...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?
I'm not currently a GM, but in the past I have occaisionally fudged rolls for one of 2 reasons.
The BBEG who is supposed to be a reoccuring villian for the entire campaign failed 4 easy saving throws in a row (it was even a monk). But then I gave the PC's some extra xp's.
As others have mentioned if the bad guys get stupidly lucky and are wiping out the PC's who are otherwise doing a good job.
|
I have fudged die rolls, but I prefer not to. I prefer to either allow other options or subtly manipulate the combat some how (nerf the hp's of the villains, make blatantly stupid decisions, etc.) if it's a combat that is extremely deadly or to keep the drama fresh. However if I do bend the rules like that I will sometimes throw another monkey wrench into the party's plans somewhere else. As an example,
I just started a Carrion Crown campaign and my players just reached level 2. They came accross an encounter where the monster would use a scorching ray spell. I rolled against the party rogue (who was already damaged and had 6 hp left) and rolled a nat 20. I rolled to confirm and got a nat 19 which well exceeded his touch ac. I rolled a 12 for damage which bumped to 24 after doubling, more then enough to kill the character.
The party was already in bad shape and were retreating to re-plan their strategy so I asked the player to roll a reflex save (if he made it I was going to drop him to -5 hp and give him a permenet scar or something). The player rolls a 1. I couldn't "bend" the rules any farther so I ruled him dead. However I was reminded that the party had recently obtained some scrolls and the rogue was holding them for the time being so I had him roll a fortitude check with the reasoning that the critical hit followed by the fumble means some of his equiptment may be overexposed to the ray and destroyed.
He rolled another 1. After much laughter I ruled that the equipment he was carrying was destroyed.
Conversely I'll also buff the monsters if I feel the characters are having too easy of a time as well. My characters know I do it, but I don't make it blatant and I try to kep it as fair as possible and keep the game and fun rolling along.
|
|
I rolled a 12 for damage which bumped to 24 after doubling, more then enough to kill the character.
Umm.. that's not how crits work.
-James
I know you're supposed to roll the extra damage dice a second time (in this case), but I house ruled to just multiple the base damage to save time. Sorry, should have explained that in the post. My bad.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find I have ethical problems with fudging. If I'm a player and I "fudge" it's called cheating not fudging, and it is rightfully frowned upon. Why would you cheat in a cooperative storytelling game? Aren't your friends there to pick up the slack? Bad dice rolls lead to interesting situations much more often than they lead to TPKs, at least in my experience.
As a DM I don't fudge. Sometimes it sucks for a character to be taken out by that errant crit for maximum damage, but it's much more fun to see how the characters/players react to the situation dramatically changing over one die roll than either a)keeping them safe so they never have a sense of danger or b)fudging to make things seem harder than they are.
Your responsibility as a DM is to provide challenges for players, but if you make a combat encounter (for example) that is far too easy, it's unfair to dial it up mid-combat because the players will feel cheated and you'll never get a real feel of the party's abilities. The two outcomes of cheating, I mean fudging, either in the party's or the opponents' favors, is that sometimes things are a cakewalk, and sometimes things are too hard for you to handle. Those are both valuable lessons.
Anyway, if you dislike the amount of randomness in the dice, or wish to provide either your players or your monsters some sort of resource like action points or hero points and make sure your players know they have them and how they are meant to be used. Even a use like 5 action points to reduce a fatal blow to leaving you at -(con-1) and bleeding takes something that felt grossly unfair into just a further challenge to the party.
Fudging dice rolls is a tool in the GM's shed.
The better you are at the mechanical aspects of GMing, the less often this particular tool needs to be pulled out.
Sometimes, due to inexperience or a misunderstanding of some sort, a GM will create an encounter that is going completely pear-shaped through no fault of the players. maybe you've put in incorporeal creatures without completely understanding their defenses... but a player does know them.
Maybe a spellcaster chose a different loadout and doesn't have the silver bullet.
Maybe you screwed up the CR and there are too many monsters. Who knows?
