How would hero points affect the following:
1) reincarnate
2) the enemy's stealth check
3) the effect of a critical hit or fumble from the enemy
4) prismatic spray
5) damage the enemy deals
6) initial distance to the enemy based on terrain
7) wandering monsters
8) random determination of magic items
9) miss chance
10) effects of a confusion spellI can go on but this is a good starting point.
1. Spend hero point to reroll results
2. Spend hero point to reroll results.
3. Spend hero point to reroll results.
4. Spend hero point to reroll results.
5. Spend hero point to reroll results.
6. Spend hero point to reroll results.
7. Spend hero point to reroll results.
8. Spend hero point to reroll results.
9. Spend hero point to reroll results.
10. Spend hero point to reroll results.Have I left anything out?
Also, you replied to my post but were very careful not to answer my question. Remember this:
It doesn't matter to me in the slightest bit if you fudge every roll, or just the ones that make PCs maybe die, or just the ones that happen on alternate leap years. All I want to know is, when you are doing it (regardless of frequancy or anything else), why it's necessary to lie to the players and pretend like you aren't.
It's hard for me to scroll back while writing. I don't have a working computer so I'm stuck with my POS phone. I did forget about that while I was writing.
First, I don't think we're talking about the same type of hero points. The one I have used is very similar to d20 Modern. There is no reroll. You just get to add. Besides, why would I, as GM, allow a player to adjust most of those? I would never allow an action point to determine wandering monsters or treasure.
I actually did say why I don't tell them when I fudge but I believe I had been talking to James. First, I don't see why I need to tell them why and when I fudge. It doesn't matter. Second, I don't do it often so they don't need to know. The reincarnate roll is an example. The possibility of the GM choosing is legit. It wasn't the first (or last) reincarnate for the party. Four characters have had their races changed. It's not like I had chosen every race for all of them. They know that I keep reasonable results.
Just call me Captain of the BadWrongFun League.
Not only do I fudge rolls whenever I feel like it, I also:
* Adjust hit points.
* Don't even bother rolling if I don't feel like it.
* Arbitrarily adjust creatures' skill points.
* Add or remove treasure if I change my mind.
* Add or remove creatures from a combat if I decide it warrants it.
* Avoid setting up ambushes that any sane creature would obviously set up.
* Make up magical effects on a whim, with no rules basis.Heck, I'm even one of those BadWrongFun folks who has the gall to think that I need rules for levels beyond 20.
Clearly I should just hang up my GM hat right now because I'm doing not only myself, but my players and the entire Pathfinder game system an injustice :)
I am so glad to know that if every other GM in the world died except we two, that I have Baldur's Gate.
I promise to come back from the dead to DM for you Ash.
I think that would probably be awesome, from what I can tell on the boards. ^.^
Actually, I may not have a choice, since my wife has threatened to animate me as a zombie if I go dying on her.
I approve. Your wife sounds awesome. ^.^
Not to be the ass in the room, but you're assuming you'd receive an invitation to begin with.
Like I said, I have Baldur's Gate. ^-^
On a side note, I was commenting on gbonehead's post. Not sure if you missed the quote. See, he said...
Not only do I fudge rolls whenever I feel like it, I also:
* Adjust hit points.
* Don't even bother rolling if I don't feel like it.
* Arbitrarily adjust creatures' skill points.
* Add or remove treasure if I change my mind.
* Add or remove creatures from a combat if I decide it warrants it.
* Avoid setting up ambushes that any sane creature would obviously set up.
* Make up magical effects on a whim, with no rules basis.
I wouldn't touch that game with two halves of a former 10 ft ladder; which is what I meant. I disapprove of cheating as a principle, yes (and even the book says it's cheating, even if their is a pardon for it), but the above is akin to Chaotic Evil vs Lawful Good - it's the antithesis of everything I would want in a game.
See I want...
So...yeah. Pretty much everything that game isn't. It doesn't even sound like D&D, or even a game, to me anymore.
Ash, what do you think of the following?
Sometimes, when prepping a monster for the game, I will look at its HD, and determine the average total, and max total. Then, in the encounter, I will choose which one to use depending on how hard a time the PCs are having.
How out of line is that?
