Then you should have no problems with me, since I never say I'm doing different than I have.
Find me a better term for doing one thing and saying you've done another and I'll use it.
Nope. No problems with you. I'd just never roll a character in a game you run. Which I'm sure is my loss, but I've run with that sort of DM before and it's never as fun FOR ME.
What sort of DM is that?
Because I'm The Mirror.
I reflect the desires of my group.
And if you are a part of my group, your desires will be reflected.
Well, don't fudge for one!
I've already promised Kirth and derek to do exactly that when I run Shackled City for them. It'll be nice to run without the DM screen when I do.
Apparently no one else did.Just treat everything I say as a lie.I see what you did there.
To be honest, I've learned long ago to take everything you post anywhere ever with a grain of salt the size of a boulder. The only way to have a conversation with you is to assume what you say isn't ironic, sarcastic, or a bald-faced lie. So rather than try to work out whether each post is a lie, a double lie, a switch back lie, a recursive untruth, a fib, a whopper, or double-talk, I refuse to participate in your shenanigans.
Besides.
Everything is a lie.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Successful Troll is happy fellow poster has avoided head explodey. Successful Troll is not sure fellow poster has regenerative capabilities like Successful Troll.
You know the more i think about this thread the more i picture the first bit of Dorkness Rising. The whole Story vs Rules arguement that was going on.
Again though, not a value judgment. I don't like it and I won't tolerate it (much) from my GMs, but if it works for you keep on keeping on. I just want to spread the good word that there are better ways to mitigate disaster than being dishonest.Not a value judgement, but we can find a better way than being dishonest?
I'm appalled.
I know I'm finding it awfully hard to take him saying he's not making a value judgment at face value when he keeps using language that implies he is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Find me a better term for doing one thing and saying you've done another and I'll use it.
Consult the thread title. The term fudging exists for a reason.
Or even better, call it "Exerting final editorial control over inputs into the game from the DM's side of the screen." That's how I see it, ultimately. I exert editorial control over published adventures, I exert editorial control monster stats, I exert editorial control magic item and treasure caches, I exert editorial control the actions of hundreds of NPCs and elements of the game world, I also exert editorial control the dice rolls I make or, more often, over whether or not I use the full modifier on the die roll, including whether or not I actually make a die roll in certain circumstances.
DMs wear many hats. Sometimes he's an impartial referee, sometimes he's a guide, sometimes he's an adversary, sometimes he's a director, sometimes he's a storyteller, sometimes he's a script writer, sometimes he's something else entirely (for example, I also cook). Part of really good DMing is knowing when to wear which hat for the good of the game.
What sort of DM is that?
Because I'm The Mirror.
I reflect the desires of my group.
And if you are a part of my group, your desires will be reflected.
Hopefully not necessarily 100%.
Recently (well, a couple years back) I took a step towards shutting down the campaign; I'd said from the outset that it wasn't an evil campaign, and that I don't want to run an evil campaign.
So when some assassins showed up and took out the wizard's familiar, who happened to be holding onto an important magic item (which they stole), and they captured one of them, and they immediately started torturing the guy (breaking his fingers, to be specific), I had very serious issues with this.
Just because the players wanted to play this kind of game did not make it okay with me, and I feel that I'm entirely within my rights as a GM to say "sorry, no" ... rules be damned.
I agree that it's the GM's responsibility to run a game the players want to play, but it's a joint effort - they players are also responsible for keeping it fun for the GM. After all, he's doing an assload of work compared to what the players are doing, and it's often pretty damn thankless.
In this I agree with him to a great degree. I do place a value judgment as I, personally, think that its a lesser game when the GM is willing to cheat to remove outliers regardless on whether they remove them unilaterally or upon whim. I find that the game is much more rewarding when 'played clean' (to draw the pinball analogy).-James
I have accepted it, I am at peace with it now. Many (dare I say most) of the people in the anti-fudging/cheating camp honsetly feel that it is just wrong.
When you have a strong moral conviction about something, it is difficult to have a discussion with those who do not share that conviction - without calling them out on it.
They find it just as frustrating that we DO NOT want to call it cheating as we find it that they DO want to call it cheating. There is no middle ground, no compromise to be made here.
The only choices are TO HAVE, or NOT TO HAVE the discussion. To PLAY or NOT TO PLAY in the campaign.
I can accept that some people in the this thread (in this world) think less of me for altering die rolls. I can accept that some people would never play in my campaign. It is simply life.
