Brian Bachman wrote: Good call on the moral issue. I follow what you are saying on changes in rolls that "hurt the party". First off, I actually don't do that, all of my fudging is pretty much to prevent TPK or what I term stupid, as opposed to heroic, character death. As a consequence I've had some BBEG fights that were pretty anticlimactic. It happens, and I deal with it, and try to plan my BBEG strategy better for the next time.
But I can understand why a DM would fudge for a climactic BBEG battle that otherwise would end up pretty lame. The key for me would be doing it in such a way that a character doesn't end up dying or suffering some permanent loss that bums them out. I do know for a fact that my group is happiest when they are pushed to their utmost, when half of them are lying bleeding in the dust, unconscious and the other half are getting desperate by the time the last blow is struck. Those are the fights they will remember and talk about for years, as opposed to the occasional cakewalks they have due to a lucky or unlucky roll. So I understand why someone would fudge to try and produce more of those. It's tricky though, and a slippery slope, as you wouldn't want a character to die because of a fudge you made, so you might find yourself having to fudge more and more.
This is D&D. Encounters are going to be decided in a matter of seconds. Going from full to critical HP in one round is typical. Going from fine to fine red mist in one round while rarer is not unheard of.
So if you cheat and ignore that the save or lose on the BBEG was successful, odds are more likely than not their next action is going to result in exactly that. Dead or suffering some permanent loss. Not struggling on the edge or any such thing. Combat is too quick for that to happen as a result of anything other than extreme luck (the BBEG just happened to almost kill some people) or a non stop barrage of fudging which makes me question why you're even bothering with dice. In any case it is certainly something that hurts the party, and hurts them greatly as just giving the enemy a chance to act can easily be a death wish.
When I say 'you', I mean 'anyone who does this'.
Is it 'anti climatic' to win in half a round? Maybe. But flip it around. Your character was badass enough to take out [insert hyped up BBEG] in one move.
You're not going to get any sort of playable 'epic' (long) fights in a tabletop setting. Once it's dragged on for a few rounds, player's interest will start wandering. If it becomes a habit, don't expect them to stay engaged. There's a reason why 4th edition is already being replaced by a new product. There's actually many reasons but one of the biggest is that people don't want to take 10 or more rounds to slowly whittle down a boss. And if they do nearly every CRPG out there offers them what they want in at least part of the game. Even then the actual fight only takes somewhere between 2 and 10 minutes in total. Some people take longer than this to resolve a single round in tabletop.
Brian Bachman wrote: As far as players fudging their rolls, isn't that basically what Hero Points are? If you accept that optional rule, but reject DM fudging, then you are basically saying PCs should be able to do something the DM can't. The difference is that hero points provide a transparent fudging mechanism with built-in limits. It's open and above-board, so everyone knows it's going on.
Mistah Green wrote: Brian Bachman wrote: Good call on the moral issue. I follow what you are saying on changes in rolls that "hurt the party". First off, I actually don't do that, all of my fudging is pretty much to prevent TPK or what I term stupid, as opposed to heroic, character death. As a consequence I've had some BBEG fights that were pretty anticlimactic. It happens, and I deal with it, and try to plan my BBEG strategy better for the next time.
But I can understand why a DM would fudge for a climactic BBEG battle that otherwise would end up pretty lame. The key for me would be doing it in such a way that a character doesn't end up dying or suffering some permanent loss that bums them out. I do know for a fact that my group is happiest when they are pushed to their utmost, when half of them are lying bleeding in the dust, unconscious and the other half are getting desperate by the time the last blow is struck. Those are the fights they will remember and talk about for years, as opposed to the occasional cakewalks they have due to a lucky or unlucky roll. So I understand why someone would fudge to try and produce more of those. It's tricky though, and a slippery slope, as you wouldn't want a character to die because of a fudge you made, so you might find yourself having to fudge more and more.
This is D&D. Encounters are going to be decided in a matter of seconds. Going from full to critical HP in one round is typical. Going from fine to fine red mist in one round while rarer is not unheard of.
So if you cheat and ignore that the save or lose on the BBEG was successful, odds are more likely than not their next action is going to result in exactly that. Dead or suffering some permanent loss. Not struggling on the edge or any such thing. Combat is too quick for that to happen as a result of anything other than extreme luck (the BBEG just happened to almost kill some people) or a non stop barrage of fudging which makes me question why you're even bothering with dice. In any case it is certainly something that... Well, I would say that's the way you play D&D. Not me or mine. Most fights don't last more than a few rounds, but very few are over in one, and occasionally they drag on into the teens for rounds.
I've been running long, epic fights for 32 years and don't intend to stop anytime soon. Guess it helps that the folks I'm playing with seem to have longer attention spans than those you seem to be accustomed to. In my experience the only thing that makes fights boring is when either the DM or the player isn't prepared and has to spend several minutes looking up the rules for what they want to do or the spell they want to cast while everyone else waits. I'm pretty dictatorial about keeping it moving. If you aren't ready in a reasonable amount of time, your character holds action until you're ready, and we move on.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Brian Bachman wrote: As far as players fudging their rolls, isn't that basically what Hero Points are? If you accept that optional rule, but reject DM fudging, then you are basically saying PCs should be able to do something the DM can't. The difference is that hero points provide a transparent fudging mechanism with built-in limits. It's open and above-board, so everyone knows it's going on. So should exceptional characters like BBEGs have Hero Points, too? How would that differ from DM fudging?
I don't think he specified that it was a player only mechanic.
Brian Bachman wrote: So should exceptional characters like BBEGs have Hero Points, too? How would that differ from DM fudging? The use of hero points and/or villain points are for each group to decide, as long as everyone is in on the decision. If by agreement the DM uses "villain points," there should be enough in-game information that the players can deduce who is likely to have them. I'd also limit it to 1 per villain, 2 for a recurring super-villain. And I'd tell the PCs when they're being used (if not point-blank, then as part of the narrative): "It's a once-in-a-lifetime coincidence; you just happened to swing at the exact same time that portion of the ceiling collapsed, so that you chop wood instead of the villain. He should have been killed right there -- and you can see in his eyes that he knows it, too."
