"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 meaning challenge that doesn't need to be hand waved.
You could. A good GM, with a great imagination, or lots of experience, or well suited to sandbox play can do these things.
However, let's take a 'Party killed by river' with a Gm who has been playing for a few months, it's midway through the night, he's running on pizza grease and mountain dew fumes. There's three more hours of play scheduled, and he never imagined for one instant that this river was going to be anything other than a roll to make to keep people on their toes, and now everyone is dead.
The GM has no illusions about his ability to recover the party. There's no 'what if' section in his module that he's running. It doesn't occur to him to have a deus ex machina save the players. Maybe he does say 'you try to grab a floating branch' but foolishly assigns it a DC and they flub that too...
However, how is all of this not fudging? The dice said 'DEATH BY RIVER!' and you're throwing out all these fiat solutions 'more dice rolls on top of dice rolls and failing that just say they are rescued by people on the river'.
Really? I fail to see how that's any different from saying 'you know what, that didn't happen, you make it across, this is a stupid module for having a river that can kill you.'
The only anti-fudging position that I can see that means anything at all to me is when a player states 'don't lie to me about the dice' and the GM chooses to do so.
Again. The job of the GM is to ensure everyone is having fun. Fudging dice rolls is one of the tools in the GM toolbox o' fun.
A GM can misuse it. Abuse it. Ignore it in favor of other tools. But it's there, and stating that the game shouldn't have that tool is short-sighted. For *some* GMs and *some* groups, tweaking a die roll is the best possible fix for something that is about to not be fun.
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
By contrast, I think a game that limits itself with a doctrinaire approach to any single aspect (like fudging) rather than taking an open, pragmatic one is likely to be a lesser game. It constrains itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, how is all of this not fudging? The dice said 'DEATH BY RIVER!' and you're throwing out all these fiat solutions 'more dice rolls on top of dice rolls and failing that just say they are rescued by people on the river'.
The dice results were not "Death by River!!" it was you fall off the bridge into the river. There are plenty of places you can take it from there.
Really? I fail to see how that's any different from saying 'you know what, that didn't happen, you make it across, this is a stupid module for having a river that can kill you.'
I think there is a huge difference between seeing bad die rolls and then hand waving what happened and coming up with a way to make those die rolls mean something in the game.
|
I think there is a huge difference between seeing bad die rolls and then hand waving what happened and coming up with a way to make those die rolls mean something in the game.
Why bother, though?
The point of the adventure isn't how creatively (or not) anyone at the table deals with a killer river. The point is beyond the river, across it, in the dark castle, or what have you.
So we have options:
A) Ignore the dice, apologize if need be, and move on.
B) Derail the plot due to killer river.
Since fudging is already endorsed by the rules, what exactly is the merit of option 'B', and what, substantively makes it 'better'?
Why bother, though?The point of the adventure isn't how creatively (or not) anyone at the table deals with a killer river. The point is beyond the river, across it, in the dark castle, or what have you.
You mean in the example where the GM decided they needed to make ride rolls? He was getting creative there. It didn't say in the example that the module he ran said to make ride rolls. And if it did, probably has suggestions on what to do if they fail. I guess if you are a GM and what you want the party to do is get to the castle you shouldn't throw up challenges before they get there.
So we have options:A) Ignore the dice, apologize if need be, and move on.
B) Derail the plot due to killer river.
[/spoiler]
Since fudging is already endorsed by the rules, what exactly is the merit of option 'B', and what, substantively makes it 'better'?
You say derail, and I say make a more interesting game. To each his own. If the dice do not make an impact on the game then why roll them.
"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.
How is this different than fudging the die roll that killed the guy in the first place? It's exactly the same as rolling 25 hp damage against someone who has 2 hit points left, and deciding not to kill him.
