Balancing encounters is always a challenge in any system. With a GM screen I can cheat the rolls to avoid a TPK if I've overestimated the PCs, or even cheat rolls higher to give them a better fight if I've badly underestimated them. My primary goal isn't transparency, it's making the game fun for the players.
For me, personally, as a player: that kind of game is no fun at all. If I know that I'll "just barely" win every single fight, every time, due to fudging, then I see no point in wasting my time playing them out. Just tell me "you barely win," yet again, and get back to the parts where I have some input, and where chance might count for something. When I play, I want there to be some fights that are really easy, and some "just right," and a number that I can't possibly win unless I stack the odds in my favor, and some that I can't possibly win at all and need to run away from. THAT'S fun for me. I don't have fun by making meaningless dice rolls, the results of which are going to be altered to fit the GM's preconceived idea of "correct" anyway.
I know that a number of my players, most vocally Houstonderek, feel the same way, so when I'm the GM that's also the kind of game I run.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For me, personally, as a player: that kind of game is no fun at all. If I know that I'll "just barely" win every single fight, every time, due to fudging, then I see no point in wasting my time playing them out. Just tell me "you barely win," yet again, and get back to the parts where I have some input, and where chance might count for something. When I play, I want there to be some fights that are really easy, and some "just right," and a number that I can't possibly win unless I stack the odds in my favor, and some that I can't possibly win at all and need to run away from. THAT'S fun for me. I don't have fun by making meaningless dice rolls, the results of which are going to be altered to fit the GM's preconceived idea of "correct" anyway.
I know that a number of my players, most vocally Houstonderek, feel the same way, so when I'm the GM that's also the kind of game I run.
I generally don't like playing with a GM who fudges either. I remember in one case playing in a WoD campaign with a GM that didn't really stat anything up and fudged rolls. It got to the point where, when my character was involved in a firefight, I put down my weapon and refused to participate. My character was shot but lived.
The other side effect of this style in this instance was her husband. He would play over the top action movie-esque characters who could not be hurt and killed things six ways to Sunday.
When we started playing 3.0, I took over as DM and within 2 games, the husband had managed to get his character killed by doing the stuff his wife had coddled in him before. They were so unhappy, they left the table, never to return.
This all has a happy ending though - the new players that replaced them were significantly better and I still game with one of them to this day.
I'm not saying that fudging can't work for some people, just that it's not my preferred style of play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, personally, as a player: that kind of game is no fun at all. If I know that I'll "just barely" win every single fight, every time, due to fudging, then I see no point in wasting my time playing them out.I generally don't like playing with a GM who fudges either.
To paraphrase Steve Jobs "If your players know you're fudging, you're doing it wrong."
Greg
To paraphrase Steve Jobs "If your players know you're fudging, you're doing it wrong."
Sadly, in person I almost always know when someone is lying to me, especially when I interact with them that much -- and worse, it triggers an irrational and intense annoyance, even when they're trying to do it "for my own good."
To paraphrase Steve Jobs "If your players know you're fudging, you're doing it wrong."Sadly, in person I almost always know when someone is lying to me, especially when I interact with them that much -- and worse, it triggers an irrational and intense annoyance, even when they're trying to do it "for my own good."
I just love it when the GM goes, "Oh ... How many hps do you have left again?"
I usually respond, "Enough, how much damage did they do?"| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We seem to be confusing "using a screen" with "fudging." There are good reasons (that do not involve fudging) to roll things like perception checks behind a screen.
|
I just love it when the GM goes, "Oh ... How many hps do you have left again?"
I usually respond, "Enough, how much damage did they do?"
Just like I've said the last time this particular issue was brought up, if I ask for ANYTHING on a player's sheet, no matter the reason, that player better darn well give it to me ESPECIALLY if said player has moaned and groaned for me to roll out in the open!!!!!!
We seem to be confusing "using a screen" with "fudging." There are good reasons (that do not involve fudging) to roll things like perception checks behind a screen.
I agree, there are good reasons for the GM not to announce the outcome of a roll for the NPCs. Whether that requires that the actual roll is made hidden (whether it is just behind the GM's forearm or behind a screen) is another matter.
If I roll a 20 on the city guard's spot, but I know he has a -2 modifier, and the player rolls a 10, but he has a +9 modifier. Hey, if the player wants to behave like the guard is aware of him, even though I know better, who am I to argue.
GM: "Here is a shovel."