Eh...well, rolling HP for creatures is a pretty common thing, at least traditionally. Technically the HP values in the books are merely the average, so it could be above or below; but my gut tells me I'd want to determine that sort of thing prior to the actual encounter.
On a side note, I probably wouldn't have an issue with it if it was just a house rule and PCs benefited from the change as well (if all monsters got 80-100% max HP and PCs got the same option). That might be a good way to pad HP; but I think it kind of weakens damage dealers, or makes them way better (if you reduce HP) since you're essentially talking about adjusting the dial.
On a side note, if someone wants the encounter to be a little harder or easier, why not just adjust the creature? I mean adding a few more HD or NPC levels (like warrior, expert, and adept) is a fair way to boost their HP and base stats pretty quickly without adjusting CR dramatically (+6 warrior levels is only +3 CR). Likewise, downgrading NPCs and monsters is pretty easy ('specially with simple templates and the like).
I just...really have an aversion to such things being done mid-fight. Call in instinct, I guess. :s
|
Well, besides the increased complexity of adding HD on the fly, I figured that if you had an objection to adjustable HP for monsters, you would naturally object to them magically gaining or losing HD mid-battle. :)
PC HP usually isn't a problem since I give them max HD all the way. In fact, my 3.5 rewrite may ditch HD for fixed HP per level.
Hmm, maybe a second-wind type mechanic to increase a characters HP per level for a certain period of time a day...
Well, besides the increased complexity of adding HD on the fly, I figured that if you had an objection to adjustable HP for monsters, you would naturally object to them magically gaining or losing HD mid-battle. :)
PC HP usually isn't a problem since I give them max HD all the way. In fact, my 3.5 rewrite may ditch HD for fixed HP per level.
Hmm, maybe a second-wind type mechanic to increase a characters HP per level for a certain period of time a day...
I'm a fan of temporary HP/bubbles.
I just don't feel that I need to tell them every single thing. They are having fun. The game has more than enough tension. They don't feel cheated or robbed. They come back week after week for more. Sounds like everything is going exactly the way it should.So, the long and short of it is that GMs try to "bluff" it where they're fudging because either (a) players seem to accept it, or (b) (as Zanaroth claims) they asked you to lie about it to them. I'm still at a total loss to understand this, so I guess the thing to do is ask any players on the thread:
1. Does your GM fudge stuff without telling you?
2. Does it annoy you if a GM pretends not to be fudging when, in fact, he or she is?
3. If not, did you specifically ask to be kept in the dark?
4. And if so, WHY?
Well, I'm usually GM, but when I'm not:
1. Yes.
2. Only if it is obvious. Obvious fudging breaks suspension of disbelief. Subtle fudging can be good.
3. I didn't ask to, but I'd rather be kept in the dark. It's kind of an unspoken yet understood thing.
4. Knowing that something is fudged while I am playing sucks some of the fun out of the experience. I enjoy the dread that comes with thinking something horrible COULD happen to my character while I'm playing, and the relief when it doesn't. Knowing the GM is fudging when it happens sucks that dread away. If I find out later that something was fudged, then I'm ok with it because I got to have that little rush while we were playing. And I don't REALLY want bad things to happen to my character anyways.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that the following two quotes from the first edition DMG still inform my attitudes towards fudging. On the one hand, Gygax advises the GM that it is OK to fudge under certain circumstances:
You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"
Buit on the other hand, Gygax provides some fairly stern guidance about the wisdom of fudging to save the characters from certain death:
Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may! Again, if you have available ample means of raising characters from the dead, even death is not too severe; remember, however, the constitution- based limit to resurrections. Yet one die roll that you should NEVER tamper with is the SYSTEM SHOCK ROLL to be raised from the dead. If a character fails that roll, which he or she should make him or herself, he or she is FOREVER DEAD. There MUST be some final death or immortality will take over and again the game will become boring because the player characters will have 9+ lives each!
Gygax also makes an interesting comment in his afterword to the module Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth that might be relevant to this discussion:
Players will not improve if the DM pampers rather than challenges them. If your players perform badly, do not allow their characters to increase in experience level...Allowing foolish and ignorant players to advance their characters to high levels reflects badly upon the game and even more so upon the Dungeon Master who allowed such a travesty to occur. In effect, it is the excellence of the DM which is judged when the caliber of play by any group is discussed. Keep yours high!