Brian Bachman wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Brian Bachman wrote: Good call on the moral issue. I follow what you are saying on changes in rolls that "hurt the party". First off, I actually don't do that, all of my fudging is pretty much to prevent TPK or what I term stupid, as opposed to heroic, character death. As a consequence I've had some BBEG fights that were pretty anticlimactic. It happens, and I deal with it, and try to plan my BBEG strategy better for the next time.
But I can understand why a DM would fudge for a climactic BBEG battle that otherwise would end up pretty lame. The key for me would be doing it in such a way that a character doesn't end up dying or suffering some permanent loss that bums them out. I do know for a fact that my group is happiest when they are pushed to their utmost, when half of them are lying bleeding in the dust, unconscious and the other half are getting desperate by the time the last blow is struck. Those are the fights they will remember and talk about for years, as opposed to the occasional cakewalks they have due to a lucky or unlucky roll. So I understand why someone would fudge to try and produce more of those. It's tricky though, and a slippery slope, as you wouldn't want a character to die because of a fudge you made, so you might find yourself having to fudge more and more.
This is D&D. Encounters are going to be decided in a matter of seconds. Going from full to critical HP in one round is typical. Going from fine to fine red mist in one round while rarer is not unheard of.
So if you cheat and ignore that the save or lose on the BBEG was successful, odds are more likely than not their next action is going to result in exactly that. Dead or suffering some permanent loss. Not struggling on the edge or any such thing. Combat is too quick for that to happen as a result of anything other than extreme luck (the BBEG just happened to almost kill some people) or a non stop barrage of fudging which makes me question why you're even bothering with dice. In any case it is ... It's the way D&D works, on any edition other than 4th.
In 1st/2nd everyone simply has low HP. So even though you only do 15-20 damage a hit, you get multiple swings, and the enemy is lucky to have over 100 HP. Then the enemies also have the same degree of relatively good offense and often attack in swarms.
In 3rd/3.5 the bruiser type enemies can just take out all your HP in two rounds. The caster types are going to almost certainly land a save or ______ on you if they get two chances unless you are going well out of your way to boost saving throws. So if nothing else, the combat will be short because you are no longer able to fight it. Obviously losing isn't ideal, and you should try to win instead. That means killing them before they take you out, which in turn makes the combat faster, or the same speed. Not slower.
Things get a little slower if you allow a lot of non core sources. This is because core is really good about jacking up the offense of some characters but doesn't provide so well in the defensive department. Letting in lots of non core stuff improves defenses - player and enemy, far more than their offense. But it's still not some many round slogfest. It might become 2-4 rounds instead of 1-2.
vuron wrote: The problem is that cheating implies that Tabletop RPGs have winners or losers. While plenty of people treat RPGs this way the goal isn't to have some people win and some people lose or the DM win and players lose but to have a fun time playing a game.
I agree, but you can still be made to felt like you lost or won depending on results of certain things. People don't like to feel like they lost.
Brian Bachman wrote: As far as players fudging their rolls, isn't that basically what Hero Points are? If you accept that optional rule, but reject DM fudging, then you are basically saying PCs should be able to do something the DM can't. I don't really know what 'hero points' are actually. I saw it on this thread and had figured it was something like 'action points' which I think eberron introduced.. I don't really care for them.
If they are 'get out of jail free cards' then I don't really accept them, no.
As to some weird codified house rule on 'get out of jail cards' then it's up to the house to decide whether or not the DM gets to use these as well as the players. It's a group decision.. like deciding whether to play chess or checkers.
When someone cheats (and I honestly prefer that term to 'fudging' as I see it as more accurate) they are doing something that is against the agreed upon rules... either by the letter or spirit thereof. The game and its players assume that dice will be rolled and dictate certain successes and failures. Now individual gaming groups can decide these 'oops points' that 'fudge' the results and how they want them to work as trump to normal rules.. that's their call and their house rules to that effect.
I see this as two things:
1. Done in secret. This is cheating to me. Whether its done by the DM or the player. Whether its done to benefit one side or the other. Its cheating. Everyone has agreed upon one thing and you're doing another.
2. Done in the open. This is less abhorrent than the first, but distasteful to me. It's up there with the 'pity points' or whatever term you're using for them (hero/villain etc). It is a bit too deus ex machina for my tastes. Others might love them or see some point to them.
Most of what people have been discussing here falls more in the 'I alter the result in secret' rather than 'I say this just killed you but it doesn't seem fair to me so why don't we say that you're stable at -9 hps?' form.
Though honestly does that really lead to feelings of 'epic' fights where this occurs either for the party or the BBEG?
And if it has to be based upon lies, is it really worth it? Why not let it unfold and when something is truly epic then its TRULY epic!
-James
Hero/Villain Points are a mechanic used in Mutants and Masterminds. Basically they are a method for the players and GM to selectively edit the storyline to achieve narrative goals.
They can be used for a variety of things but often get used to reroll failed saves (rerolls have a floor of 11), gain the use of a feat for one action, recover from a stunned or fatigued condition, etc.
Villains use GM fiat to do any number of things normally done by Comic Supervillains such as mimic the hero point, escape from an encounter (live to fight another day), force the PCs to fail a save vs a specific power (M&M like most 4 color comics scales towards knocked out not dead), etc. When the Villain uses GM fiat the PCs get compensated by receiving a hero point.
It actually simulates comic book theatrics well. Some people like that sort of action in their FRPGs so want a similar mechanic for their games.
