drops (who obviously wouldn't have if you hadn't fudged to save the BBEG). Do you then feel obligated to fudge for that player, even if the player was perhaps foolish, because your original fudged lead to it. Do you feel obligated to double-fudge it?
I am strongly opposed to fudging / cheating to ensure an "exciting game" (i. e. "close" bossfights, preventing the death of a villain that is "needed" later on, no PC dies unless he does sth. the DM deems "stupid" etc.). Nothing will be less exciting once the players realize that they have been deceived. They will probably lose trust in the DM and all their victories will have a stale taste.
I always roll the dice open. This way every combat is exciting, and if the PCs manage to kill a major villain in combat round 1, great cheers will be had. THIS then is a memorable and fun moment, not bossfight no. 235 that the party manages to win by the skin of their teeth because the DM makes it so by breaking the rules.
That said, a TPK in a long and somewhat railroady, backround-heavy campaign like for instance a Paizo Adventure Path can really be a big downer. The characters have perhaps learned many secrets, befriended a lot of important NPCs and already have a history with the main villains. Just inserting a completely new party into the campaign and thus completing it with different characters can be unsatisfying. Of course it is possible, as well as just starting a different campaign.
But I would in this case prefer to somehow rescue the party. Maybe they all weren't really dead, but only all but and now the villains have captured them. The important thing is to be honest with the players: "Guys, you're dead, but I would hate to end the campaign like this. Yes, you are at -19 HP, just cross that out, and make it a -5 and stable, OK?"
I would have no problem with that, although I never had to retort to that measure yet.
Is it really productive to try and demonize or belittle other styles by throwing out worst case scenarios? Do you really think that will convince anyone other than yourself of your...I think on this topic you are perhaps being a bit thin skinned. No insult was intended or implied. I certainly described extreme situations merely to illustrate the difference between the two expectations (fairness is the #1 priority vs. fun is the #1 priority). If you found my examples not enlightening, than I am sorry. I am not the most creative person in the world and have never claimed otherwise.
The fact that you seem to indicate you have never experienced a GM that has shown favoritism, I find amazing and I must say you are truly a blessed person. Many others of us have, and because of this, we are a bit distrusting of too much GM subjective calls and changing rolls mid-game. It is understandable then that you don't quite get the other side, you don't see why anyone should think fairness should be a high priority (perhaps the highest), because you have never experienced the lack of fairness in your gaming.
But I was not suggesting that all fudging-GMs cheat for someone they care about or other such reason. Merely that some do, and that is why others would favor not having fudging, because then the temptation is much less.
My apologies for being thin-skinned, and I take you on face value that no insult to other playstyles was intended. Just came off that way to me.
I think I mentioned on the Player Horror Stories thread that I have been blessed in my 30+ year gaming life. You can check out my post there to see the rather tame example I provided for the worst DM I ever had, which definitely pales in comparison with many others. I can't say that I've never seen any favoritism at the table, but it's been relatively mild. We may joke about it, but we understand when a DM hesitates to kill his wife's character for the third time in as many sessions. Sleeping on the couch ain't fun. :)
Mostly I've played with pretty good DMs when I'm not DMing myself. I make no claim to be a great DM myself, but people seem to have a good time and keep coming back, which is all I'm really striving for. I think, though, that part of the reason my groups have been so happy with their DMs is that we give the DM a very large benefit of the doubt in every situation and trust them to do the right thing. I think that attitude, as much as anything, helps make for a happy table.
From reading through various threads, I think there are a lot of players out there who have a hard time giving that benefit of the doubt and are always ready to assume bad motives on behalf of the DM when they don't understand or agree with a ruling or if something goes against them. The core of my group has been playing together for more than 20 years. I'm a relative newcomer, having started with them only 15 years ago. They are all good friends as well as gaming buddies. Three of us DM, and we all support and trust whoever is DMing, although each of us has a slightly different style (one in particular would probably never fudge a roll). I realize that may not be the typical gaming group, but for me it has been close to ideal.
As the idiom goes, "Once Bitten, Twice Shy."
For some, trust isn't so easily given anymore, but must now be earned.
|
Do you then feel obligated to fudge for that player, even if the player was perhaps foolish, because your original fudged lead to it. Do you feel obligated to double-fudge it?
Well, I try not to put myself in those situations, as I said before. Saving a character from outright death is a situational thing, but in that case I think I would save the PC. I would not feel any more obliged to do it than normal however.
Also, have you seen the PDF 'Raising the Stakes'? It offers rules for allowing the player to choose when his character is at risk of dying. Basically you are immune to death, unless you tell the DM you want to bet your life on the outcome. You get benefits for the risk, but your character can die if it goes bad. Similar to your SW story. You can replicate the normal rules by always declaring you are raising the stakes. Probably unnecessary for your games but still a good read.
I'm generally in favor of mechanics that allow the PCs and select NPCs to use a certain amount of plot immunity. Whether they are D&D action points or M&M style Hero Points/GM Fiat mechanics if there is a way for the players and to a lesser extent the GM to assert narrative control through a limited use subsystem then I think that's a good addition to the game.
That way instead of being at the whim of GM fiat the players can selectively edit the encounter so that a certain death becomes a close call. Further with a M&M style GM Fiat system where the PCs get compensated when NPCs "cheat" with some sort of limited use mechanical benefit it actually becomes a net positive for the GM to cheat on behalf of important encounters. It improves the narrative (goal number one) and rewards the PCs for taking the NPC to the limit (primary benefit) and achieves greater GM/Player transparency (secondary benefit).
Small scale reality editing should be handled via little situational modifiers and stunt bonuses. In other words if it described in a cool way GMs should feel free to reward the player with a situation bonus.
I'm generally in favor of mechanics that allow the PCs and select NPCs to use a certain amount of plot immunity. Whether they are D&D action points or M&M style Hero Points/GM Fiat mechanics if there is a way for the players and to a lesser extent the GM to assert narrative control through a limited use subsystem then I think that's a good addition to the game.
EXACTLY what I have been saying.