Based on these quotes, I summarize the intentions of the game's original designer like this:
- The GM has the right to fudge the dice on occasion, but it is not something that should be done lightly.
- The GM should never fudge the dice in a way that causes direct harm to PCs. (For example, fudging random treasure is probably OK, but fudging PC saving throws is probably not)
- The GM should always be fair to the monsters as well as the PCs. If you are going to fudge in favour of the PCs every now and then you should do the same for their opponents to ensure that you are being impartial.
- Most of the time, the GM should accept the results of the dice - even if they result in the death of PCs. Adventurers kill plenty of monsters with lucky dice rolls during their careers.
- Remember that the game includes a number of ways to reverse the effects of death, so don't be afraid to kill PCs off if that's how the dice fall.
- NEVER fudge the dice to rescue characters who have done something stupid or neglected to take basic precautions.
- It is acceptable to occasionally save a character from accidental death due to a run of freakishly bad rolls, but the GM should inflict some alternative penalty upon the PC to reflect the will of the dice. This penalty should be quite severe.
- At the same time, remember that the possibility of final death keeps the game exciting. There must always be the chance that characters will be permanently lost or the game will quickly become stale and boring.
- If you always rescue the characters from the consequences of their choices, they will get lazy and come to depend upon GM fudging in their favour.
- GMs who fudge too much deserve ridicule because they are not providing an appropriate challenge for the players (Note the distinction that Gygax introduces between challenging the players and challenging their characters).
Call me an old-school GM, but I find this to be a balanced set of guidelines.
Feel free to discuss :)
EDIT: I would also draw attention to the following quote from Gygax's book Role Playing Mastery:
I would also quote from Gygax's book "Role-Playing Mastery":
There are times when the GM will bend or break the rules of the game system in order to allow his players to maintain their characters. Just as he sometimes metes out punishments for infractions, the GM at other times intervenes benevolently, spreading his aegis over the PCs to save them from probabilities gone awry....If the party is in danger of extermination through no direct fault of its own AND because a string of unlikely occurances have all somehow come to pass, then it is time for the GM to step in and set things back on the right track, or at least keep them from getting any worse.!
I find it interesting that Gygax emphasizes again the importance of being even-handed - if you are going to help pou the players every now and then, you shouldn't hesitate to punish them harshly if they do something stupid. He clearly sees the two ideas as being closely related...
Anti-fudgers – I ask you. Can we agree on the following?
- A GM who fudges is not automatically a bad GM.
- A GM who fudges is not automatically a bad person.
- Campaigns with fudging are not automatically bad campaigns - even though you would never play in one.
- Players who prefer fudging over hero points are not automatically bad players.
Anti-fudgers – I ask you. Can we agree on the following?
- A GM who fudges is not automatically a bad GM.
- A GM who fudges is not automatically a bad person.
- Campaigns with fudging are not automatically bad campaigns - even though you would never play in one.
- Players who prefer fudging over hero points are not automatically bad players.
I wish you luck. Welcome to the BadWrongFun league :)
I wish you luck. Welcome to the BadWrongFun league :)Anti-fudgers – I ask you. Can we agree on the following?
- A GM who fudges is not automatically a bad GM.
- A GM who fudges is not automatically a bad person.
- Campaigns with fudging are not automatically bad campaigns - even though you would never play in one.
- Players who prefer fudging over hero points are not automatically bad players.
I knew it was a risk sending that post, but I could not help myself. I am probably a bit too sensitive for these boards.
Anti-fudgers – I ask you. Can we agree on the following?
Agreed! Wait, I'm on the 'pro' side....
Or am I?
You often confuse me TOZ, but I like you.
I wish you luck. Welcome to the BadWrongFun league :)Who's president of the league?
I'd say we should vote, but someone would probably fudge the results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, why would I, as GM, allow a player to adjust most of those?
I, as GM, endeavor to give the players as much narrative power as possible and still keep a balanced game. I see myself as a referee -- I set the stage and make sure the game rules (the laws of physics in game-land) are adhered to, but that's where my job ends. The players, by their actions and decisions, decide how the story unfolds.