Hmm.
I guess my position on the 'changing a die roll is cheating' is sure, it's cheating.
But for all that it is cheating, it isn't against the rules when the GM does it. Both Rule Zero and Page 402 both explicitly allow for it.
So it is simultaneously cheating, because it's altering something, and not cheating, because it is explicitly allowed in the rules.
If something is allowed in the rules, then I find that attaching moral judgments on the action to be improper.
The rules allow (and encourage!) the GM to lie to the players ALL THE TIME. Clearly, if you are lying to your players via an NPC, you're still lying to them, just as much as you are when you say the die roll came up '63' instead of '64'.
But apparently, the act of lying about a *cold, hard, mechanical* aspect of the game, rather than a *soft, fuzzy, roleplaying* aspect of the game is different.
And I can grant that it is. In a way. If a player believes an NPC is lying, or something they see is an illusion, there are mechanical aspects that allow the player to get to the heart of the matter.
However, conversely, there are roleplaying aspects that allow for modifiers to the cold, hard, die-rolling mechanics.
Now, I'm not ever going to try to justify all fudging/cheating, especially not some of the egregious crap that is being touted as examples. However! I would like to ask the 'no cheating, EVER!' crowd a question...
Your character (by the dice) has just been hit and killed by a multi-crit, near max-damage full attack action, and due to circumstances involved, you won't be getting a resurrection for months (minimum) of in-game time (which will involve 3-4 more sessions of play at minimum). If the character dies, the GM will need to rewrite a large chunk of story because your character had a 'moment of awesome' planned later that really won't work for any other PC.
The GM decides that the consequences to both his work (adventure creation) and player fun (experiencing this moment of awesome) are ill-served by a simple OHKO.
And so, the GM doesn't say 'Well, crap. You're a -19. Go ahead and start working on a new character while I finish the combat.'
Instead, the GM says 'Well, crap. You just got cut to shreds, in fact the Big Bad cut your left arm off at the elbow, and collapsed your lung. You'll die in two rounds if you don't get magical healing, and even then you'll have the 'exhausted' condition until you're healed to full, and the 'fatigued' condition for two days after that(or until you get a Heal spell), and you'll need a Regenerate to get your arm back.
Death isn't the only consequence that can be used to show a player what happens when he gets on the wrong end of a full attack. However, now the player can continue to participate with his current character. Assuming he wants to, anyway... a player may decide those penalties are too harsh and choose to bleed out. In which case the GM should shrug, suck it up, and rebuild the moment of awesome later for a different character, and get to work on why an adventurer replacement is in the same area so the new PC can meet up with the old party.
Again... fudging the die roll doesn't mean a strict 'ignore what the dice say', it can mean 'the dice have dictated this outcome, but I, as GM, am going to exert some editorial control over this to make it fit my story better'.
Good luck Marshall. I like your example - it seems like a reasonable argument to me.
But some posters in this thread, have clearly stated that they would rather have a total-party-kill, than have the GM fudge a single die roll.
To me, in most cases, a TPK is my failure as a GM. If my group is intent on some course that means throwing their lives away, then OK I must let it happen. But that is a rare cicumstance indeed.
In most cases a TPK is either a mistake on the part of the GM or the players, or those damn dice ruining my campaign. The idea that the "right" thing to do is not to fudge - but to simply let it happen, or to step out of character and say "hey guys, let's do this over," seems just so sad to me.
|
I finally made it to the end of the thread! What a journey. If you haven't read it all, I suggest you do. I'll resist the urge to quote position-swapping and mobile goal posts, but man it is a good read!
After 719 posts I'm a bit surprised no one has played this card, but I'm really pleased that I get to:
What about merit?
All of the 'dice are God' crowd seem to imply that if the GM simply exerts more effort (and/or is better), then the need goes away. This appears to be the sole crux of the argument against it. (Despite the 'rights' issue, which I'll get to in a moment.) To this position, I ask, does the effort to learn, organize, prepare, host, and orchestrate a game not grant ANY privilege at all?
Because that's what the 'editorial control' amounts to, whether it be modifying an encounter before it starts or during and whether you ignore the dice or simply refuse to roll them. Those are equally 'cheating' and are on exactly the same moral level. They're all the right thing to do.
Why?
Because you, the GM, have earned that right. You've poured yourself into this endeavor in order to provide a platform on which others can have a good time. A GM will typically put in a whole order of magnitude more time than the players do, combined.