The dice were rolled, the character failed, he failed again, he took hit point damage from drowning, and died. Either you're anti-fudging, or you're not anti-fudging. But you can't have it both ways. Once you've rolled the dice, you either accept them, or you accept that the story and enjoyment of the players has a higher priority. That doesn't mean you don't kill people off, but it does mean you don't end a story because everyone at the table rolled a 1 at the same time and died by eating poisoned mushrooms (or fell into the rapids and died, one after the other, like a bunch of lemmings).
Why bother, though?The point of the adventure isn't how creatively (or not) anyone at the table deals with a killer river. The point is beyond the river, across it, in the dark castle, or what have you.
You mean in the example where the GM decided they needed to make ride rolls? He was getting creative there. It didn't say in the example that the module he ran said to make ride rolls. And if it did, probably has suggestions on what to do if they fail. I guess if you are a GM and what you want the party to do is get to the castle you shouldn't throw up challenges before they get there.
So.... all plots should just revolve around the PCs getting a job, walking to the bad guy, slaying him, and walking back to town then? No challenges between the PCs and the big bad guy.
So.... all plots should just revolve around the PCs getting a job, walking to the bad guy, slaying him, and walking back to town then? No challenges between the PCs and the big bad guy.
Why bother, though?The point of the adventure isn't how creatively (or not) anyone at the table deals with a killer river. The point is beyond the river, across it, in the dark castle, or what have you.
You mean in the example where the GM decided they needed to make ride rolls? He was getting creative there. It didn't say in the example that the module he ran said to make ride rolls. And if it did, probably has suggestions on what to do if they fail. I guess if you are a GM and what you want the party to do is get to the castle you shouldn't throw up challenges before they get there.
That was his point, not mine.
"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.
How is this different than fudging the die roll that killed the guy in the first place? It's exactly the same as rolling 25 hp damage against someone who has 2 hit points left, and deciding not to kill him.
The dice were rolled, the character failed, he failed again, he took hit point damage from drowning, and died. Either you're anti-fudging, or you're not anti-fudging. But you can't have it both ways. Once you've rolled the dice, you either accept them, or you accept that the story and enjoyment of the players has a higher priority. That doesn't mean you don't kill people off, but it does mean you don't end a story because everyone at the table rolled a 1 at the same time and died by eating poisoned mushrooms (or fell into the rapids and died, one after the other, like a bunch of lemmings).
Its not even an example of fudging rolls as the GM didn't roll anything to begin with. If it was a monster that rolled damage, or a trap, or whatever I totally don't agree with fudging the roll to save them. If I set the bridge crossing to be deadly then I would stick with that don't get me wrong.
He said that it was preferable that the GM just say "Nevermind my bad, lets rewind and say you crossed with no event". I went with examples on how to let the bad rolls make it more interesting.
|
|
You say derail, and I say make a more interesting game. To each his own. If the dice do not make an impact on the game then why roll them.
Okay, so you're late to the thread and haven't read it all yet. That's cool. Please do so and then come back to my post here.
I'll wait...
...
...
...
If the dice do not make an impact on the game then why roll them.
Okay, so now that you've seen your exact position stated and rebutted like a dozen times - now I'll reiterate the answer you've already read:
Because you only change things to make the story better. Sometimes the dice make excellent suggestions that won't get in the way of a well-ran game. Sometimes they pipe up with idiotic things like drowning everyone in the river. When the former happens, you keep the rolls. When the latter happens you ignore the rolls.
Assuming enough effort an skill, the latter situation should be quite rare.
But just because something idiotic was suggested by the dice (or the rules for that matter), it DOESN'T mean you have to listen. Following an idiotic suggestion doesn't make one more noble.
You say derail, and I say make a more interesting game. To each his own. If the dice do not make an impact on the game then why roll them.Okay, so you're late to the thread and haven't read it all yet. That's cool. Please do so and then come back to my post here.
I'll wait...
...
...
...