This just boils down to what I alluded to earlier -- whether the GM see him/herself as a godlike authority or merely a relatively impartial arbiter. I prefer the latter; you the former. Some players prefer to have more of a say in things; some want to be railroaded, constantly told what they can and cannot do, etc. It's a matter of personal preference.
The risk is in not recognizing that these preferences can be very strong. I've lost players in the past because I run a very open-ended, sandbox-like game; lateral thinking is encouraged -- and some players get impatient with that; they just want to "get on with the plot." A GM who sees him/herself as the only authority on what's "fun," who doesn't allow the players equal say in the game world, and who discourages players from directly controlling their characters' own destinies will lose players like houstonderek, james maissen, and myself.
I wish you luck. Welcome to the BadWrongFun league :)Huh? I thought that to join BadWrongFun league you had to insist that only people who play 4E fudge rolls...
Well, we try to keep the trolls out of the league. Some of 'em are only half-trolls, though, and they keep slipping through the detectors.
Anti-fudgers – I ask you. Can we agree on the following?
1. A GM who fudges is not automatically a bad GM.
2. A GM who fudges is not automatically a bad person.
3. Campaigns with fudging are not automatically bad campaigns - even though you would never play in one.
4. Players who prefer fudging over hero points are not automatically bad players.
I'd reply as follows:
1. Not automatically, I agree, but in my experience it's a warning sign of a GM who either (a) forces the PCs into unbalanced situations without warning, and then uses fudging to cover his tracks; and/or (b) is a control freak and doesn't want the players ruining his "perfect story."2. Not automatically, I agree -- but an acquaintance who insists on lying to me "for my own good" is not someone I'll choose to spend a lot of time with. That said, I'm aware that most people seem to actively want to be lied to.
3. Sure, if the players are all good with that.
4. Not automatically, but in my experience it's often a warning sign that the players refuse to consider things like tactical retreats or lateral approaches -- they just want to "get to the next board" and assume the GM will coddle them to allow it. They get so used to "just barely winning" that any other outcome becomes unthinkable. It can also suggest a mind-set in which their role the game is only marginally more active than watching TV.
Just to chime in on the whole Hero Point/Action Point thing. I dislike it for the same reasons I dislike the Plot Cards - they break versimilitude.
I work hard to create a campaign world that has a gritty realism to it. This has a bunch of side effects, but one of them is that powers and abilities that fiddle with mechanics on the fly (like hero points, etc.) are things that break the third wall.
You've got a ninth-level spell, time stop, that's used to create a little hiccup in time. Okay, that's a powerful ability, and not available unless you can harness great power.
But now you've something like Hero Points that suddenly grant low-level characters 'extra actions' in combat. Where do these extra actions come from? Do game-world physics suddenly not apply? Now, suddenly, it feels more like a board game to me and less like something that actually could be happening. Automatic Quicken Spell is an epic feat in 3.5e; now a player can toss one out by spending a "Hero Point" that he got two weeks ago when the party cleared out a kobold lair.
Same goes for the Plot Cards. You're immersed in, say, sneaking into the back door of a warehouse that you think houses the headquarters for a theft ring you've been trying to track down - you creep through the door and discover that there's a guard dozing there and you just woke him up! Oh no! But wait ... suddenly the guard is confused for 3 rounds! Wait .. what? Where did that come from? Oh, I see, you played a Plot Card. WHAM! And by the way, you just passed Go, here's your 200gp.
That's my issue with that stuff in my current game. In another game, sure, even another game I'm running, if it were that sort of game ... but in the current game I find it breaks the immersion. That's why I don't like a lot of the Luck feats, White Raven Tactics, and other similar effects - they have similar problems.
I hear people saying that fudging dice ruins their game. That's perfectly fine - I may believe they're misguided, but that's just my opinion and I suspect they're the 'victim' of it more than they think.
On the other hand, I find that different things are bad for my game, and again, that's just how I see it. I am NOT wrong. I can't be wrong - we're playing the game to have fun, and we are having fun. It's truly a shame that people disapprove, but frankly I couldn't care less. It's the game we're playing, and I have a hunch that since we've been playing the same game in the same campaign world with the same GM for over five years, that it's not quite as game ending an issue as some claim it is.