To give players an equal say, or even equal footing, without requiring equal effort is simply absurd.
Besides, if they don't like it then I'm absolutely certain they could start their own table.
Except they won't do that, because they're players. Not GMs. GMs are a different breed, and there's simply no denying that.
I'd like also to touch on Kirith's 'rights' position for just a moment, explicitly because you crossed the line into pizza money, and cited Thomas Jefferson. I happen to know a few things about 'Liberty', and I know from my own experience that you've got it wrong.
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management."
My effort = my 'property' = my rights. Not yours or anyone else's unless I say so.
How did we get through 719 posts and ignore this simple, obvious fact? Are there any players who feel so entitled as to flat-out ignore the GMs efforts in such a way as to demand an equal footing?
It's like coming into my home and rearranging my furniture. This is my world, and you're a guest in it. I'll do everything in my power to make sure you enjoy your stay and want to return, but you are NOT putting my couch in the back yard!!
:)
|
|
I also wanted to share an example of 'good fudge'. I'll wrap it though, because it's Starwars and not Pathfinder...
Back in the old Starwars d6 game there was a rule to limit Jedi power. It basically said that once you crossed a certain threshold the Empire took notice of you and Darth Vader paid you a visit.
Jason's Jedi character knew this and decided to proceed anyway, and a few adventures later, there was the confrontation as called-for. The battle was magnificent, but the players lost, and the Jedi was taken before the Emperor.
"Turn to the DARK SIIIIIIIDE!", says old-wrinkly.
Jason smiles and says, "Bob, if I use all my Force Points, can I give him a wedgie?"
Some dice are rolled, but never looked at, and we all have a great laugh. Plus I've got this great story to tell today.
The thing is that with rule 0 EVERYTHING is permissible. The GM says "rocks fall you die" and well I guess he's being fair. At what point does his arbitration of the game world make the game less enjoyable? For me, it's the most minor infraction. Have more faith in your players to think of creative solutions.
I'm not perfect, and as a reasonable person I have to concede that, perhaps, there is some extenuating circumstance in which fudging would be objectively the best solution. I can't imagine what that is, but I have to concede it's possible. In that situation heck even I might fudge.
Your character (by the dice) has just been hit and killed by a multi-crit, near max-damage full attack action, and due to circumstances involved, you won't be getting a resurrection for months (minimum) of in-game time (which will involve 3-4 more sessions of play at minimum). If the character dies, the GM will need to rewrite a large chunk of story because your character had a 'moment of awesome' planned later that really won't work for any other PC.
Well, and not to be flippant, but my DM would have given me the tools to avoid it. Maybe I have to use every last action point I've saved up and turn that auto-kill into -5 and stable. Maybe there's a houserule that says after you go to -Con you have one round to say last words and roleplay a good death scene, maybe get one final act, and that gives someone time to heal you up beyond death's door. Or, at the very least, you say to the player "okay look that hit killed you, I'm going to put you at -9 and bleeding because otherwise it won't be very fun for either of us" and let them decide. You may not see the difference but allowing players that choice is everything to me.
I understand the hard work that goes into being a DM, but that's part of the job. If you have to "rewrite" part of the story because of something you didn't foresee, then so be it. Refusing to let player actions or die rolls influence your amazing story is kind of arrogant if you ask me. And even that's not a value judgment, really, I can be arrogant as a DM in other ways.
|
The thing is that with rule 0 EVERYTHING is permissible. The GM says "rocks fall you die" and well I guess he's being fair. At what point does his arbitration of the game world make the game less enjoyable? For me, it's the most minor infraction. Have more faith in your players to think of creative solutions.
Rule 1: The rules were written for a reason. Ignoring them wasn't it.
Rule 1: The rules were written for a reason. Ignoring them wasn't it.The thing is that with rule 0 EVERYTHING is permissible. The GM says "rocks fall you die" and well I guess he's being fair. At what point does his arbitration of the game world make the game less enjoyable? For me, it's the most minor infraction. Have more faith in your players to think of creative solutions.
So ignoring the rule 0, which lets you ignore other rules, is against the rules. Thus, if you don't ignore the rules, you're ignoring the rules. Not cheating is cheating.
I think I see, Zen master, and I am nothing.