If the dice do not make an impact on the game then why roll them.Okay, so now that you've seen your exact position stated and rebutted like a dozen times - now I'll reiterate the answer you've already read:
Because you only change things to make the story better. Sometimes the dice make excellent suggestions that won't get in the way of a well-ran game. Sometimes they pipe up with idiotic things like drowning everyone in the river. When the former happens, you keep the rolls. When the latter happens you ignore the rolls.
Assuming enough effort an skill, the latter situation should be quite rare.
But just because something idiotic was suggested by the dice (or the rules for that matter), it DOESN'T mean you have to listen. Following an idiotic suggestion doesn't make one more noble.
I have read the whole thread, thanks anyways. And nothing I said above has been rebutted.
When I GM, I consider the dice as part of the storytelling process of the game. I consider taking the dice rolls as part of a well run game. The example above had a ton of ways to avoid drowning if need be (and also had no GM fudging dice rolls to do it). You can even make the game better for it.
Instead of re-hashing the hundreds of posts before we can leave it at that. I like running a game where the dice helps tell the story and love the challenge to make it all work. Some GMs like to have a story planned out and the dice rolling and character failures are secondary.
If you want it that way its fine, it makes you no more or less noble. Your original point was saying that dying from a river was not the game you wanted to play. Its not really for me either. But if I put a challenge up that will require rolling dice, then I should be prepared for any result including failure or not include that challenge. If I ignore the dice rolls for them to succeed, than it really wasn't a challenge.
1. 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.
2. 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.
1. Everyone in the original West Houston Pathfinder group (myself, houstonderek, Jess Door, Silverhair, and TriOmega Zero) -- with the exception of one other player, Andostre -- was an experienced and highly-competent GM as well as a player. Derek and Silverhair and I used to switch off almost every week when we first started playing together, before I sort of settled into the role by virtue of being the houserules guy. So, what planet are you from? I don't know if Texas really qualifies as planet Eath...
2. Most of my real friendships are a lot more valuable to me than my freaking couch. If someone accidentally spills chocolate on it and stains it, I'll control my annoyance and let it pass, not whip out a shotgun and start screaming about how "it's MY couch that I paid for with MY MONEY and you ain't got no right to be abusin' MYYYYYY PROPERTYYYYYYYY!!!!" Likewise, when I design a campaign world and a game, it's for the explicit purpose of sharing them with the group. It's a gift to everyone who participates, myself included, but not just me. Your relative valuation of things seems to be very much different -- that's your choice, but not one that would seem to endear you to guests.
Once again, I want to reiterate that most of the pro-fudging GMs say that they take the dice rolls the majority of the time. We're saying its when the dice, which aren't intelligent (thus cannot adapt), overpower the story in a way that makes no sense. You keep saying it allows for interesting situations, and I know I've not fudged when it would - however, there are situations in which there is no interesting part, only anti-fun for everyone involved, and no one wants to do it. Yet the dice demand it? Forget that. As the GM, it would be wrong of me to allow it.
Once again, I want to reiterate that most of the pro-fudging GMs say that they take the dice rolls the majority of the time.
Once again, I'd like to reply that the cop who just pulled you over for going 90 mph isn't writing you a ticket for the majority of the time, which you spend driving under the speed limit.
]Once again, I'd like to reply that the cop who just pulled you over for going 90 mph isn't writing you a ticket for the majority of the time, which you spend driving under the speed limit.
See, that's the thing.
My wife is in labor? Speed like hell. My friend is considering suicide? Speed like hell. I have explosive diarrhea? You better believe speed like hell.
These are "out of the ordinary" situations in which I would speed. The same counterparts exist within the game in which I would fudge. You act as if I'm just speeding for the hell of it. I see fudging to be a tool to be used when appropriate. You don't use a screwdriver when you need to hammer a nail. Sure, you might be able to get the job done, but the hammer works much smoother.
|
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.