Player: "I start digging myself in."
GM: "Here is a shovel."
Player: "I start digging myself in."
Nice one!
I just love it when the GM goes, "Oh ... How many hps do you have left again?"
I usually respond, "Enough, how much damage did they do?"
Not all of us are as ham-fisted as that. My players have a habit of asking each other in the middle of combat how many hp they have left.
Plus, I never fudge damage rolls. Just to hit rolls.
Greg
Sadly, in person I almost always know when someone is lying to me, especially when I interact with them that much -- and worse, it triggers an irrational and intense annoyance, even when they're trying to do it "for my own good."
The key is subtlety. As I said above, I only fudge on to-hit rolls, so it's quite easy to do it casually. None of this, "how many hp do you have left" business. When they are hurting, they let it be known without any prodding from me.
And it's never about "their own good", it's about what's fun and what's not. I know my group and they have a hell of a lot more fun barely surviving a TPK then experiencing one. If you were in my group, I'm sure I'd learn soon enough what you like and don't like and I'd play the game accordingly. And in the end everyone would have fun (I hope).
My job is to tell a story, not kill the PCs. If that means the odd "19" spontaneously turns into a "10", so be it.
Greg
Balancing encounters is always a challenge in any system. With a GM screen I can cheat the rolls to avoid a TPK if I've overestimated the PCs, or even cheat rolls higher to give them a better fight if I've badly underestimated them. My primary goal isn't transparency, it's making the game fun for the players.For me, personally, as a player: that kind of game is no fun at all. If I know that I'll "just barely" win every single fight, every time, due to fudging, then I see no point in wasting my time playing them out. Just tell me "you barely win," yet again, and get back to the parts where I have some input, and where chance might count for something. When I play, I want there to be some fights that are really easy, and some "just right," and a number that I can't possibly win unless I stack the odds in my favor, and some that I can't possibly win at all and need to run away from. THAT'S fun for me. I don't have fun by making meaningless dice rolls, the results of which are going to be altered to fit the GM's preconceived idea of "correct" anyway.
I know that a number of my players, most vocally Houstonderek, feel the same way, so when I'm the GM that's also the kind of game I run.
I completely understand your point Kirth. However, you're taking the occasional situation that I find myself in, and somehow construing that to mean I always fudge everything, which is far from the truth.
I'm perfectly happy for my PCs to have easy fights, in fact alot of times I will purposely create easy encounters for them so they feel awesome. I really strongly dislike TPKs, and will fudge rolls to avoid that.
The only time I fudge rolls to make an encounter harder is when I make a "boss battle" encounter but severely underestimate my PCs (usually happens early in a campaign when I'm not familiar with the PCs), and the boss ends up being way too easy. I've found that players get very disappointed when a boss ends up getting pounded into oblivion really fast.
If the DM is constantly fudging, that can be a problem. However, I've found that there are instances where a bit of fudging is beneficial and to a degree required. An critical with a greatsword amounting to an autokill of a 1st level character at full hp that didn't do anything other be unlucky at a low level is generally not helpful to anyone, the DM included. Likewise, if the fights are getting a bit perdictable, and increasingly boring, the occasional fudging can be helpful if used sparsely, in a manner that makes the fights a bit more unpredictable, and thus generally a bit more fun for everyone, overall. The key is that if used in this manner, the fudging has to ultimately benefit both sides equally over time, and it can't be used so often that the fudging itself becomes predictable. The DM screen can both help and hurt with this; it allows for secret rolls on things like stealth and perception and sometimes damage, but also can cause a trust issue if the DM abuses his power to fudge rolls.
Gary Gygax: A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make.
|
We seem to be confusing "using a screen" with "fudging." There are good reasons (that do not involve fudging) to roll things like perception checks behind a screen.
Altogether true. However, GM fudging of rolls that don't by nature need to be concealed was actually the thing that led me to start the topic. Particularly saving throws.
I just love it when the GM goes, "Oh ... How many hps do you have left again?"
I usually respond, "Enough, how much damage did they do?"Not all of us are as ham-fisted as that. My players have a habit of asking each other in the middle of combat how many hp they have left.
Plus, I never fudge damage rolls. Just to hit rolls.
Greg
I do the opposite. My dice HATE players, and crit with max damage usually several times per session. Same dice can't roll over a 5 when I'm a player though.