What you do know is that the PCs are now in over their heads because *you* screwed up. So, one of the monsters flees. Or was hurt already. Or uses horrid tactics. Maybe unexpected aid comes from someone else. Maybe one of the monsters is a turncoat or a spy. When you designed the encounter, this wasn't the case, but now... in the fight, you realize the party needs something more. You change the rules on the fly, saving the party from your screwup. I consider this fudging, just as much as ignoring a dice roll.
Another issue that can occur is 'let the dice fall where they may!' sounds good... until the fighter jumps in, heroically, laying about with his sword on the foes, being worn down to 30 or so HP, and a monster pounces him and crits 3 times, confirming all of them, then proceeds to roll max damage on all three attacks and the dice say 'take 66 damage, have a nice day'.
Maybe you don't let all three crit. Maybe you cut the damage to average. Or maybe you let the dice fall, knowing that the fighter can be raised. It all depends on the party and the situation. Letting the dice fall where they may sounds good in theory, in a world where things tend to average out. But the harsh reality is that some rolls are more important than others, and it doesn't always help the game to be beholden to random number generators.
I'm a strong believer that as a GM, you should have the ability to make a mistake and NOT punish the party for you making it. Hence, fudging.
For the sake of continuity I will. PC's and players with a vested intrest in the game makes it fun, having some new character saunter in with little or no conection to what is happening can suck the fun out of the game. That being said, I will certainly not pull punches if the group goes out of their way to be stupid.
I had to last night. Low level characters, lots of mobs, the cleric was dropped to zero at one point and was able to be saved. Two rounds later he was hit with two (possible)crits and a third regular hit just because the dice said so. I ignored those rolls.
I believe that EVERYBODY fudges.
That is not true. I got into a debate with a hardcore nonfudger on this issue a while back. I used to not fudge at all. I am sure there are some who follow my former stance.
First battle of the night and you die, then it sucks to be you. Hope you have a backup character. If not the GM keeps extras--->My first 3.5 GM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tom's definition of fudging includes editing encounters before running them, wraith. I think his definition is broad enough to make his belief pretty reasonable.
Also, what evidence do you have that he doesn't believe that, hmm? I think you mean 'your belief is mistaken'. :P
Tom's definition of fudging includes editing encounters before running them, wraith. I think his definition is broad enough to make his belief pretty reasonable.
Also, what evidence do you have that he doesn't believe that, hmm? I think you mean 'your belief is mistaken'. :P
I guess I should have read his entire post. :) Oops.
OK maybe I am too soft-hearted, but I never want to kill a PC. My goal is to challenge them, and that means bringing them close to death sometimes - without actually dying.
Now the sad truth is that most of the time I cannot fudge to save a PC's life without it being obvious, so in those cases I let the chips fall where they may. Especially If I rolled in front of everyone for dramatic effect. The players have to know they can die for the fights to mean anything.
But in the few instances where I can trim some of the damage off, or turn a hit into a miss - I will do so. Some players handle death better than others, but I don't think anyone in my group enjoys dying.
And the idea that we would play some pre-generated PC the GM had on hand is totally alien to us. We put a lot of work into our characters from the very beginning, so losing one permanently is no small thing.
I think it's important to remember to -never- let your players on if you fudge a roll. If they smell even a hint of you changing your mind, you need to roll with it.
The reason to this is because, even if they accept it, they will start thinking that the DM won't let anything bad happen to them. This sort of happened in the beginning of one of our campaigns, where we were to test ourselves against a powerful ghost wizard. The DM made the encounter too hard, and when we were on the brink of losing we noticed we suddenly started doing a LOT better, why whatever could be the reason! The wizard stopped after a while when we called him out on it, and explained to us we fought valiantly and he doesn't find us wanting, gave us the magic item, and disappeared.
This was a poor decision by the DM, as it undermined his entire campaign, and gave us the impression that nothing we did really mattered, as the gameworld wasn't very dangerous. It proved to be just that, and I played an extremely reckless character that never died.
Subtle fudging should mostly be used if you(the DM) have made a mistake, like introducing too powerful monsters. I've secretly upped monsters stats when they've been made too weak, to make the fights a little bit more interesting.
|
|
I'm strictly anti-fudging. A lot of people on this thread know that about me, so I'll leave most of the discussion out of it other than to briefly explain why, then bow out of the discussion.