I have been staying away from this thread due to the vitriol it breeds. It is clear from your post you look to be an experienced DM. I mostly agree with everything you said; accept, "the better you are at GMing, the less you should even feel the need to fudge." First of all, RPGs are not gambling. I too very, very rarely fudge rolls, but every once in a great while, the dice is not being very friendly one way or another. After the BBEG has just rolled its fifth 20 in a row with several mid-level party members dead or dying, it may be time to think real hard that no matter how long you have been a DM, or how good you are at it, that this is NOT VEGAS; and that destroying the party may not be the best thing for your weekly get together with friends. The other option, which I have employed numerous times, is to have the BBEG or monster just start doing dumb things instead of attacking with it full capability. Bottom line, it is the DM's responsibility to keep it fun, and to change the tense of what Marshall Jansen said, "fudging dice is a valid tool in the toolbox." But I would agree fully, it should be done very sparingly, and only in extreme cases that could severely damage the continuity of the gaming group.
Later,
Mazra
My wife is in labor? Speed like hell. My friend is considering suicide? Speed like hell. I have explosive diarrhea? You better believe speed like hell.
Sure, and assuming nothing happens, you might indeed be justified in doing so. But if in your haste you run a guy off the road and his car is totalled as a result? He's going to recommend you poop your pants instead.
Any time there are multiple people involved, it pays to make sure they're all being heard, despite mcbobbo's thinly-veiled claim that most people are barely-sentient zombie sheep and should be treated as such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, and assuming nothing happens, you might indeed be justified in doing so. But if in your haste you run a guy off the road and his car is totalled as a result? He's going to recommend you poop your pants instead.
Any time there are multiple people involved, it pays to make sure they're all being heard, despite mcbobbo's thinly-veiled claim that most people are barely-sentient zombie sheep and should be treated as such.
At what point did running someone off the road become an issue? It was being ticketed for speeding. You are moving the goalposts here.
And any decent people, once they understood that the situation was indeed dire, would stop being angry.
Any time there are multiple people involved, it pays to make sure they're all being heard, despite mcbobbo's thinly-veiled claim that most people are barely-sentient zombie sheep and should be treated as such.
YOU GUYS GET ZOMBIE SHEEP!!! Mr. Fishy wants zombie....what the hell is a sheep?
At what point did running someone off the road become an issue?
When other people became involved -- i.e., your players. Unless you just sit in the basement and GM for yourself, there are one or more other actual, real-world, living people whose preferences (despite protestations to the contrary) should be taken into consideration. And in a decent game, those people are your friends, not strangers you just happen to share a hobby with. Those other people are my only goalposts, and have been for the whole thread. Frequency of fudging isn't the issue. Lying to people who prefer not to be lied to by their friends is the issue.
And again, if they're all explicitly OK with it, then good. No harm, no foul. It's all among friends.
But if not, all of the lame excuses like "well, it's not very often" are just that -- excuses.
And this applies when it comes to fudging dice rolls, or RSVPing for a dinner party, or whatever. Deciding for someone else that it's for their own good to lie to them, without taking their own opinion on the matter into account, is not an act of friendship, nor can I understand how it can be defended as such just because it involves dice.
Again, I have no issue with the people who polled their players and got a consensus for fudging. I have no problem whatsoever with anything they're doing.
On the other hand, the people who don't bother to ask -- and say things like "I know better than they do what's fun for them," or "They're just players -- their opinions don't count -- only the GM is important and almighty" -- those are people for whom I feel a good deal of antipathy. And yes, there are any number of such people, as we've seen in this thread.
P.S. Someone asked me earlier if I'd fudge dice rolls if the players voted yes.
|
I have explicitly told my PCs that I'm just making dice rolling noises behind the screen for my own entertainment. I remind them periodically. Everybody knows the DM will fudge the dice now and then. I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.
They know that I won't kill them capriciously or maliciously. It's also not fun to have a monster kill your character with one lucky hit (where the situation is not your fault). There's still plenty of randomness. I just take out the worst possible results because they make crummy games.