So, I do scale the damage back a little bit, sometimes. It's common place for a player to get hit by a critical multiple times in the same combat, so I try to compensate a little bit for the evil my dice seek to sow... 95% of the time, the dice stand and I don't fudge, but if one particular player has been getting absolutely pummeled(higher than average damage on every hit) then I'll reel it back a little bit. I never base the damage on how many HP's they have left though, most of the time I don't even ask how many they have. It's entirely possible, even if I leave a few points of damage off, a PC can still die pretty easily.
I don't fudge to-hit rolls, since more often than not my monsters need natural 19's and 20's just to land a hit on the PC's. That being said, our gaming table is just big enough to fit the players, so as DM I have to sit away form the table at the nearby computer desk. Nobody can see my rolls from where I sit anyway, or I just walk around near the table and roll dice on my notepad in hand.
I do the opposite. My dice HATE players, and crit with max damage usually several times per session.
I have a d20 (my black one) that just seems to roll high. Just last week it rolled 19, 20, 20 in succession. The 2nd 20 confirmed the crit. (Then there was the accompanying rend. All in all it was a total of 10d6+36 damage adding the crit and the rend.) In this case I followed through. But if it's been happening too much in a session, I'll let up. That 2nd 20 will not confirm the crit, or whatever. I still kill players. Check out the Age of Worms obituaries thread. 3 dead so far. Now we are already on the 4th adventure, so "only 3" is probably under par for a lot of people's experience with that AP.
I don't fudge to-hit rolls, since more often than not my monsters need natural 19's and 20's just to land a hit on the PC's.
If the monsters need 19s or 20s then I let the dice fall where they may. But as I said,
Greg
I really strongly dislike TPKs, and will fudge rolls to avoid that.
My games tend to be open-ended, so a TPK would most often mean that the PCs got in way, way over their heads, didn't bother to check for any warning signs, and are trusting to plot immunity to survive something that I've given them multiple indications is too much for them in their current condition. I might even go as far as saying "You're pretty sure you will all die if you attack those dragons/keep swinging at that golem/insult Zeus/whatever." If they keep at it, well, I'll let them die.
I should point out that I also use Hero Points/Action Points, so there's already a margin for fudging built into the game -- but strictly limited in scope, and under the players' control. If they waste all those and still want to get in over their heads, so be it. That's 100% their decision.
Once in a blue moon, a TPK occurs in a particularly close fight, when the PCs think they can win soon, but the dice just happen to fall the wrong way in a freak streak of horrible luck. Those are some of the most memorable moments in a campaign, for me and Derek and people like us. It takes a few minutes to roll up a new character, but the memory of how Hrothgar fell against the army of giants lasts a lifetime.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Altogether true. However, GM fudging of rolls that don't by nature need to be concealed was actually the thing that led me to start the topic. Particularly saving throws.
That's BS. Player's don't need to know if NPCs succeed at saving throws. They should trust the GM to describe the event, not the die roll.
All GM rolls can either be concealed or not. There are no rolls that shouldn't be concealed if a GM deems it proper.If you are my player, and i say that the demon hit you, the demon hit you, if you ask to see my die roll, well, that is one of the quickest ways away from my table. I do not play with people who do not trust me.
I do not play with people who do not trust me.
This is my personal position; I can understand that players used to bad DMs have trust issues, but they need to understand that to play with me, they need to give me a chance with me doing things my way before judging me untrustworthy, screen or no screen.
Altogether true. However, GM fudging of rolls that don't by nature need to be concealed was actually the thing that led me to start the topic. Particularly saving throws.
Ah...then may I suggest that "GM fudging: Toxic? Yes or No" may have been a better title? ;-)
In any event, consider my earlier comment withdrawn.
Altogether true. However, GM fudging of rolls that don't by nature need to be concealed was actually the thing that led me to start the topic. Particularly saving throws.That's BS. Player's don't need to know if NPCs succeed at saving throws. They should trust the GM to describe the event, not the die roll.
All GM rolls can either be concealed or not. There are no rolls that shouldn't be concealed if a GM deems it proper.If you are my player, and i say that the demon hit you, the demon hit you, if you ask to see my die roll, well, that is one of the quickest ways away from my table. I do not play with people who do not trust me.
Well at that point I'd just hand my sheet over and say, "You keep track of it all then." You want to micromanage my character, more power to you, but don't expect me to be your secretary in that case. I guess this would be the mirror image to the situation where the players always roll everything.
I do not play with people who do not trust me.