A lot of people keep saying poor GMing is why fudging is an issue. I disagree. Let's say you have this scenario:
The players are looking to overthrow the BBEG, who they know is a big freakin' dood, and time is not on their side. The GM knows they need to gain a couple levels to be able to deal with him, so he loosely designs some encounters and events for them to gain those levels on their quest to overthrow the villain. This is not bad GMing, because he's avoiding railroading yet still being prepared.
The players come to their first obstacle planned. However, through some ingenious thinking on their part, they're able to circumvent it, knowing that every hour they save is crucial to stopping the BBEG. They continue. The GM puts the encounter not used back into his bag, intending to adapt it for later use, and he also comes up with more for the party to level off of. This is not bad GMing, because he is keeping his preparedness without restricting the party.
The players then continue to cleverly dodge most of the hurdles the GM had intended. He's able to trick them into a few, but their drive to stop the BBEG ASAP is so intense, they're too determined to get distracted. The GM uses their actions to enter into new situations he hadn't planned for, but overall, their experience progress is much less than it would have been. This isn't bad playing (indeed, it's good roleplaying), and it isn't bad GMing, because he is still not forcing the party into situations in which they specifically took actions to avoid in a clever way.
The party meets up with the BBEG. The GM kept trying to keep them away, but they keep getting around everything he designs. He is too strong for them as written, but with some clever combat, they could win. But now the dice start slamming them as well - bad rolls for them, good rolls for him. The GM is now faced with a choice: either a close or an actual TPK because the players were clever on their quest but unlucky in the battle, OR he can fudge the BBEG's rolls, giving them a fighting shot.
You might say that any good GM could plan on what the party would do, but realistically, there are more players than the GM, usually just as or smarter than him, and they will ALWAYS be able to come up with stuff the GM hadn't planned for. Sometimes this means they end up avoiding or even entering into some encounters not planned for, sometimes it means the above situation, in which a real threat is now present when it shouldn't have been.
You might also say the GM should have altered the stats of the BBEG before the battle. This is just as much fudging as on-the-fly roll changes; it is modifying the written (or rolled) numbers to increase the fun for the players.
---------------------------------
A lot of anti-fudgers keep saying how the players might feel like they can't die and stuff. I don't think any advocate of fudging has said, "Well, I just never let my players die." They more often say, "Well, when the dice REALLY screw over the player in a way that is lame, I alter the result."
Lastly I find those that NEED the term to be 'fudging' rather than 'cheating' are lying to themselves and demanding that others go along with it. I find that bordering between sad and offensive as it runs the gamut of those with that need.
Totally with you until that last slap in the face bit. Please read the following very carefully:
If the GM adjusts a die roll in order to affect the outcome of a situation, it is not inherently cheating.
You are, of course, free to call it cheating, just like I'm free to call this cup of coffee in my office a tuba. But that doesn't make it so.
Just like you're free to define your game as one in which nobody, no way and no how, is allowed to ever, ever change the result of a die roll. In that game, clearly, it would be cheating, since those are the defined rules of your game. And that is indeed a valid Pathfinder game.
However, it is not the only valid Pathfinder game. A Pathfinder game in which a GM decides to adjudicate the situation and not pay strict attention to the die roll is a valid game, the GM is not cheating, and I'll even hazard a guess that such games might somehow manage to be actually fun.
"Cheating," whether you like it or not, has a very specific, perjorative connotation. It's not a word you use lightly, just like calling someone a liar ... oh, look, that's in there too. I find it a bit rude, personally, to call every GM who does so a cheat and a liar.
Anti-fudgers – I ask you. Can we agree on the following?
- A GM who fudges is not automatically a bad GM.
- A GM who fudges is not automatically a bad person.
- Campaigns with fudging are not automatically bad campaigns - even though you would never play in one.
- Players who prefer fudging over hero points are not automatically bad players.
- A GM who cheats is not automatically a bad GM, neither is one that fails to balance an encounter, isn't sure how to react to something on the fly, and doesn't know what to do when things fly out of control. Yet all of these can be signs of a bad GM.
- A GM who cheats in the game isn't automatically a bad person, neither is the person who lies to you or steals candy from a baby. But again they could be. Conversely a GM who is completely impartial and by the book could be an absolutely horrible person.. he's just playing the game straight up.