Well, and not to be flippant, but my DM would have given me the tools to avoid it. Maybe I have to use every last action point I've saved up and turn that auto-kill into -5 and stable. Maybe there's a houserule that says after you go to -Con you have one round to say last words and roleplay a good death scene, maybe get one final act, and that gives someone time to heal you up beyond death's door. Or, at the very least, you say to the player "okay look that hit killed you, I'm going to put you at -9 and bleeding because otherwise it won't be very fun for either of us" and let them decide. You may not see the difference but allowing players that choice is everything to me.
What if you don't use (or are out of) action points? What if you don't have that houserule?
We're splitting hairs now. I've stated that 'Dice say dead, i want to give an option' is fudging, and you just said 'Dice say dead, tell player dice say dead, see if he wants to change the dice'.
My situation... it should be clear to the player that the dice say 'dead' even if I don't explicitly say that. How else do you explain the negatives? Normal attacks just do HP damage.
And the player has the choice... they don't have to accept the healing, they can let their player die if they want to.
When I fudge, this is the type of fudge I use... exert editorial control on the dice in a way that ideally makes things more fun, not less.
And as to the last bit... I'm not espousing 'refuse to let die rolls influence my amazing story'. I'm espousing giving a player a consequence other than being written out of the game for a few months, that is still a SIGNIFICANT consequence, because it makes the game more fun for both of us. If the player disagrees that continuing to play his PC is more fun, he shuffles off this mortal coil and makes a new PC, and I rewrite a chunk of adventure. No problem. However, if I refused to fudge, then neither of us have this choice.
|
|
So ignoring the rule 0, which lets you ignore other rules, is against the rules. Thus, if you don't ignore the rules, you're ignoring the rules. Not cheating is cheating.I think I see, Zen master, and I am nothing.
Or you're doing a very good impression of a machine unable to handle two conflicting absolute statements.
Or you're doing a very good impression of a machine unable to handle two conflicting absolute statements.
So ignoring the rule 0, which lets you ignore other rules, is against the rules. Thus, if you don't ignore the rules, you're ignoring the rules. Not cheating is cheating.I think I see, Zen master, and I am nothing.
Or I'm just a rational person unable to handle two contradictory absolute statements. I have a pretty low tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
I would think a rational person would realize the statements are not absolutes.
The GM is always right sounds like a pretty absolute statement to me.
If they aren't absolutes, does that mean you sometimes CAN have a game without players? Or that sometimes the rules ARE there to be ignored? Why even formulate a rule if the purpose of itself is to negate itself?
How about:
Rule 0: Pff, whatever!
I'd like also to touch on Kirith's 'rights' position for just a moment, explicitly because you crossed the line into pizza money, and cited Thomas Jefferson. I happen to know a few things about 'Liberty', and I know from my own experience that you've got it wrong.
TJ wrote:
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management."My effort = my 'property' = my rights. Not yours or anyone else's unless I say so.
How did we get through 719 posts and ignore this simple, obvious fact? Are there any players who feel so entitled as to flat-out ignore the GMs efforts in such a way as to demand an equal footing?
OK, so you invite me in, then tell me I'm not allowed to sit, not allowed to even look at the furniture ("it's MINE! MINE!!!!!!"), and you charge me for using up your valuable oxygen...
So I go home.
Great analogy -- because that's exactly the sort of GMing you seem to be describing. If your precious, valuable homebrew world is too important to you to let other people influence it, then write a novel about it. Don't explicitly invite them into it for a game.
Except they won't do that, because they're players. Not GMs. GMs are a different breed, and there's simply no denying that.
I deny it. Asserting something does not make it true.
|
|
I would think a rational person would realize the statements are not absolutes.The GM is always right sounds like a pretty absolute statement to me.
If they aren't absolutes, does that mean you sometimes CAN have a game without players? Or that sometimes the rules ARE there to be ignored? Why even formulate a rule if the purpose of itself is to negate itself?
How about:
Rule 0: Pff, whatever!
With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Oh my God conflicting absolute statements!
I would think a rational person would realize the statements are not absolutes.The GM is always right sounds like a pretty absolute statement to me.
If they aren't absolutes, does that mean you sometimes CAN have a game without players? Or that sometimes the rules ARE there to be ignored? Why even formulate a rule if the purpose of itself is to negate itself?
How about:
Rule 0: Pff, whatever!With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Oh my God conflicting absolute statements!