Conversely, I do not play in games in which the GM repeatedly demonstrates that he cannot be trusted, because he constantly ignores and/or revokes my actions and decisions in favor of his personal idea of how things "should" go. If you want to tell a pre-determined story so badly, write a novel.
Well at that point I'd just hand my sheet over and say, "You keep track of it all then." You want to micromanage my character, more power to you, but don't expect me to be your secretary in that case. I guess this would be the mirror image to the situation where the players always roll everything.Altogether true. However, GM fudging of rolls that don't by nature need to be concealed was actually the thing that led me to start the topic. Particularly saving throws.That's BS. Player's don't need to know if NPCs succeed at saving throws. They should trust the GM to describe the event, not the die roll.
All GM rolls can either be concealed or not. There are no rolls that shouldn't be concealed if a GM deems it proper.If you are my player, and i say that the demon hit you, the demon hit you, if you ask to see my die roll, well, that is one of the quickest ways away from my table. I do not play with people who do not trust me.
You have to find a middle ground where the players are comfortable with the fact that the DM can hide rolls without being suspicious of the DM, and the DM can feel like he doesn't have to hide anything, but might to make certain aspects of the game and his position as storyteller flow better.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not play with people who do not trust me.Conversely, I do not play in games in which the GM repeatedly demonstrates that he cannot be trusted, because he constantly ignores and/or revokes my actions and decisions in favor of his personal idea of how things "should" go. If you want to tell a pre-determined story so badly, write a novel.
I completely agree, i would be the first to leave such a game. But i will not play with people who doubt every roll don't make in the open. If i want something to stay hidden from the players, i have a reason, one of tension and drama most probably.
Well at that point I'd just hand my sheet over and say, "You keep track of it all then." You want to micromanage my character, more power to you, but don't expect me to be your secretary in that case. I guess this would be the mirror image to the situation where the players always roll everything.
At that point i would simply tell you to go home. If you cannot trust me, you have no place at my table. I do not want to micromanage anyone's character... i trust my players enough that i let them take their sheets home and level up their characters. If they cannot return the same trust, i would rather not play at all then play with such people.
|
|
I see an opportunity to push my "DM screens are toxic" agenda, here, so I will.
All rolls, from everyone, should just be made in the open. If the Wizards SoD's a BBEG in round one, so be it. That's why he chose to play a wizard, to do stuff like that.
The very presence of a DM screen on a table is like an open invitation for everyone to fudge the occasional roll. The rules should apply as evenly to the DM as they do to the players, and in cases where the DM is fiating something, he should make that clear.
These are my opinions. I'm certainly not blaming you for your friend's cheating. I have had friends that did this before, it's totally lame.
Do you let Rogues roll their own Disarm or Perception checks when Trapfinding? I think it kind of breaks the suspension of disbelief, destroys the tension, and ruins the storytelling aspect if the Rogue's player knows beforehand (or at least and easily presume) whether he's succeeded or failed.
So I roll for him and keep it secret. And that's the way he likes it, because it's more fun for him that way.
EDIT: Aaaand about 20 people have made comments along this line. I have thus added nothing of value. Moving on...
|
|
I find large GM screens to impair roleplaying somewhat, so I don't use them.I agree that large DM screen tend to isolate the DM from the rest of the players. In a game where everyone should be having fun together, I find this isolation undesirable. Same can be said with laptops. When all you see of the DM is a pair of eyes above the back of a (usually blank) LCD screen, I don't feel I'm playing with that person.
Personally, I use one or two CD cases with useful info on both sides as my screens.
'findel
I play with two TV tray tables, creating my own little cubicle. On the right is my laptop, on my left is the GM screen, and I keep nothing between myself and the game table. This way I have the best of all worlds.
|
|
Hama, do you appreciate the fact that on one hand, I've got you saying that GM's should be trusted implicity (or really that you should be trusted implicitly, and you're a GM), while on the other hand this thread contains several explicit examples of GM's who say "Heck yeah, I use a screen, it allows me to fudge rolls!"?
GM's should NOT be trusted implicity. With all respect to you and however honest you may be - and I'm sure you're very honest - plenty of GM's aren't. That's not a problem with me or my trust issues.