Mistah Green wrote: Brian Bachman wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Brian Bachman wrote: Good call on the moral issue. I follow what you are saying on changes in rolls that "hurt the party". First off, I actually don't do that, all of my fudging is pretty much to prevent TPK or what I term stupid, as opposed to heroic, character death. As a consequence I've had some BBEG fights that were pretty anticlimactic. It happens, and I deal with it, and try to plan my BBEG strategy better for the next time.
But I can understand why a DM would fudge for a climactic BBEG battle that otherwise would end up pretty lame. The key for me would be doing it in such a way that a character doesn't end up dying or suffering some permanent loss that bums them out. I do know for a fact that my group is happiest when they are pushed to their utmost, when half of them are lying bleeding in the dust, unconscious and the other half are getting desperate by the time the last blow is struck. Those are the fights they will remember and talk about for years, as opposed to the occasional cakewalks they have due to a lucky or unlucky roll. So I understand why someone would fudge to try and produce more of those. It's tricky though, and a slippery slope, as you wouldn't want a character to die because of a fudge you made, so you might find yourself having to fudge more and more.
This is D&D. Encounters are going to be decided in a matter of seconds. Going from full to critical HP in one round is typical. Going from fine to fine red mist in one round while rarer is not unheard of.
So if you cheat and ignore that the save or lose on the BBEG was successful, odds are more likely than not their next action is going to result in exactly that. Dead or suffering some permanent loss. Not struggling on the edge or any such thing. Combat is too quick for that to happen as a result of anything other than extreme luck (the BBEG just happened to almost kill some people) or a non stop barrage of fudging which makes me question why you're even bothering with ... Mistah,
To my recall, in 1st Edition, a fire giant had a THACO of 10 or 11, and did about 16 points of damage on an attack (3-30). He typically had about 50 hit points or so.
A 9th or 10th level fighter might have about 70-80 hit points, depending on the hit point rolling method being used and his constitution. Typical AC for said fighter was generally around -3 or so (to use some of the pregens from the Giants series as a benchmark---that being plate+shield with some magic bonus on each and a point or two of dexterity, mix to taste). So the fighter would get hit around 30-40% or so of the time, meaning that the giant would take a fair bit of time to kill him, probably well over 10 rounds. The fighter, in turn, was probably doing something on the order of d12 +magic+specialization+strength---or around 15 or 16 points per hit, with probably 2 attacks per round at that level, and probably hitting the giant in the ballpark of 3/4 of the time (Thaco for a fighter was close to 21 minus his level, and with specialization, magic, and strength you're probably talking 6 or so plus to hit at that level).
DPS relative to hit points has taken a definite turn upwards (part of that started in 2nd edition, where giants and dragons got their DPS boosted a lot without an increase in anyone's hit points, a change that was largely masked by the incredibly powerful 2nd edition stoneskin spell, which was the most popular buff spell of them all).
I think it would be nice if we could avoid statements like the following. They don't do anything uplift the discussion. They are on par with, "Oh yeah, well you're a roll-player, not a role-player, so there." We are better than that my friends.
Warforged Gardener wrote: I don't like combat to be a button-mashing video game where only one player gets to act. Loengrin wrote: 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... Mike Silva wrote: If I wanted to play a game like that I would just play a rpg video game like Elder Scrolls.
Wilhem wrote: I simply want to know why it’s being done instead of letting the dice decide the outcome.
Because it says so in the RAW (core rulebook, p 402)
EWHM wrote: Mistah,
To my recall, in 1st Edition, a fire giant had a THACO of 10 or 11, and did about 16 points of damage on an attack (3-30). He typically had about 50 hit points or so.
A 9th or 10th level fighter might have about 70-80 hit points, depending on the hit point rolling method being used and his constitution. Typical AC for said fighter was generally around -3 or so (to use some of the pregens from the Giants series as a benchmark---that being plate+shield with some magic bonus on each and a point or two of dexterity, mix to taste). So the fighter would get hit around 30-40% or so of the time, meaning that the giant would take a fair bit of time to kill him, probably well over 10 rounds. The fighter, in turn, was probably doing something on the order of d12 +magic+specialization+strength---or around 15 or 16 points per hit, with probably 2 attacks per round at that level, and probably hitting the giant in the ballpark of 3/4 of the time (Thaco for a fighter was close to 21 minus his level, and with specialization, magic, and strength you're probably talking 6 or so plus to hit at that level).
DPS relative to hit points has taken a definite turn upwards (part of that started in 2nd edition, where giants and dragons got their DPS boosted a lot without an increase in anyone's hit points, a change that was largely masked by the incredibly powerful 2nd edition stoneskin spell, which was the most popular buff spell of them all).
... Yes, one Fire Giant would take a while to kill the Fighter. But the encounter paradigms were different at the time. It wasn't likely you were fighting a single Fire Giant. You were likely fighting a pair, or a hunting party of about a half dozen members + Worgs, Dire Wolves, or some other canine type creature to act as 'hunting dogs'.
The encounters were intentionally designed this way because they expected there to be a Wizard there to throw out a Cone of Cold and thin the herd considerably. If he didn't have Cone of Cold, Lightning Bolt was an acceptable substitute. This was not unreasonable to expect as Evocation spells were quite effective then.
Go pull out your Against the Giants module and check the typical encounter size.
One could reasonably argue that, for the DM, rolls, like rules, are simply guidelines. It's a predictable outgrowth of the convention that a Game Master is final arbiter of all that occurs in his or her game. This is entertainment: Whatever proves more entertaining is proven justified.
Of course, if you're not capable of a credible poker face (and perhaps even if you are), I don't necessarily recommend you publicize to your players that such is your take on it.
Jaelithe wrote:
Of course, if you're not capable of a credible poker face (and perhaps even if you are), I don't necessarily recommend you publicize to your players that such is your take on it.
You mean deceive them into believing that rolls are what determines things when its actually your whim..
But make sure that they don't find out as they might not like this fact.