- They are two completely different games. In my opinion they lose a lot however and in reality are cheating themselves out of a better game that's right in front of them. Its as if you are just learning a game so you want the person teaching you to 'let you win'. You agree but say 'I won't always let you win'.
- I personally don't care for 'hero points' or 'action points' and the like. Again I see those that prefer 'fudging' as wanting less from the game than it offers. That's unfortunate.
- Lastly I find those that NEED the term to be 'fudging' rather than 'cheating' are lying to themselves and demanding that others go along with it. I find that bordering between sad and offensive as it runs the gamut of those with that need.
-James
We can call playing with miniatures "playing with dolls" because that's what it is but we don't because the term comes with a specific connotation. You are calling it cheating to make us look like we're horrible people. Cheaters are horrible people. That's exactly why you are using the term.
Fudging isn't really cheating though. The GM has final say over what goes on. He decides when rolling the dice are important to the situation and when the situation is important enough to not warrant dice. That's why it's not cheating. The GM can't cheat.
There are plenty of times when fudging needs to come into play. If you are randomly determining treasure and you roll up something too powerful for the group, or something that wouldn't be there in the first place (maybe full plate isn't available and you rolled up mithril full plate), then the GM is obligated to fudge.
Labeling it cheating is so you can look and feel superior to the rest of us. You're no better or worse. You have your style and we have ours. As long as both groups are having fun, then no one is wrong.
A lot of people keep saying poor GMing is why fudging is an issue. I disagree. Let's say you have this scenario:
When I mentioned it, I was referring to a GM that must routinely rely on fudging to keep the game balanced and fun. If that's the only tool, then the GM needs to evaluate his skills as GM. Some fudging is ok. Reliance on fudging is not. At least that's how I view it.
Thank you for immediately proving my point.What, that you, personally, don't see the point and don't want to be bothered with them?
It doesn't matter to me in the slightest bit if you fudge every roll, or just the ones that make PCs maybe die, or just the ones that happen on alternate leap years. All I want to know is, when you are doing it (regardless of frequancy or anything else), why it's necessary to lie to the players and pretend like you aren't.
Kinda how I feel. It doesn't bother me that any random guy on the internet does anything, though in this instance I would find it edifying to learn WHY. I used to fudge. I don't any longer. So far, when running, this refusal to cheat has allowed for some spectacular situations. One guy just keeps getting on the bad end of crits and has had to be resurrected twice now I believe. But death isn't really the handicap it used to be in the olden days!
I would like to redefine the definition of fudging. If fudging dice - ever, no matter how rarely, means that the DM is cheating, then the following list should also be defined as cheating. Yes, some of it is legal according to the rules, but so is fudging dice(rule 0).
1. Changing a dice to alter a situation. (I do this, not to save a PC, or a monster, but to heighten dramitic situations. In the entire kingmaker campaign I think I did it twice).
2. Point buy - Makes sense for PFS, but in your own campaign, why would you not have the players live with their own dice rolls for PCs?
3. Average hp, or max hp, or anything but what the players roll.
4. Hero points (we don't do this in Pathfinder, but have used them in games like Star Wars, and they work fine. We just choose not to).
5. Adjusting an encounter on the fly - changing hp, HD, attack rolls. (yes, I do this too).
6. Adjusting an adventure on the fly, skipping an encounter with a couple of mooks so that you can get to the BBEG before the night is over, for ex. If the adventure was written a certain way, it should be run that way. (I do this occasionally, usually more in the interest of time than adventure balance.)
7. Adjusting treasure to fit your party better. As the MIC says, if the treasure is something your PCs absolutely cannot use, you haven't given them any treasure. Yes, I will occasionally do this.
8. Handwaved or otherwise facilitated a res, or a new PC coming in, in the interest of not having a player sit for three hours being bored while you get to a good situation to bring them back in. They died, they deserve to be bored to tears while everyone else has fun. (I'm terrible at this. In the World's Largest Dungeon, I once avoided a TPK by letting them bring in replacements BEFORE the battle was over. It led to a TPK&1/2, I killed 9 PCs in a six player party. Since it was WLD, they all had four PCs, so the replacements were literally camped 5 rounds away, but it still gets talked about).