Well, the second is not an absolute statement. It's a special condition imparted by a feat. By the rules of the game itself, specific rules trump general rules. If the basic interpretation of the game made general rules trump specific rules, then yes my head would explode.
|
However! I would like to ask the 'no cheating, EVER!' crowd a question...
And so, the GM doesn't say 'Well, crap. You're a -19. Go ahead and start working on a new character while I finish the combat.'
Instead, the GM says 'Well, crap. You just got cut to shreds, in fact the Big Bad cut your left arm off at the elbow, and collapsed your lung. You'll die in two rounds if you don't get magical healing, and even then you'll have the 'exhausted' condition until you're healed to full, and the 'fatigued' condition for two days after that(or until you get a Heal spell), and you'll need a Regenerate to get your arm back.
Ok, I can see the temptation to keep the player in the game.
But do they not have any cohorts? Henchmen? Allied NPCs? Animal Companions?Could you not give him a stat card for an enemy NPC, or a unit of enemy goons, and say "Here you go, see how much mayhem you can cause with them."?
Not only does this keep the player in the game, but it speeds up the intervening encounters, meaning they can get to the neutral ground earlier and raise the old PC/hire a replacement, maybe a session earlier than they would have.
|
|
Well, the second is not an absolute statement. It's a special condition imparted by a feat. By the rules of the game itself, specific rules trump general rules. If the basic interpretation of the game made general rules trump specific rules, then yes my head would explode.
So if you call an absolute statement something else, like 'specific rule', it can contradict another absolute statement without causing head explodey?
Well, the second is not an absolute statement. It's a special condition imparted by a feat. By the rules of the game itself, specific rules trump general rules. If the basic interpretation of the game made general rules trump specific rules, then yes my head would explode.So if you call an absolute statement something else, like 'specific rule', it can contradict another absolute statement without causing head explodey?
No, because the way the rules are organized, all absolute statements have an unwritten clause "unless a more specific rule says otherwise" which, basically, makes them NOT absolute statements.
But yeah, you're just getting nitpicky and looking for some reason to dismiss my logic so I don't think I'll play along, thanks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if you don't use (or are out of) action points? What if you don't have that houserule?
Maybe it's time for a radical thought;
Maybe, just maybe, it's time the PC was dead?
The game is heavily skewed in favour of the PCs; better point-buy, better gear, than anyone else their level, plus they get to be guided by an unseen 'Player', who can devote his entire attention to finding ways to angle an encounter to his benefit.
And can take time out to confer with other 'Players' to coordinate all their actions into perfect synchronicity.
As opposed to an NPC, having to share head-space with a GM, who's trying to juggle a dozen other NPCs and monsters, and who forgets that resistance, this immunity, who might make a poor tactical decision, because there's a player in each ear.
How many safety rails do they need?
How long do you keep the training wheels on?
How long do you leave out the rubber matting in the Safe Play Area?
Maybe it's time the player put his big boy pants on, and sucked up the death of his character, just like the GM has been doing with every single NPC the players have slaughtered on their journey so far?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules allow (and encourage!) the GM to lie to the players ALL THE TIME. Clearly, if you are lying to your players via an NPC, you're still lying to them, just as much as you are when you say the die roll came up '63' instead of '64'.
But the GM is not lying, the NPC is. That is like saying an actor who is playing a murderer in a movie is actually a murderer.
When the GM rolled a 63 and says it was a 64, the GM is actually lying.
Now, I'm not ever going to try to justify all fudging/cheating, especially not some of the egregious crap that is being touted as examples. However! I would like to ask the 'no cheating, EVER!' crowd a question...Your character (by the dice) has just been hit and killed by a multi-crit, near max-damage full attack action, and due to circumstances involved, you won't be getting a resurrection for months (minimum) of in-game time (which will involve 3-4 more sessions of play at minimum). If the character dies, the GM will need to rewrite a large chunk of story because your character had a 'moment of awesome' planned later that really won't work for any other PC.
The GM decides that the consequences to both his work (adventure creation) and player fun (experiencing this moment of awesome) are ill-served by a simple...
Actually my fun would go down as the player in the experience. Why roll any dice if they don't count? Why should I take any feat to improve HP or AC if in the end they don't matter because I won't be killed. At that point I would feel like no matter what I do at this point doesn't matter unless it falls into what you have planned for me.
I would actually prefer my character die, figure a way to bring me back or involve my new character. If your story is so rigid that it can't adjust to unforeseen circumstances, I'd rather you just tell me about it. Maybe save the moment of awesome for another adventure or one shot it later as a "what-if" scenario.