So you're actively lying to friends that would be unhappy should they find out that this is the case?
And you don't think that this might be wrong?
-James
Mistah Green wrote: Yes, I consider lying to my friends to not only be morally wrong, but personally offensive as well. After all, they're my friends. Why am I hurting them? That is, to my mind, bizarre.
I lie to people all the time, especially the people I love, respect and care about.
My view is that lying is a fundamental part of our humanity and without it most human relationships would collapse.
I recently told a bride on her wedding day that she was the most beautiful person in the room. I lied. Shame on me?
james maissen wrote: You mean deceive them into believing that rolls are what determines things when it's actually your whim.
But make sure that they don't find out as they might not like this fact.
So you're actively lying to friends that would be unhappy should they find out that this is the case?
And you don't think that this might be wrong?
To rephrase, I consider the occasional die roll bluff to fall under the extremely (and if necessary, infinitely) broad umbrella of DM fiat. I always make clear before play initially begins that I claim a right to suspend any rule (or, in this case, result) at any time—especially if in my judgment it serves the purpose of making the game more entertaining for all.
I frankly find the above perspective more than a bit myopic. Scrupulousness, or perhaps scrupulosity, as relates to role-playing? Really? Evidently a certain low-level DM never acquired Detect Irony as an at-will power.
If you suspect that a DM hedged a die roll in your favor, then accept it as a fortuitous bit of deus ex machina. If you have an inkling he or she fudged against you for the sake of added drama, acknowledge it as the action of an insightful director adjusting your mutual script on the fly for the sake of a superior finished product. One doesn't inquire of a magician what goes on in the tophat. Instead, one simply oohs, aahs and applauds when he produces a rabbit. Knowing how it was done removes much of the wonder.
As I'm fond of saying, "Trust the DM. He's not out to screw you." And if you geuninely don't believe that, you need to find another DM, another campaign ... or, perhaps, another perspective.
Translation: Trust a fellow who is so full of himself he believes his own ideas of how things should go should trump both everyone else's at the table, and the impartial ruleset that has already offered a ruling?
And then you use words like 'director' and 'script'. This isn't single author fiction. The DM is a referee, not a god. If you want people to worship you I suggest finding some small backwards village in the untamed wilderness. Or offering a lot of money.
But the most offensive part of that is when you insist that you should trust the DM because he is not out to screw you after admitting he will do so whenever his massive ego sees fit. In order to feasibly trust someone not to do something, one must have reason to believe they will not do that thing. When they are admitting they will, this is impossible by any means save self delusion.
I understand there are many websites on the internet for amateur single author fiction. Find the one best suited to your needs. I suggest www.fanfiction.net. You'll fit right in.
Jaelithe wrote:
If you suspect that a DM hedged a die roll in your favor, then accept it as a fortuitous bit of deus ex machina. If you have an inkling he or she fudged against you for the sake of added drama, acknowledge it as the action of an insightful director adjusting your mutual script on the fly for the sake of a superior finished product.
Hey if that's your D&D enjoy it. It's not mine. I do applaud you for being forthright about it. Many have suggested not doing this.
I don't believe that a DM should be directing his players.
A question to you: since it's a mutual script.. can your players elect to 'hedge' a die roll in either their favor or against themselves? Do you acknowledge this as the action of a talented actor improvising for the betterment of the game... or do you see it as cheating?
Also were I in your game, why would I have to suspect you hedged a roll, why wouldn't you tell me outright? If, say after you make your speech as to your cheating on the rules, I ask that you simply tell us when you do so and see if we agree with it or not.
Or is it less mutual than this?
-James
Jaelithe wrote: I frankly find the above perspective more than a bit myopic. Scrupulousness, or perhaps scrupulosity, as relates to role-playing? Really? No, not really. That's not the topic being discussed at all. Scruples as they pertain to the impartial adjudication of a fixed system of rules is the topic. Personally, I'm thankful that NFL referees don't make unilateral decisions about the scripting of NFL football games. "Man, this game would be a lot more cimematic if I called that pass incomplete."
Jeremiziah wrote: Jaelithe wrote: I frankly find the above perspective more than a bit myopic. Scrupulousness, or perhaps scrupulosity, as relates to role-playing? Really? No, not really. That's not the topic being discussed at all. Scruples as they pertain to the impartial adjudication of a fixed system of rules is the topic. Personally, I'm thankful that NFL referees don't make unilateral decisions about the scripting of NFL football games. "Man, this game would be a lot more cimematic if I called that pass incomplete." Evidently some folks game at Buffalo Wild Wings.
james maissen wrote: Jaelithe wrote:
If you suspect that a DM hedged a die roll in your favor, then accept it as a fortuitous bit of deus ex machina. If you have an inkling he or she fudged against you for the sake of added drama, acknowledge it as the action of an insightful director adjusting your mutual script on the fly for the sake of a superior finished product.
Hey if that's your D&D enjoy it. It's not mine. I do applaud you for being forthright about it. Many have suggested not doing this.
I don't believe that a DM should be directing his players.
A question to you: since it's a mutual script.. can your players elect to 'hedge' a die roll in either their favor or against themselves? Do you acknowledge this as the action of a talented actor improvising for the betterment of the game... or do you see it as cheating?
Also were I in your game, why would I have to suspect you hedged a roll, why wouldn't you tell me outright? If, say after you make your speech as to your cheating on the rules, I ask that you simply tell us when you do so and see if we agree with it or not.
Or is it less mutual than this?
-James Wow, you really take this game seriously don't you?
Look up "DM Fiat".
In the game of D&D/PF, the DM is a player yes; but don't assume that he is expected to be held to ALL of the same rules as the other players are. If you are in a group that does expect this, then they don't fully understand the DM/Player dynamic as intended by the creators of the game.