Everybody knows the DM will fudge the dice now and then. I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.
Because not all of DMs do, nor do all players want them to.
I just take out the worst possible results because they make crummy games.
In your opinion, not in everyone's -- some people actually find that they make more memorable, more fun games.
But do keep ignoring those people as if they don't exist and have no rights.
Everybody knows the DM will fudge the dice now and then. I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.Because not all of DMs do, nor do all players want them to.
I just take out the worst possible results because they make crummy games.In your opinion, not in everyone's -- some people actually find that they make more memorable, more fun games. But do keep ignoring those people as if they don't exist and have no rights.
And please, do continue insisting that the only way to run a correct game is if all die rolls are sacred.
Because, after all, those lying, cheating people who don't treat die rolls as sacred should instead follow the Mantra of the Circumstance Bonus instead. It's a very different thing, you see.
At what point did running someone off the road become an issue?When other people became involved -- i.e., your players. Unless you just sit in the basement and GM for yourself, there are one or more other actual, real-world, living people whose preferences (despite protestations to the contrary) should be taken into consideration. And in a decent game, those people are your friends, not strangers you just happen to share a hobby with. Those other people are my only goalposts, and have been for the whole thread. Frequency of fudging isn't the issue. Lying to people who prefer not to be lied to by their friends is the issue.
And again, if they're all explicitly OK with it, then good. No harm, no foul. It's all among friends.
But if not, all of the lame excuses like "well, it's not very often" are just that -- excuses.And this applies when it comes to fudging dice rolls, or RSVPing for a dinner party, or whatever. Deciding for someone else that it's for their own good to lie to them, without taking their own opinion on the matter into account, is not an act of friendship, nor can I understand how it can be defended as such just because it involves dice.
Again, I have no issue with the people who polled their players and got a consensus for fudging. I have no problem whatsoever with anything they're doing.
On the other hand, the people who don't bother to ask -- and say things like "I know better than they do what's fun for them," or "They're just players -- their opinions don't count -- only the GM is important and almighty" -- those are people for whom I feel a good deal of antipathy. And yes, there are any number of such people, as we've seen in this thread.
P.S. Someone asked me earlier if I'd fudge dice rolls if the players voted yes. ** spoiler omitted **...
So your issue is that those of us who are fudging, and have the blessings of our friends and gaming groups, are potentially causing a problem because you are against fudging? If we have the blessing of our friends and gaming groups, then no one else's opinion matters.
Every one of us has said that our groups are fine with it. I don't see why it's a problem anymore. If you, or anyone else, joins one of our groups then make your position known. If the GM breaks the social contract you have set up, then walk.
I have not seen anyone in this thread say that their players' opinions don't count. I have also not seen anyone say that the GM is almighty. There is a difference between the GM's word is Law and the GM is almighty. The GM's word is Law only means that the GM has final say in rulings. I have made rulings that my players don't necessarily like or agree with but they trust that I have a good grasp of the rules and that there are things going on behind the scenes that they will not be privy to.
Frequency of fudging is part of the issue because there are several people making the case that fudging once is the same as fudging every 2 seconds.
Everybody knows the DM will fudge the dice now and then. I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.Because not all of DMs do, nor do all players want them to.
I just take out the worst possible results because they make crummy games.In your opinion, not in everyone's -- some people actually find that they make more memorable, more fun games.
But do keep ignoring those people as if they don't exist and have no rights.
His opinion is gospel for his group. You are placing your own values on his and his group's. If he was gaming for you, then this would be an issue.
And please, do continue insisting that the only way to run a correct game is if all die rolls are sacred.
And again, if they're all explicitly OK with it, then good. No harm, no foul. It's all among friends.
Again, I have no issue with the people who polled their players and got a consensus for fudging. I have no problem whatsoever with anything they're doing.
Apparently reading is not your strong point.
|
|
But do keep ignoring those people as if they don't exist and have no rights.