From the point you decide to ignore the dice for or against me, I will pretty much always assume fudging is going on and then the fun drops.
That is how I see it as a player against fudging. (in answer to your question)
I also GM and have had times where I had future story elements for characters and those characters have died or circumstances in game have changed to make what I had planned not work. In those cases I adjusted where I could and most of the time came up with something equally as awesome.
I finally made it to the end of the thread! What a journey. If you haven't read it all, I suggest you do. I'll resist the urge to quote position-swapping and mobile goal posts, but man it is a good read!
After 719 posts I'm a bit surprised no one has played this card, but I'm really pleased that I get to:
What about merit?
All of the 'dice are God' crowd seem to imply that if the GM simply exerts more effort (and/or is better), then the need goes away. This appears to be the sole crux of the argument against it. (Despite the 'rights' issue, which I'll get to in a moment.) To this position, I ask, does the effort to learn, organize, prepare, host, and orchestrate a game not grant ANY privilege at all?
Because that's what the 'editorial control' amounts to, whether it be modifying an encounter before it starts or during and whether you ignore the dice or simply refuse to roll them. Those are equally 'cheating' and are on exactly the same moral level. They're all the right thing to do.
Why?
Because you, the GM, have earned that right. You've poured yourself into this endeavor in order to provide a platform on which others can have a good time. A GM will typically put in a whole order of magnitude more time than the players do, combined.
To give players an equal say, or even equal footing, without requiring equal effort is simply absurd.
Besides, if they don't like it then I'm absolutely certain they could start their own table.
Except they won't do that, because they're players. Not GMs. GMs are a different breed, and there's simply no denying that.
Most might have ignored this but thank you, seriously. Great post.
Speaking as a guy that is currently writing up a full campaign, developing custom loot and monsters, customizing rules, and more I can say I've easily poured probably 100+ hours into it already. We haven't even begun either.
In any case, I agree wholeheartedly.
From the point you decide to ignore the dice for or against me, I will pretty much always assume fudging is going on and then the fun drops.
I think I've found a point of tangible disconnect.
My example did not in ANY way espouse 'ignorign the dice for or against you'.
My example accepted that the dice said 'death!' and the GM exerted editorial control to exchange that for 'maimed!'
There are no rules that say -19 HP for a 16 CON character can be turned into maimed instead of death. In fact, there are very few rules overall that allow the character to have permanent repercussions from an encounter.
If I rolled a full attack, crit three times, rolled damage, and saw it was taking you from 61 to -19 HP and said 'He hits you for 27', then I can see your point. If the character had been knocked down to 3HP but stayed in the fight, and a normal attack would kill him and you said 'he whiffs 3 times', then I can see your point.
But that's not what is happening. Here the GM is fudging, to allow the player to choose: CAKE OR DEATH! Except instead of delicious cake (ignore the hits), the CAKE IS A LIE and comes with a severed arm (preventing the use of shields, two-handed weapons, 1.5x strength bonus, bows and crossbows, will come with all sorts of circumstantial modifiers that make life suck for the player).
Again, strict adherence to 'let the dice fall where they may' will never allow the GM to exert editorial control over his game, outside of fluff descriptions.
|
|
OK, so you invite me in, then tell me I'm not allowed to sit, not allowed to even look at the furniture ("it's MINE! MINE!!!!!!"), and you charge me for using up your valuable oxygen...
So I go home.
Great analogy -- because that's exactly the sort of GMing you seem to be describing. If your precious, valuable homebrew world is too important to you to let other people influence it, then write a novel about it. Don't explicitly invite them into it for a game.
But that's nowhere close to what anyone is describing. I'm not suggesting I invite you over to play, deny you the chance to even have a character, and ask you to pay me money for the privilege.
Or is that, in fact, how you actually define 'fudging'? Because if it is, I can clearly see why you'd hate that...
Except they won't do that, because they're players. Not GMs. GMs are a different breed, and there's simply no denying that.I deny it. Asserting something does not make it true.
Observing something doesn't make it false, either. You're arguing that there's nothing special about a GM. I wonder what world you live in where everyone is an extrovert, has organizational skills, is capable of leading others, etc. Because on my home planet, those types are rare. Most people are followers, not leaders. Most people are players and not GMs.
Even if you're going to deny that there's anything special or valuable about a GM, I'd still like to know why everyone gets ownership over my couch without having contributed to it. If you would, please.