The DM is judge and the enemy at the same time; yet he is actually on the side of the players as well. In real life, such a person would be classified as insane. Yet you want to use real life context as to whether the DM should be 'allowed' to fudge rolls or not. The DM is also responsible for keeping the game interesting; an end boss that falls to a poor saving throw roll in the first round of combat does not make for a fun battle for most players. What if you've budgeted the time for the whole game for that end boss fight? What if you have nothing else prepared for that game? "Sorry guys, you got to go home after a 10-minute game; see you next time." Does that sound fun to you?
So one doesn't do it to screw the players. And it hurts your friends to fudge rolls in the game this way? Give me a break. Do you go to confession every time a fly dies on your car windshield? It's about keeping the game challenging and fun for the players.
If that isn't the way that you choose to play; that's your right and you are totally justified in it. But stop passing judgement on those of us that do. Our way of playing is just as relevant as yours is. There is NO wrong way to play as long as your group is having fun.
Judging a person's ethics by the way that they DM a game is ludicrous. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun; not an exercise in ethics.
dmchucky69 wrote: If that isn't the way that you choose to play; that's your right and you are totally justified in it. But stop passing judgement on those of us that do. Our way of playing is just as relevant as yours is. There is NO wrong way to play as long as your group is having fun. Did I say that your way is not 'relevant'? No, I just said it's not the same game.
Did I judge you? I judged the action of lying to friends to be wrong. I stick with that. If you elect to cheat in a game then shame on you.
If you want to play a different game, then go right ahead. That's why I even went so far as to mention diceless games. They exist and there's nothing wrong with them. However misrepresenting one game as another is something different.
There is something wrong with cheating. And to me fudging dice is just another word for that.
If you found out that a player in your game was lying about his/her rolls, what would you think? If up until then you had had a fun time, would that matter? What if they said 'well I made it more entertaining this way'?
I mean there's nothing wrong with a player cheating as long as everyone has fun, right?
=James
james maissen wrote: I mean there's nothing wrong with a player cheating as long as everyone has fun, right? And not telling anyone, let us not forget that part.
james maissen wrote: Did I judge you? I judged the action of lying to friends to be wrong. I stick with that. If you elect to cheat in a game then shame on you. And I asked you about that and you ignored it.
A few weeks ago my friend, new player, arrived and declared: "Oh no, I've forgotten my sheet. Is that a problem?"
I said: "No, that's not a problem at all." When it actually was because it meant there were quite a few occasions in the game when I had to do a bit of mental gymnastics and slow the game down to figure out what her character could do. I did this because she is new and feels awkward and I did not want her to feel discouraged, and also because there was nothing I could do about it and there's no point crying over spilt milk, and a dozen other small reasons. Does this mean I have done something wrong?
To my mind, the idea that lying to your friends is wrong is an extraordinary one. I lie to people I care about far more often than I lie to people I dislike.
However, more than that, you really need to start being respectful of other peoples' opinions. Telling people they're liars and cheats who should be ashamed because they play a silly game differently to the way you play it! Claiming that you are playing correctly and others are thus playing incorrectly (as your chess analogy implied)!
C'mon man, a you complain about a loss of manners and respect amongst younger generations and yet your dishing out this stuff to other people...
There was a time when this was a community, more and more it's becoming just another place on the internet.
GeraintElberion wrote: A few weeks ago my friend, new player, arrived and declared: "Oh no, I've forgotten my sheet. Is that a problem?"
I said: "No, that's not a problem at all." When it actually was because it meant there were quite a few occasions in the game when I had to do a bit of mental gymnastics and slow the game down to figure out what her character could do. I did this because she is new and feels awkward and I did not want her to feel discouraged, and also because there was nothing I could do about it and there's no point crying over spilt milk, and a dozen other small reasons. Does this mean I have done something wrong?
I just wonder why didn't say something like, "Well, it will be a little annoying, so try not to forget it next time. But we should be able to deal with it this time." That way, when she forgets again in two levels, you say, "Why don't you run home and get it so I don't have to be bothered winging stuff for you this game." It doesn't come out of left field.
One can certainly tell the truth and still have a good relationship with others.
GeraintElberion wrote:
There was a time when this was a community, more and more it's becoming just another place on the internet.
You're overreacting just a little bit. What are you offended by? You've admitted to lying, you just don't think its a big deal. James has said - I'm on a phone, ergo the lack of a direct quote - "If that's your D&D, great, it's just not mine".
It's still very much a community.
Mistah Green wrote: Translation: Trust a fellow who is so full of himself he believes his own ideas of how things should go should trump both everyone else's at the table, and the impartial ruleset that has already offered a ruling? As opposed to fellows who are such narrow- and small-minded adherents to the rules that they slavishly follow the letter when it's the spirit, and the game's enjoyment, that's most important?
Once the "impartial ruleset ... has already offered a ruling," it's then up to the DM to confirm it. This a good one does, I acknowledge, the overwhelming majority of the time. Some DMs, however, understand that breaking the rules is, on occasion, not only warranted, but practically mandated by certain circumstances.
Quote: And then you use words like 'director' and 'script'. This isn't single author fiction. The DM is a referee, not a god. If you want people to worship you I suggest finding some small backwards village in the untamed wilderness. Or offering a lot of money. A campaign, rather than "single author fiction," is, more accurately, an extensive screenplay, into which all the participants pour their creative efforts. The DM is the head writer and editor-in-chief, though; his or her hand ensures a quality product—in script and on stage.
As to the DM's authority ... actually, as a matter of fact, it's my opinion that a DM is not primus inter pares, but pontifex maximus ... and that whenever he speaks it's ex cathedra, if he or she so desires.
In my opinion, a DM is by no means simply a referee, there to coolly (or even, in your case it would seem, coldly) enforce the statutes and strictures, no matter the circumstance. Such is appropriate for conventional games and sports where what's in and out of bounds is as simple as ... well, what's in and out of bounds.