That seems extreme. We're having fun! I basically have to kick them out at 1:00 a.m. I guess it does depend on the group, though. Some people really like making new characters. :-) I happen to know my players wouldn't be too happy with that.
EDIT: sorry wrong person quoted
Every one of us has said that our groups are fine with it.
Three of you have said so. As many others have said "GMs will fudge, players should suck it up."
His opinion is gospel for his group.
What is he, Jim Jones? Why not ask the group, rather than telling them?
I have not seen anyone in this thread say that their players' opinions don't count. I have also not seen anyone say that the GM is almighty.
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?
Keep in mind, it's not about players' equal footing in terms of how many orcs are encountered. My point is, and always has been, about equal footing in terms of deciding if they want you lying to them -- lying about anything at all, game-related or otherwise. If your friends are NOT on equal footing with you, that's sad to me.
I think most of us, on both side of this issue, who are willing to come to an agreement agree that:
1. Cheating/fudging is in the RAW
2. Some people like it, some don't
3. If the GM is straightforward about it to his players and they are in agreement, then it's ok
4. If the players don't want it, the GM shouldn't do it
5. If the players don't want it and the GM does it anyways, he's in the wrong
6. It needs to be in moderation and dependent upon the desires of the table (I'm sure there are groups out there that want to never die, everything is black and white and there is no grey, i.e. orcs are always evil and you never have to worry about the baby orc orphans - that's their prerogative to play that way)
You and I agree on the whole list. A number of others disagree with #4 and 5, and have said as much, and are covered up for by others who might agree with us -- "No one said that! Well, er, maybe they didn't really say that! Oh, well, they probably didn't really mean that!"
Apparently they're ok with it because he's still their GM after saying that he's open about it. I mean if I was in a group and I hated how the GM was running the game, I wouldn't stick around.His opinion is gospel for his group.What is he Jim Jones? Why not ask the group, rather than telling them?
I agree, and I assume Bob asked his group. On the other hand, greggem, for example, informed us that he told his group -- no discussion, just "suck it, b&+%$es!" If they all stick around, well, either they agree or are masochists, sure.
|
|
His opinion is gospel for his group.What is he, Jim Jones? Why not ask the group, rather than telling them?
Well, I've been playing with two of them for more than 10 years. I'm married to the other one. I think I have a pretty good feel for their opinions on the matter. I guess you can never know for sure, though.
Well, I've been playing with two of them for more than 10 years. I'm married to the other one. I think I have a pretty good feel for their opinions on the matter. I guess you can never know for sure, though.
Good show -- given that background, I'd number you among the "good guys" as well, depending on the answer to this:
Q: A new player joins. Do you:
(a) Make sure he/she is OK with it, too? or
(b) Fudge the rolls on their behalf without telling them, but only if you think you're getting away with it.
Because that's what I've been talking about here. Everyone who answered "A," I'm on you're side. Anyone who answered "B," I think you're not a good friend, and maybe not even a particularly good person -- in or out of a dice game.
I have not seen anyone in this thread say that their players' opinions don't count. I have also not seen anyone say that the GM is almighty.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?
I think mcbobbo was more saying that as the creator and administrator of the world that he and his group plays in, he attributes himself more power than his players. He specifically said that the players that would be a problem were those who demand equal footing. Do you really game with people who say, "Well, even though you're the GM, I can do anything you can do." What is the point in having GMs (or the books dedicated to GMs) if they truly are no different than their party?
Anyway, I'm not going to argue that point too hard, because it isn't mine to defend. Back to my bit.
Frequency is incredibly important. Frequency in anything is central in how it manifests. Let's say you design a crazy encounter where gravity suddenly shuts down and the players are fighting in a zero gee environment. Your players love it and have a blast during the combat. You honestly are telling me that if you keep reusing this idea, that it is the same thing? How often an event happens does very much change how that event is viewed.