When I have a Save or Suck hex as a player, the text of the rules indicates that unless an enemy saves against my spell DC, something bad happens to it. It does not say that something bad may happen to it if the GM feels like allowing that effect, as long as the target isn't the BBEG, or as long as the effect doesn't undermine a crucial plot point. And again, in this very thread we have seen examples of people who would simply roll a dice, report that the spell failed regardless of what the roll actually was, and continue the fight because the SoS effect didn't conform to their vision of how the fight should cinematically play out, or to their sense of what's Fun For Everyone, or because they're having a bad day, or whatever.
If I'm playing Pathfinder, I want to play Pathfinder, not GM's-Happy-Fun-Game. If the GM wants to play GM's-Happy-Fun-Game, he is welcome to invite me over for a game of it, which I'll actually probably accept. But I'll know the groundrules - there aren't any.
What I will concede is that I can trust 98% of GMs to do what they think is right in a givin situation. The unfortunate aspect of this is that what 98% of GMs think is "right" isn't actually "right" 100% of the time. GMs are human (thank goodness). They make wrong decisions, act in arbitrary ways, and yeah, may even have a concious or subconcious vendetta against (or for) a certain player. To be clear, this does not happen at my table. I have observed it at other tables, and from tales told on this messageboard about bad GM's. They exist. It's factual. And they are aided and abetted in their badness by the presence of a physical wall that prevents players from determining whether or not they're playing by the rules or making things up out of whole cloth. That is my point, and I don't think it's even remotely "BS".
Hama, do you appreciate the fact that on one hand, I've got you saying that GM's should be trusted implicity (or really that you should be trusted implicitly, and you're a GM), while on the other hand this thread contains several explicit examples of GM's who say "Heck yeah, I use a screen, it allows me to fudge rolls!"?
GM's should NOT be trusted implicity. With all respect to you and however honest you may be - and I'm sure you're very honest - plenty of GM's aren't. That's not a problem with me or my trust issues.
When I have a Save or Suck hex as a player, the text of the rules indicates that unless an enemy saves against my spell DC, something bad happens to it. It does not say that something bad may happen to it if the GM feels like allowing that effect, as long as the target isn't the BBEG, or as long as the effect doesn't undermine a crucial plot point. And again, in this very thread we have seen examples of people who would simply roll a dice, report that the spell failed regardless of what the roll actually was, and continue the fight because the SoS effect didn't conform to their vision of how the fight should cinematically play out, or to their sense of what's Fun For Everyone, or because they're having a bad day, or whatever.
If I'm playing Pathfinder, I want to play Pathfinder, not GM's-Happy-Fun-Game. If the GM wants to play GM's-Happy-Fun-Game, he is welcome to invite me over for a game of it, which I'll actually probably accept. But I'll know the groundrules - there aren't any.
What I will concede is that I can trust 98% of GMs to do what they think is right in a givin situation. The unfortunate aspect of this is that what 98% of GMs think is "right" isn't actually "right" 100% of the time. GMs are human (thank goodness). They make wrong decisions, act in arbitrary ways, and yeah, may even have a concious or subconcious vendetta against (or for) a certain player. To be clear, this does not happen at my table. I have observed it at other tables, and from tales told on this...
I can appreciate your point of view, but if a piece of cardboard makes that much difference to any particular group, that group has problems that aren't going be to solved simply by taking the cardboard away or even remotely touched by the removal of the screen. A healthy group doesn't care one way or another if the cardboard, with its charts and GM aids, is present or not, because both sides trust each other enough to know the limits they can get away with. A DM is not just another player who happens to be controlling the NPCs and will not always follow the same rules that players do 100% of the time; he can't, because his role requires a bit of room for judgment calls, and players need to realize this, just as the DM needs to understand that trust must be earned, and going out of your way to make every roll hypersecret probably won't help with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hama, do you appreciate the fact that on one hand, I've got you saying that GM's should be trusted implicity (or really that you should be trusted implicitly, and you're a GM), while on the other hand this thread contains several explicit examples of GM's who say "Heck yeah, I use a screen, it allows me to fudge rolls!"?
And I, quite frankly, don't see the disconnect here. But then I don't think the DM is playing against the PCs, I believe he plays with the players. If you think the DM is out to get you, that his sole motivation is to kill your PCs, then you shouldn't trust him. In fact you should just get up and leave the table. There are 101 ways to kill a PC without resorting to fudged dice rolls. Make traps with enormous DCs/damage. Send monsters after them that are +6CR above the average party level. I could go on.
Dice rolls are a tool to play the game. Players use them to adjudicate random situations. DMs use them to help tell a story.