D&D, however, is far more than that, and a DM's responsibility is commensurately greater. Certainly he's not there to step on anyone. He's there, for the most part, to adroitly step aside and let the players do their thing ... but, on rare occasion, to step up and help the players do their thing.
Quote: But the most offensive part of that is when you insist that you should trust the DM because he is not out to screw you after admitting he will do so whenever his massive ego sees fit. In order to feasibly trust someone not to do something, one must have reason to believe they will not do that thing. When they are admitting they will, this is impossible by any means save self delusion. It seems to me that you're easily offended. I'm pretty much half past give a crap about that, fortunately, considering the grace with which you expressed your exception to my perspective on things.
Back on topic.
For some reason, you and others have speciously equated fudging a die roll or temporarily setting aside a particularly problematic rule with screwing the player(s). Nor is my take on DMing some exercise in megalomania simply because it differs significantly from yours. It seems to me that if you're unwilling to accept my style, and more, feel the need to belittle it and me, well ... I guess you never learned the difference between holier than me and just holier-than-thou, eh?
If anything, I hold this position because I reserve the right to intervene in their favor. I want to see the clever player rewarded for his brilliant strategem or action, as opposed to having an errant die roll derail his or her efforts. Sometimes, I'll judiciously make certain such happens. Strangely enough, I sleep very well at night having done so. Fancy that.
I also appreciate when players wreak havoc with the DM's carefully laid plans. Might I once in a blue moon, though, fudge here and there to turn complete catastrophe into serious defeat for an NPC, the better to serve the campaign's narrative? Yep ... and I have no nightmares as a result of doing that, either.
Quote: I understand there are many websites on the internet for amateur single author fiction. Find the one best suited to your needs. I suggest www.fanfiction.net. You'll fit right in. My, you are a charmer, aren't you?
Point about "single author fiction" refuted above.
Despite your little recommended destination, I won't in turn bother telling you where to go.
I think you're just bright enough to figure that one out yourself.
james maissen wrote: There is something wrong with cheating. And to me fudging dice is just another word for that. That would be germane if D&D were a game to be won or lost. It's not: It's a cooperative storytelling effort between players and DM. Thus, the rigidity required from referees in other games is at times a genuine impediment in D&D.
Quote: If you found out that a player in your game was lying about his/her rolls, what would you think? ... I mean there's nothing wrong with a player cheating as long as everyone has fun, right? Are you honestly telling me that you can't differentiate between a participant—one who's on an equal footing with the other players—cheating, and the DM, who possesses a perspective on game viability and balance the players utterly lack, once in a while fudging a die roll or bending a rule?
We're clearly starting with different preconceptions.
A DM, frankly, is not and should not be subject to the same rules players are. He's above the law. Simple as that. Should he flout that constantly or even regularly? Nope. Is it nevertheless true? Yep.
I'm going to go watch some college football, where the referee makes a call ... and then often has it overturned.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
So to get back to the original question: Why is fudging happening? It seems clear from what I'm reading here that many of us have different ideas of what the GM's role actually is. These arguments remind me of the discussions theater people have about what the role of director is. And if we have any actors out there on the messageboards, I think you'll agree that your experience in a film or play is almost always affected more by the director than by the playwright. And yet, while there are certain directors that all actors complain about, there are always a few actors who thrive when working with that director.
So I don't know if it really matters, but what is your concept of the GM's role? And does that change if the GM is also the author of the material?
But to respond to one thing directly.
GeraintElberion wrote: There was a time when this was a community, more and more it's becoming just another place on the internet. As a member of this community, I agree with this statement. I don't know why we're moving in that direction, but we are. I mean, what do you actually think you're going to win if everybody shuts up and just agrees that you're right? Can't we actually have a discussion?
Jeremiziah wrote: That's not the topic being discussed at all. It seems to me that it is.
Quote: Scruples as they pertain to the impartial adjudication of a fixed system of rules is the topic. I make no claim to impartiality. I equally and openly root for both my players and an enjoyable experience, all while giving the former Hell.
In addition, since I don't acknowledge that said rules are or should be immovably fixed, well ... that too comes into play.
Quote: Personally, I'm thankful that NFL referees don't make unilateral decisions about the scripting of NFL football games. "Man, this game would be a lot more cimematic if I called that pass incomplete." As well you should be ... and if football were cinema, you'd have a valid point. As it is ... nope.
I bet when filming The Longest Yard they'd have reshot the scene if Paul Crewe had slipped and fallen in the backfield on the first take of fourth down at game's end, eh?
james maissen wrote: If you found out that a player in your game was lying about his/her rolls, what would you think? If up until then you had had a fun time, would that matter? What if they said 'well I made it more entertaining this way'?
I mean there's nothing wrong with a player cheating as long as everyone has fun, right?
=James
Honestly I'd rather this sort of thing didn't happen among players, but I wouldn't have a big problem with finding out that one of my friends fudged a dice roll. The other players in the game are my longtime friends and I trust them. The GM does have more reason to fudge a roll due to the nature of the game (and more ability to guide the direction of the game), but if a friend felt that the only way he could enjoy a combat was by fudging a roll at one point then I don't really care. I trust that he had his reasons and provided it didn't harm anyone else then I'm not going to throw a fit about it. Though I might ask questions to make sure it isn't hiding some deeper underlying issue.
Fudging dice rolls all the time would be a problem, yes. But like I said, I trust my friends not to do something like that.
To me the most important thing about a game is that we all have fun. If everybody in the game enjoyed themselves at the end of the day then I'm not going to hold any witch burnings if it turns out that somebody actually only rolled a 12 when they claimed an 18.
Again this depends on the people at the table and what they hope to get out of the game. But my regular group back home plays a pretty relaxed game. If I enjoyed the session at the end of the day then I'm not going to be too bothered if it turns out one of the other players or the GM fudged a roll at some point. To some people I guess that might make me morally bankrupt, but oh well. *shrugs*
Nobody's calling anybody morally bankrupt. There's a lot that goes into a person's overall morality other than willingness to "bend the rules" or tolerate same when playing games. People keep getting their feelings hurt, I'm not sure why.