You don't see the difference between a friend who occasionally tells you white lies with the interest in protecting your feelings overall and a (would-be) friend that just lies to you constantly and about things that matter? If the mere fact that the lie exists in the first place should NOT overrule everything else entirely. It is a complex social situation and to place all of the importance on any one point is fundamentally flawed in logic.
|
|
Well, I've been playing with two of them for more than 10 years. I'm married to the other one. I think I have a pretty good feel for their opinions on the matter. I guess you can never know for sure, though.Good show -- given that background, I'd number you among the "good guys" as well, depending on the answer to this:
Q: A new player joins. Do you:
(a) Make sure he/she is OK with it, too? or
(b) Fudge the rolls on their behalf without telling them, but only if you think you're getting away with it.Because that's what I've been talking about here.
That actually just happened! I explained that was how we played and he was extremely relieved. I guess I have a reputation. Maybe it's the silhouettes of PCs on my screen. If he had said, "nah, let me die if that's how the dice roll," I'd be fine with that too.
You don't see the difference between a friend who occasionally tells you white lies with the interest in protecting your feelings overall and a (would-be) friend that just lies to you constantly and about things that matter? If the mere fact that the lie exists in the first place should NOT overrule everything else entirely. It is a complex social situation and to place all of the importance on any one point is fundamentally flawed in logic.
That would depend on the person. For some of us, friendship is founded on implicit trust. The proverbial excrement doesn't hit the fan very often, but when it does, I like to know if you can trust someone. If I can't trust them to actually bother to show up when they tell me "I'll definitely be there at 5:00 tomorrow," then how do I trust them with anything more important than that?
You know who my best friends are? The people who tell me when I'm wrong, or am being a dickhead. Not the people who pretend I'm never either of those things.
That actually just happened! I explained that was how we played and he was extremely relieved. I guess I have a reputation. Maybe it's the silhouettes of PCs on my screen. If he had said, "nah, let me die if that's how the dice roll," I'd be fine with that too.
Nice one! Please add yourself to the list of people in this thread that I'm not disagreeing with.
Ugh, the whole "do I look fat in...
And it's still the central issue. Maybe 99 women out of 100 want you to lie to them. Maybe their egos are that fragile. Or maybe it's only 1 out of 100 women, because maybe a lot of them are a lot better-integrated than they're being given credit for. Either way, wouldn't it make sense to find out, rather than just assuming?
He specifically said that the players that would be a problem were those who demand equal footing. Do you really game with people who say, "Well, even though you're the GM, I can do anything you can do." What is the point in having GMs (or the books dedicated to GMs) if they truly are no different than their party?
Keep in mind, it's not about players' equal footing in terms of how many orcs are encountered. My point is, and always has been, about equal footing in terms of deciding if they want you lying to them -- lying about anything at all, game-related or otherwise. If your friends are NOT on equal footing with you, that's sad to me.
If there's a new player and it detects a fudge without a positive pre-game query/response between you and the player it zaps you. It hurts too. Uh, not that I would know.
Yeah, they hand those bracelets out in Cracker Jack boxes, I guess. Like I said at the very beginning, almost everyone thinks they're a master of deception. In reality, almost everyone is childishly obvious when lying.
"Yeah, "honey, when you ask if you look fat in something, do you want me to lie or tell the truth?" That'll get you boxed on the ear.
LOL! My approach (if, say, the red dress in question truly is hideous when draped upon my lovely bride) is something like, "I think you look awesome in the blue one," which is 100% the truth, but doesn't involve me gratuitously insulting her, either.
So ommission is OK?
"Yeah, "honey, when you ask if you look fat in something, do you want me to lie or tell the truth?" That'll get you boxed on the ear.LOL! My approach (if, say, the red dress in question truly is hideous when draped upon my lovely bride) is something like, "I think you look awesome in the blue one," which is 100% the truth, but doesn't involve me gratuitously insulting her, either.
Not childishly obvious in the slightest, I'm sure.