Maybe it's time for a radical thought;Maybe, just maybe, it's time the PC was dead?
The game is heavily skewed in favour of the PCs; better point-buy, better gear, than anyone else their level, plus they get to be guided by an unseen 'Player', who can devote his entire attention to finding ways to angle an encounter to his benefit.
And can take time out to confer with other 'Players' to coordinate all their actions into perfect synchronicity.
As opposed to an NPC, having to share head-space with a GM, who's trying to juggle a dozen other NPCs and monsters, and who forgets that resistance, this immunity, who might make a poor tactical decision, because there's a player in each ear.How many safety rails do they need?
How long do you keep the training wheels on?
How long do you leave out the rubber matting in the Safe Play Area?Maybe it's time the player put his big boy pants on, and sucked up the death of his character, just like the GM has been doing with every single NPC the players have slaughtered on their journey so far?
Maybe it is time the PC is dead. However... MAYBE IT ISN'T. It's not like death is some giant drawback. In the right circumstances, it doesn't even slow down the party, the dead PC can be back up and in fighting trim in time for the next encounter.
Also, if you as a GM are having to 'suck up' the death of your NPCs, I question your motives.
A common trope of RPGs is that the PCs are the heroes, and expected to win, and the NPCs are not heroes, and expected to play their role... as hostages, advisors, foils, comic relief, or villains. And they are designed to die. A GM doesn't play one NPC to see how far it can go, a GM plays 100s of NPCs, and presumably expects them, on occasion to die.
A GM who is 'sucking up' the deaths of his beloved NPCs to the evil, nasty, brutish, CHEATING PCs, with all of their unfair inherent advantages over the poor defenseless NPC should probably stop GMing.
|
|
Again, strict adherence to 'let the dice fall where they may' will never allow the GM to exert editorial control over his game, outside of fluff descriptions.
I agree and I think this is going to eventually be the consensus. Some of the 'anti-fudge' crowd want to limit the discussion to 'dice only' for this exact reason. Because if you start to permit editorial control when it doesn't involve dice, what's the gap between there and involving dice?
I'm reminded of a decision making trick I frequently use:
When faced with a choice between two options, flip a coin. Catch it and slap it against the back of your hand, as you normally would. Before you flip it over, ask yourself, "what do I want it to say, heads or tails?" The answer will sometimes surprise you, but it almost always works.
I see the dice as the same, particularly when rolling against tables. If it comes up 'four trolls', but I see something else on that chart that would work better for the game I'm trying to run, I use that instead.
And maybe you should, too, because your investment authorizes your control over the flow of the game.
|
|
Maybe it is time the PC is dead. However... MAYBE IT ISN'T. It's not like death is some giant drawback. In the right circumstances, it doesn't even slow down the party, the dead PC can be back up and in fighting trim in time for the next encounter.
Everyone skipped over Wrexham3's post, but it was a good one. Good enough, in fact, that I dug it up again...
Only caught up with this discussion last night. It reminds me of a situation four or five years ago, where I was in a long-running campaign. The guy running it was brilliant but definitely a member of the 'non-fudging' fraternity. We happened to be crossing a swollen river and the GM decided that we should all make ride rolls to do so. One incredibly bad roll followed another - someone fell in, a rescue was attempted, then someone else got swept away, and so on and so on, until everyone bar one character drowned. I can vividly remember GM's quiet panic as we started dying one after another, but he just couldn't bring himself to say 'You know what, this is stupid, forget it - you all cross the river,' and then move on to something more meaningful. Contrary to what some have suggested in this thread, I didn't feel particularly empowered by my own death, that I was telling 'my' story rather than the ref's - to me the dice was just getting in the way of common sense. What I was feeling was a very real sense of ten wasted months playing because of the GM's dogmatism. Not my idea of 'fun'.
"Adventuring party killed by river" is almost certainly not the way the game was meant to be played.
Is it?
I agree and I think this is going to eventually be the consensus. Some of the 'anti-fudge' crowd want to limit the discussion to 'dice only' for this exact reason.
Again, strict adherence to 'let the dice fall where they may' will never allow the GM to exert editorial control over his game, outside of fluff descriptions.
Or maybe because that's not the question asked by the OP. Go ahead and start another thread over whether the DM has the right to change things as he sees fit outside of dice rolls. I doubt you'll get very much back and forth because that's sort of the DM's job. Cheating at die rolls is not.