Jaelithe wrote: D&D, however, is far more than that, and a DM's responsibility is commensurately greater. Certainly he's not there to step on anyone. He's there, for the most part, to adroitly step aside and let the players do their thing ... but, on rare occasion, to step up and help the players do their thing. Is this one of those one-true-wayisms that people have been discussing?
GeraintElberion wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Yes, I consider lying to my friends to not only be morally wrong, but personally offensive as well. After all, they're my friends. Why am I hurting them? That is, to my mind, bizarre.
I lie to people all the time, especially the people I love, respect and care about.
My view is that lying is a fundamental part of our humanity and without it most human relationships would collapse.
I recently told a bride on her wedding day that she was the most beautiful person in the room. I lied. Shame on me? I don't agree with this at all, and if I have to build a relationship on a lie then I don't want the relationship. White lies for things like throwing a surprise birthday party are one thing, but most women don't beleive you think they are the most beautiful women ever, but they might believe you find them attractive which makes them feel good. Telling a lie that someone is expected to believe 100% is not good. I look at it like this, most people you meet will upset you, or you will upset them, but even after a disagreement people don't stop being friends so I see no reason to lie to people. The only way people don't normally forgive is if person A did something so bad they don't deserve to be forgiven, or if person B is not a reasonable person. In either case maybe the relationship is better off not existing anyway.
Jeremiziah wrote: Nobody's calling anybody morally bankrupt. There's a lot that goes into a person's overall morality other than willingness to "bend the rules" or tolerate same when playing games. People keep getting their feelings hurt, I'm not sure why. Sorry, the morally bankrupt part was meant to come off a little tongue and cheek. I was posting late at night though and don't think that ended up as clear as I meant it to be. :)
It's interesting to see the different approaches that other people have to the game though. For me I'm not bothered by the idea that people may have been cheating provided everyone had fun anyway. Other people clearly see things differently to a variety of degrees.
GeraintElberion wrote:
I recently told a bride on her wedding day that she was the most beautiful person in the room. I lied. Shame on me?
What have the elemental rules of politeness and proper social conduct to do with breaking the rules of a game?
Hyla Arborea wrote: GeraintElberion wrote:
I recently told a bride on her wedding day that she was the most beautiful person in the room. I lied. Shame on me?
What have the elemental rules of politeness and proper social conduct to do with breaking the rules of a game? It's a social game, and the rules are there to help facilitate a scocially enjoyable situation.
I fudge only if I think a TPK is imminent because I've messed up as DM. Note that's only when I've messed up, if the players are responsible for their own TPK then so be it.
I used to roll behind a screen all the time but now both myself and my players are all far more mature, we tend to roll openly and roll with the punches. If things die then so be it.
However I do play with encounters continually in terms of number of critters or when something notices th group and engages tehm etc. in order to keep a game more enjoybale for my players. This is about reading teh players and the mood around the table and making sure things progress to keep that at a high. No amount of rules can help with that, it's a GM's juudgment alone that can work that one out, and there are situations when "Fudging" something has to be done in order to keep the game fun for folks.
Cheers
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jaelithe wrote: james maissen wrote: There is something wrong with cheating. And to me fudging dice is just another word for that. That would be germane if D&D were a game to be won or lost. It's not: It's a cooperative storytelling effort between players and DM. Thus, the rigidity required from referees in other games is at times a genuine impediment in D&D. D&D does have victory conditions. When you defeat the enemy, when you accomplish character goals, when you get the neutral organization to join the fight on your side... that's you winning. Likewise when everyone dies... they lose. Game over.
They might not be preset victory conditions in that character goals will vary depending on the character and who the players are is campaign dependent but that does not change the result of those actions, only the details.
Quote: Are you honestly telling me that you can't differentiate between a participant—one who's on an equal footing with the other players—cheating, and the DM, who possesses a perspective on game viability and balance the players utterly lack, once in a while fudging a die roll or bending a rule? Earlier, I called it megalomania to think you were better than everyone else at the table. You denied it and implied that I should go to hell among other things. Yet despite you being unwilling to insult me directly, you are turning around and proving the very things said about you right. After denying them.
No. The DM is not god. You have no magic powers, because you're just another guy at the table, no more special than anyone else there. You certainly are not magically better at telling stories or adjudicating rules or making things fun than they are or any more so than you would be if you were not DM.
This is because the title of DM does not provide you with any new powers or any additional authority, nor does it mean you warrant any more respect than the rest of the people at the table. It does mean you have extra responsibilities and need to earn the player's trust and not vice versa.
Hyla Arborea wrote: What have the elemental rules of politeness and proper social conduct to do with breaking the rules of a game? If you've already established that for your campaign the DM has not only the right but the responsibility to facilite an excellent gaming experience for all, and he's made it known that he's a proponent of DM fiat, then breaking a lesser law in the service of a greater one, as is occasionally necessary, proves eminently justified.
It's interesting that you'd call them "elemental rules of politeness and proper social conduct," since that serves in context as a euphemism for "lying is excuseable if not called for in some situations but not others." Evidently we just differ on its appropriateness in this social situation.
When I said above, "Of course, if you're not capable of a credible poker face (and perhaps even if you are), I don't necessarily recommend you publicize to your players that such is your take on it," I was referring to others' players. I am up front with how I do things, always ... but others may think "what they don't know won't hurt 'em," and extend that to keeping players totally in the dark.
pres man wrote: Is this one of those one-true-wayisms that people have been discussing? No, it's an opinion derived from experience having run numerous successful and enjoyable campaigns.