Greg
Hama, do you appreciate the fact that on one hand, I've got you saying that GM's should be trusted implicity (or really that you should be trusted implicitly, and you're a GM), while on the other hand this thread contains several explicit examples of GM's who say "Heck yeah, I use a screen, it allows me to fudge rolls!"?And I, quite frankly, don't see the disconnect here. But then I don't think the DM is playing against the PCs, I believe he plays with the players. If you think the DM is out to get you, that his sole motivation is to kill your PCs, then you shouldn't trust him. In fact you should just get up and leave the table. There are 101 ways to kill a PC without resorting to fudged dice rolls. Make traps with enormous DCs/damage. Send monsters after them that are +6CR above the average party level. I could go on.
Dice rolls are a tool to play the game. Players use them to adjudicate random situations. DMs use them to help tell a story.
Greg
I think Jeremiziah is not so much concerned about the DM being out to kill the PC but about the DMs being partial about how and when the bad guys die (especially powerful 'bosses'). Jeremiziah knows that the DM intends well, but he doesn't think that delaying or accelerating the BBEG's death is doing the players justice in the end. Systematically denying the spellcasters any success on a SoD spell made on the captain was his example I believe.
For others, part of the thrill of the game is to play without nets so to speak. For them, the game is not enhanced by DMs cushioning their fall when the dice are not on their side.
(forgive me if I have it all wrong Jeremiziah)
I for myself continue to say that the screen can be beneficiary even when no rolls are fudged. Hell, 75% of my rolls are in full view of my players, but there are moments when I want to roll secretly (usually not in combat situation), and I like my screen for that.
'findel
If I'm playing Pathfinder, I want to play Pathfinder, not GM's-Happy-Fun-Game. If the GM wants to play GM's-Happy-Fun-Game, he is welcome to invite me over for a game of it, which I'll actually probably accept. But I'll know the groundrules - there aren't any.
Are you trying to say, "Your definition of Pathfinder is not my definition of Pathfinder?"
What about Rule 0? Does any judgement by the DM make the game not Pathfinder?
If I'm playing Pathfinder, I want to play Pathfinder, not GM's-Happy-Fun-Game. If the GM wants to play GM's-Happy-Fun-Game, he is welcome to invite me over for a game of it, which I'll actually probably accept. But I'll know the groundrules - there aren't any.Are you trying to say, "Your definition of Pathfinder is not my definition of Pathfinder?"
What about Rule 0? Does any judgement by the DM make the game not Pathfinder?
While I agree with what you are trying to say, rule 0 does make Pathfinder different for every group.
But I agree with cold beer in principle: GM's-Happy-Fun-Game is no less Pathfider than Jeremiziah's.
Oh goody, we're going to argue about DMs and cheating again.It was either that or the One True Way to Play.
That's called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Jeremiziah is not so much concerned about the DM being out to kill the PC but about the DMs being partial about how and when the bad guys die (especially powerful 'bosses'). Jeremiziah knows that the DM intends well, but he doesn't think that delaying or accelerating the BBEG's death is doing the players justice in the end. Systematically denying the spellcasters any success on a SoD spell made on the captain was his example I believe.
That's how I would read the discussion as well. Coming up with a definition of a true game of Pathfinder is going to be impossible, but if a DM is running a game that is significantly different from RAW (by, for example, having an unwritten rule that SoS effects don't work on BBEG's), that information should be conveyed to the players. That way, the player can either choose a different route for their character (everyone loves fireballs!) or use their spells in the most dramatic fashion (instead of dropping the SoS on the first round, use it at the last possible moment when it turns a TPK into a Hail Mary Victory).
Personally, if a DM is going to fudge, I'd prefer they did it using a system like in Mutants and Masterminds - tell me you're going to fudge, but compensate me for the fact that you did it by giving me a hero point.
Oh goody, we're going to argue about DMs and cheating again.
Umm, what else could this thread possibly be about?
And for the record, some of us weren't involved last time(s). Don't we all get a turn on the merry-go-round?
Greg
Don't we all get a turn on the merry-go-round?No.
I'm tellin' Mom!
|
|
I think Jeremiziah is not so much concerned about the DM being out to kill the PC but about the DMs being partial about how and when the bad guys die (especially powerful 'bosses'). Jeremiziah knows that the DM intends well, but he doesn't think that delaying or accelerating the BBEG's death is doing the players justice in the end. Systematically denying the spellcasters any success on a SoD spell made on the captain was his example I believe.