From the point you decide to ignore the dice for or against me, I will pretty much always assume fudging is going on and then the fun drops.I think I've found a point of tangible disconnect.
My example did not in ANY way espouse 'ignorign the dice for or against you'.
My example accepted that the dice said 'death!' and the GM exerted editorial control to exchange that for 'maimed!'
There are no rules that say -19 HP for a 16 CON character can be turned into maimed instead of death. In fact, there are very few rules overall that allow the character to have permanent repercussions from an encounter.
If I rolled a full attack, crit three times, rolled damage, and saw it was taking you from 61 to -19 HP and said 'He hits you for 27', then I can see your point. If the character had been knocked down to 3HP but stayed in the fight, and a normal attack would kill him and you said 'he whiffs 3 times', then I can see your point.
But that's not what is happening. Here the GM is fudging, to allow the player to choose: CAKE OR DEATH! Except instead of delicious cake (ignore the hits), the CAKE IS A LIE and comes with a severed arm (preventing the use of shields, two-handed weapons, 1.5x strength bonus, bows and crossbows, will come with all sorts of circumstantial modifiers that make life suck for the player).
Again, strict adherence to 'let the dice fall where they may' will never allow the GM to exert editorial control over his game, outside of fluff descriptions.
If there is an agreed upon houserule that negative con is not always death but player choice to die or be maimed than that is fine by me, that isn't fudging. If you were doing it for the one player and not for every player that did it, I may have a problem with it as a player at the table.
Sorry I didn't read your example correctly. (My eyes must have crossed by the time I got the end end of all the posts). I believe your example is not fudging but a houserule (even if it was established on the fly) as you clearly accepted the damage you rolled.
Everyone skipped over Wrexham3's post, but it was a good one. Good enough, in fact, that I dug it up again...
Only caught up with this discussion last night. It reminds me of a situation four or five years ago, where I was in a long-running campaign. The guy running it was brilliant but definitely a member of the 'non-fudging' fraternity. We happened to be crossing a swollen river and the GM decided that we should all make ride rolls to do so. One incredibly bad roll followed another - someone fell in, a rescue was attempted, then someone else got swept away, and so on and so on, until everyone bar one character drowned. I can vividly remember GM's quiet panic as we started dying one after another, but he just couldn't bring himself to say 'You know what, this is stupid, forget it - you all cross the river,' and then move on to something more meaningful. Contrary to what some have suggested in this thread, I didn't feel particularly empowered by my own death, that I was telling 'my' story rather than the ref's - to me the dice was just getting in the way of common sense. What I was feeling was a very real sense of ten wasted months playing because of the GM's dogmatism. Not my idea of 'fun'."Adventuring party killed by river" is almost certainly not the way the game was meant to be played.
Is it?
You could always do something where there happened to be people downriver to rescue the party after they passed out. Or have objects in the river to grab onto so you don't drown. Plenty of ways to stick to the dice and still make it a meaningful challenge that doesn't need to be hand waved.
Or maybe because that's not the question asked by the OP. Go ahead and start another thread over whether the DM has the right to change things as he sees fit outside of dice rolls. I doubt you'll get very much back and forth because that's sort of the DM's job. Cheating at die rolls is not.
Hmm. I'll answer the OP, after stating once again: the rules say that cheating at die rolls is the GM's job.
Now:
How often, as a GM, do you just kind of ignore the number on the die you roll and dictate a result based on what you would rather happen? Why did you do it? Or, are you against this sort of thing? Why?
As a GM, I ignore the number rolled incredibly rarely. The last two campaigns were played to completion and never looked at a die that was rolled and said 'I'd rather not have that number, I'll use this one instead.
When I do fudge a die roll, it's because I do not believe that the dice have dictated a fun situation.
I am against fudging as a constant fix. It should be rarely used, and in most cases its use is in response to a fairly severe GM screwup. In rare cases, the art of the fudge can be used with GM Fiat to correct a GM error. However, I also believe that GMs should be encouraged to experiment, learn, and make mistakes. Not every GM mistake should be beholden to dice rolls that say extreme incidents happen.
Not every GM is awesomesauce. The better you are at GMing, the less you should even feel the need to fudge. However, this does not mean that fudging dice isn't a valid tool in the toolbox. It should be used with as much subtlety and restraint as you are able to bring to bear, and only when you believe that the game will be harmed by the lack of fudging.