Tell me: Does every freakin' comment in this forum have to be prefaced with "from where I sit" or "this is my take on things"? I don't come here with anyone's else's opinion. When it's not stated, it's implied that it's simply my viewpoint, OK?
Now if a DM says, before play begins, something to the effect of, "I don't hold with fudging die rolls or setting aside rules for some pie-in-the-sky greater good. What you see is what you get," that's also fine ... but the point you seem to be missing is that it's fine because the guy who lays down the law has laid down the law. He's then bound by it, like John signing the Magna Carta.
Mistah Green wrote: This is because the title of DM does not provide you with any new powers or any additional authority, nor does it mean you warrant any more respect than the rest of the people at the table. Your opinion is noted, and dismissed as laughably absurd. I think we're done here.
I know I am.
Jaelithe wrote: To rephrase, I consider the occasional die roll bluff to fall under the extremely (and if necessary, infinitely) broad umbrella of DM fiat. I always make clear before play initially begins that I claim a right to suspend any rule (or, in this case, result) at any time—especially if in my judgment it serves the purpose of making the game more entertaining for all. emphasis mine
This is part of the mentality I associate with the problems of fudging. Some DM's feel (as Kirth put it) that their ideas of what makes a great story is better than those of the other people around the table, or what the dice result in. They decide that their Fiat results will be much better than any of the others that came up. Do you know this for a fact? Did you see into the future and discern both outcomes of either the dice falling where they may, or your story, which one will be better enjoyed by the players?
Jaelithe wrote: Are you honestly telling me that you can't differentiate between a participant—one who's on an equal footing with the other players—cheating, and the DM, who possesses a perspective on game viability and balance the players utterly lack, once in a while fudging a die roll or bending a rule? emphasis mine
Maybe some decisions to fudge come from DM's not giving their players enough credit to understand whats balanced or viable within the game. It appears that their is some sense of superiority associated with sitting in the DM's seat, that the story can only benefit from a DM deciding to falsify a die roll. As I've said before the most memorable events, because of my player's enjoyment, was the incredible odds of something happening that in all likelyhood was almost improbable. Whether it was a BBEG one-shot or a PC death, or a TPK.
For me it looks as if some DM's think that the game is more enjoyable for the players if the DM's story is told, whether the dice result in it or not.
Jaelithe wrote: ...the DM, who possesses a perspective on game viability and balance the players utterly lack...
We're clearly starting with different preconceptions.
Very, very much so, if you assume that merely sitting behind a screen somehow grants "perspective on game viability and balance" -- or, conversely, that sitting in front of it somehow "utterly" removes any such perspective.
Houstonderek and I, for example, each have about 30 years' playing experience. No matter which one of us is DMing during a particular session, that DM still has 30 years' experience and perspective (no more) -- and the other of us still retains 30 years' experience and the perspective it entails. The screen is nothing more than a piece of cardboard symbolizing an agreement as to which one of us is playing all the NPCs and monsters, vs. playing their PC.
Kirth, how do you use action/hero points, and what benefits have you seen? I know that, as a group, we've been known to vote a roll or two "off the island", but it might be nice to have something a bit more codified. Does it make the players feel too "safe" at all?
At our table, the problems seem more to stem from the (very, very occasional) string of terrible luck that makes a player feel like he's wasting his time. (When it happens to an NPC, it's hilarious!) I can improv an amusing narrative for a while, but even that can get old. Other than maybe granting another chance to break the streak, or a one-off bonus amid it, could hero points help that?
PlungingForward wrote: Kirth, how do you use action/hero points, and what benefits have you seen? Each PC starts with one (1) hero point that can be used as an immediate action to force a reroll of one die, generally with the caveat that the player has to come up with some coincidence that explains this unexpected stroke of luck. Alternatively, a hero point can be used to allow the player to conveniently "remember" something minor he or she didn't know/have in the first place:
Player: "Oh, no! I forgot to get more silversheen when we were in town!"
DM: "A hero point says you didn't forget it after all... just don't forget to mark the gold off your sheet."
Once used, a hero point is gone. More hero points can be earned in play by confirming critical skill success, by fulfilling critical story goals or whatever, or by unanimous approval:
Player 1: "...I rolled a 20! Made it! I can't believe that worked!"
Player 2: "That was AWESOME! It should totally be worth a hero point!"
Me (DM): "What do you guys think?"
Player 3: "Oh, hell yeah. That was pretty cool."
Player 4: "Yeah, that was even better than my last one. Go for it."
Me (DM): "Okay! Hero point awarded! Player 2, it's your turn."
One thing this helps with is that skill monkeys and fighter-types, who tend to do a lot more than throw spells (and thus make a lot of rolls) are more likely to accumulate hero points faster -- which is a very good thing, because they tend to more often need those points to stay alive.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Cool hero point stuff. Thanks! We might try that and see how it goes. I really like the unanimous approval and player narrative bits - that sort of thing works very well with us.
Questions:
1) PCs get one per session, or just one?
2) Do hero points carry over from session to session?
3) Do the points tend to "pool up," or do they come and go with equal ease?
... sorry if this is too much of a threadjack, but alternatives are a valid addition to the fudging discussion, methinks.
One per session, and they do accumulate. As for 'pooling' it depends on the player. Derek tends to horde them to keep his rogue alive, as Cadogan has a tendency to brush close with death all the time. I usually forget I have them. XD
Kirth has a thread about his game if you want to ask more questions.
TriOmegaZero wrote: One per session, and they do accumulate. As for 'pooling' it depends on the player. Derek tends to horde them to keep his rogue alive, as Cadogan has a tendency to brush close with death all the time. I usually forget I have them. XD
Kirth has a thread about his game if you want to ask more questions.
... I think that's all I need for now, but good to know. Thanks for it.
A question for those who are vehemently opposed to fudging: What are your thoughts on Hero Points or GameMastery Plot Twist Cards? Both of these are basically fudging, albeit supported by optional rules.
|