Nice try, but no. Those are alternate house rules. You're trying to erect false equivalence between two very different beasts. If it is agreed upon before play it's not cheating, it's then agreeing to change the house rules. Thing about rules, even house rules, is everyone needs to play by them.
I'd say we should vote, but someone would probably fudge the results.I wish you luck. Welcome to the BadWrongFun league :)Who's president of the league?
You could let us tally the votes. I mean, look at our reputation for fairness and honesty. :P
|
Yeah - I'm pretty much on board with James, but I don't think we have to call you guys cheaters.
It should be enough to know that "fudging" and "cheating" mean precisely the same thing to us and carry the same connotations, and that as far as we're concerned, one word can be substituted with the other interchangably. If you guys like the ring of the word "fudging" better, I don't see why we can't just say "fudging" from here on out, so I'll do that.
Here's my final say on this (really, I promise).
The CR devotes...what, 500+? 600+? pages to codifying rules. It contains one page that says that the GM has complete license to do anything they like, including completely ignoring the other 500+ pages.
As I evaluate the ruleset with that in mind, it strikes me as something I might not want to play. I'd hate for the GM's girlfriend to get rules disregarded in her favor more than I. I'd hate to receive a benefit that isn't extended consistently to my fellow players. I'd hate for the GM to compromise his vision of what a castle contains just so that my PC lives through the night.
I respect that the tradition of GMs being able to do whatever the hell they want has existed since 1e. Back then, it was a good idea. I think it's mostly outlived it's usefulness, though. The GM will always have every opportunity to do whatever the hell they want...before the game starts. They can create a whole world, populate it however they like, etc. etc. If they want 1st level orcs to crit less, they can give the orcs a racial trait that makes them unable to crit. But for god's sake, write it down. Show that you gave that eventuality some forethought. If you didn't, deal with it. Admit it to your players, who will forgive you, and move on.
And yes, TOZ, I know you don't want to. That's fine, don't. :-p
For me, I'm going to keep forgetting that I have the license to alter dice. I like dice. They're guaranteed to be impartial. I'm not. Neither is anyone else I know. I think impartiality is a virtue, at least within the confines of a game mechanic.
We'll agree to disagree. I see it that you are trying to set false difference between a number of very similar things. What is the difference between fudging a dice in combat, and letting the PCs not use the dice they roll for hit points? Houserules, or cheating, whatever you call it, it's still fudging.
Um...no it's not fudging. Fudging is cheating (i.e. circumventing the RULES) by the DM. It's changing the dice roll by DM fiat after it has been rolled or changing the outcome of that roll if the original outcome is seen as unsatisfactory by the DM.
If the players agree to it, then it's not cheating, hence not fudging. Whatever exists in house rules is not fudging, they are HOUSE RULES.
Point buy is...THE RULE. If you define fudging as anything that exists in the rules, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASONING WITH YOU!
|
Poor wording on my part, my bad. What I was getting at is that if that mechanic becomes the core focus of the game, then the stuff I mentioned has a very high probability of following. Dice should never, ever, take precedent over role-play, the shared experience/story-craft, or fun.
I've experienced games and groups in which this occurs. They're disjointed munchkin fests completely stripped of context, replete with hodgepodge characters designed solely for mechanical advantage that make no thematic sense, with no shared experience save an ongoing arms race to see who has the highest numerical values. They're way less tolerable than any game I've seen which encompasses fudging, crappy GM or not. At least they are to me, though if that's the players' opinion of a fun RPG who am I to judge.
How do you get from the one, to the other?
Many players can create a perfectly good combination of effective mechanics, believable backstory, and engaging roleplay.
They are not mutually exclusive, never have been.
In fact, quite the opposite.
If one is playing one's PC in a believable way, they would make decisions, on training, on equipping, on tactics, that were effective, rather than ineffective, surely?
How does that become 'hodgepodge characters designed solely for mechanical advantage that make no thematic sense, with no shared experience save an ongoing arms race to see who has the highest numerical values.'?
Which is more believable? A PC who survives via intelligent play, or a PC who is played in a clueless way, but is perpetually saved by wild coincidence? The former is a matter of pride for the player; how can anyone take pride in the latter?