That's how I would read the discussion as well. Coming up with a definition of a true game of Pathfinder is going to be impossible, but if a DM is running a game that is significantly different from RAW (by, for example, having an unwritten rule that SoS effects don't work on BBEG's), that information should be conveyed to the players. That way, the player can either choose a different route for their character (everyone loves fireballs!) or use their spells in the most dramatic fashion (instead of dropping the SoS on the first round, use it at the last possible moment when it turns a TPK into a Hail Mary Victory).
Personally, if a DM is going to fudge, I'd prefer they did it using a system like in Mutants and Masterminds - tell me you're going to fudge, but compensate me for the fact that you did it by giving me a hero point.
This is all accurate (thanks, Laurefindel and Rainbow-Brite Pony).
I am not a big proponent of Rule 0, but it has it's role in the game, when the rules are unclear. When the rules are clear, I have an expectation that they'll be followed. When they're not, I expect to be told so beforehand so that I can career-progress away from the options that are being hand-waved into ineffectiveness by the whim of the GM. I'm not an optimizer. Neither do I wish to spend my entire career swimming upstream.
Are you trying to say, "Your definition of Pathfinder is not my definition of Pathfinder?"
First off, great avatar/name combo. Secondly, that is conditionally what I'm trying to say. Look, if in your Pathfinder Gnomes are medium-sized, then your Pathfinder is the same as my Pathfinder, because, big deal. But, if in your Pathfinder, enemies don't make actual saving throws but instead make pretend saving throws, or if enemies remaining HP fluctuate according to the GM's sense of cinematic tension, or if in your Pathfinder this guard is going to beat this Rogue's opposed Stealth check no matter what the dice say goshdurnit, and you haven't warned anyone that this might happen from time to time according to your whim, then yes. Your definition of Pathfinder is not my definition of Pathfinder. Or anyone else's. You're playing GM's-Happy-Fun-Game. It might still be happy. It might still be fun. But it's only tangentially related to Pathfinder.
Society play remains Pathfinder, because all the changes are documented. As far as I'm concerned, Kirth's House Rules are still Pathfinder, because they're in print for everyone to see.
I think Jeremiziah is not so much concerned about the DM being out to kill the PC but about the DMs being partial about how and when the bad guys die (especially powerful 'bosses'). Jeremiziah knows that the DM intends well, but he doesn't think that delaying or accelerating the BBEG's death is doing the players justice in the end. Systematically denying the spellcasters any success on a SoD spell made on the captain was his example I believe.
I won't argue with this point, but then I don't think all fudging is good. But then don't we all think what we do is right?
Something about a "true Scotsman"?!?!
Greg
Secondly, that is conditionally what I'm trying to say. Look, if in your Pathfinder Gnomes are medium-sized, then your Pathfinder is the same as my Pathfinder, because, big deal. But, if in your Pathfinder, enemies don't make actual saving throws but instead make pretend saving throws, or if enemies remaining HP fluctuate according to the GM's sense of cinematic tension, or if in your Pathfinder this guard is going to beat this Rogue's opposed Stealth check no matter what the dice say goshdurnit, and you haven't warned anyone that this might happen from time to time according to your whim, then yes. Your definition of Pathfinder is not my definition of Pathfinder. Or anyone else's. You're playing GM's-Happy-Fun-Game. It might still be happy. It might still be fun. But it's only tangentially related to Pathfinder.
Society play remains Pathfinder, because all the changes are documented. As far as I'm concerned, Kirth's House Rules are still Pathfinder, because they're in print for everyone to see.
How do you reconcile the effects of Deities on happenstance in a game? For example, spells don't work as intended or attacks are not as effective as they should be due to divine influence? Could we hand-wave a fudge as Deus Ex Machina to get around your definition of "Pathfinder"?
How do you reconcile the effects of Deities on happenstance in a game? For example, spells don't work as intended or attacks are not as effective as they should be due to divine influence? Could we hand-wave a fudge as Deus Ex Machina to get around your definition of "Pathfinder"?
You're seriously so addicted to altering all the dice rolls that you're willing to declare constant divine intervention in order to justify it? Have at it, then.
You won't find me playing in that game, but there are others in this thread who would love it.
When did I say I fudged rolls?
Could we hand-wave a fudge as Deus Ex Machina to get around your definition of "Pathfinder"?