Thank you for the brutally honest reponses guys, I asked a question and it was answered.
What I come away from this with is the following.
For some of you, fudging is cheating, which is basically lying, and that is all there is to it.
Some of you feel so strongly that fudging is cheating and lying, that you cannot refrain from implying, or outright saying that we are cheaters, liars and possibly not such good people.
No matter how much we ask you not to insult us, your repsonse is OK, I will try not to insult you, but basically you are cheaters, liars, and possibly not very good people.
|
|
Thank you for the brutally honest reponses guys, I asked a question and it was answered.
What I come away from this with is the following.
For some of you, fudging is cheating, which is basically lying, and that is all there is to it.
Some of you feel so strongly that fudging is cheating and lying, that you cannot refrain from implying, or outright saying that we are cheaters, liars and possibly not such good people.
No matter how much we ask you not to insult us, your repsonse is OK, I will try not to insult you, but basically you are cheaters, liars, and possibly not very good people.
Because what you're asking, is on a par with Charles Manson telling us that his feelings are hurt by being called 'crazy'.
Every year, they have to wheel him out in front of a review board, he gets to rant at them, and tell them that, in his eyes, he's not 'crazy', but 'differently motivated'.
Then they wheel him back to his cell, for another year.
"Okay, Charlie. You got it, from now on, we'll refer to you as 'differently motivated'...ya crazy freak."
Because what you're asking, is on a par with Charles Manson telling us that his feelings are hurt by being called 'crazy'.
Every year, they have to wheel him out in front of a review board, he gets to rant at them, and tell them that, in his eyes, he's not 'crazy', but 'differently motivated'.
Then they wheel him back to his cell, for another year.
"Okay, Charlie. You got it, from now on, we'll refer to you as 'differently motivated'...ya crazy freak."
When this debate started, I would have been shocked that someone compared asking not to be called a cheater and liar for altering die rolls to Charles Manson asking for parole.
But not anymore. If anything, this thread has served to thicken my skin.
|
|
No matter how much we ask you not to insult us, your repsonse is OK, I will try not to insult you, but basically you are cheaters, liars, and possibly not very good people.
For what it's worth, Dren, I think it's very likely that you're an awesome person. And you're only a liar if, when a player directly asks you "is that really what the dice said?", you respond "yes", when it wasn't.
And even if you ARE a liar, the context of the lies you're telling do not give me any grounds whatsoever to form a judgement about what kind of person you are. There are so, SO many things that are WAY more important than gaming in making such a determination that I couldn't possibly allow your gaming habits to color my opinion of you as a person even a little bit.
In fact, the only real determination I can make about you is that you really take being called a cheater very, very hard. All in all that's hardly a bad thing, and in fact speaks to you being a good person.
So, there's that. Cheers to you.
For what it's worth, Dren, I think it's very likely that you're an awesome person. And you're only a liar if, when a player directly asks you "is that really what the dice said?", you respond "yes", when it wasn't.
And even if you ARE a liar, the context of the lies you're telling do not give me any grounds whatsoever to form a judgement about what kind of person you are. There are so, SO many things that are WAY more important than gaming in making such a determination that I couldn't possibly allow your gaming habits to color my opinion of you as a person even a little bit.
In fact, the only real determination I can make about you is that you really take being called a cheater very, very hard. All in all that's hardly a bad thing, and in fact speaks to you being a good person.
So, there's that. Cheers to you.
Thank you for that. You are right I don't like being called a cheater. Even though I know the internet is a big bad place full of strong opinions, it bothers me.
For what it is worth, my players have NEVER asked me if I changed a roll. If they did ask, I would tell the the truth, but after the game session was over.
My group and I have been playing together for more than 20 years, and for the most part we are all on the same page. But even so, I took a poll of my current players opinions on fudging. 3 said yes to fudging without telling them, 1 said yes to hero points, the other 2 (newbies) have not answered me.
Also in my defense, I only fudge if I think I can do so without it being noticed. So thus far in my game, I have not yet been able to fudge to save a PC, and there have been 4-5 deaths in the 10 levels of the campaign. However one was at the hands of another PC so I can't be held accountable for that one.