As a player: Fudging the dice leads to a lack of suspense. If we're going to TPK, I want to TPK. I'm not so attached to my character that I can't create a new one. Also, dying heroic deaths is fun, as long as you're not doing it in the world where we keep our dice. It's on me as a player to make my character's death memorable, not on the GM.
As a GM: 'Tis simplest in life to tell the truth. You have to keep track of less lies that way. Also, see all the reasons why I hate it as a player.
I'm strictly anti-fudging. A lot of people on this thread know that about me, so I'll leave most of the discussion out of it other than to briefly explain why, then bow out of the discussion.
As a player: Fudging the dice leads to a lack of suspense. If we're going to TPK, I want to TPK. I'm not so attached to my character that I can't create a new one. Also, dying heroic deaths is fun, as long as you're not doing it in the world where we keep our dice. It's on me as a player to make my character's death memorable, not on the GM.
As a GM: 'Tis simplest in life to tell the truth. You have to keep track of less lies that way. Also, see all the reasons why I hate it as a player.
I understand your position, and I respect your integrity as a player and a DM. But when I TPK as a DM, I feel like a failure.
As GM I have found that I have tools besides fudging. Let me first say that I have been known to fudge. Well my players didn't know, but I have done it. It's usually at the beginning of their careers. It's not fun to die to bad luck and since I'm probably going to see Ranger 2.0 I might as well fudge in the beginning.
I also fudge when it will make things more interesting. We had a character die and he was reincarnated. I didn't like the result so I changed it to GM choice and made him a dhampir. He was interested in the race anyway and it added to the fun. He has since wished back to a drow.
Instead of fudging though, what I do now is make on the fly adjustments. If the encounter is too easy, then I either roll to see if there is a wandering encounter or bring in the encounter from next door depending on circumstances.
If the encounter is too hard, I may also roll for a random encounter (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) or I may have some of the enemy leave for whatever roleplaying reason is appropriate. Those enemies may be encountered again.
I have found that my players can get rather creative and I would rather they beat the encounter on their own. If things are dire and they can't come up with solutions, I might have them make some knowledge checks, Intelligence or Wisdom checks, or have an NPC make a suggestion to help out.
Fudging has its place but I think the adventures can suffer if misused.
Basically you're cheating and saying don't get caught.
And you realize what happens to the campaign should you get caught.
So why on earth would you wish to cheat? It's obviously not for your players as you've outlined above them knowing that you're willing to cheat destroys the game for them.
So you're cheating for yourself, for something that you want. And it should be viewed the same as if you were a player and elected to do the same.
-James
First of all, you're mixing up fudging and cheating. The DM is already the sole arbiter of the rules, and is(hopefully) not playing to win. How do you cheat at something you already control all the rules for, and is out to create an enjoyable experience rather than to win? To fudge is to change an outcome something more enjoyable.
You draw a poor conclusion though. The players will be unhappy if they think you're leading them on and their rolls mean nothing, the players will also be unhappy if you make too hard encounters or a streak of bad luck lead to the campaigns premature end. The players(mine at least) do not enjoy such equally much as they do not enjoy obvious fudging. So if I fudge, I do it for the enjoyment of everyone, not for my own sake. But I also know when a situation does not call for you to fudge, because doing so would make the game even less enjoyable. There are other ways for a DM to correct his mistakes, such as retroactively changing a stat for a monster. You use what tools are at your disposal to make the game an enjoyable experience.
Aside from that yes you're correct, don't get caught with the ace up your sleeve, no matter how good your intentions are. Sometimes it's better to roll with the punches, it all depends on the situation.
If the DM wants something to happen a certain way she/he doesn't have to roll.
|
Cheating is doing something against the social contract between the players that is not necessarily within the bounds of the game.
Fudging is doing something within the social contract between the players, but not necessarily within the bounds of the game..
For example, the dm changing a roll behind the screen is cheating to you, because you demand that your dm not do so.
For me, my players are well aware that I will at time fudge rolls. They don't know when, or where, but they all agree with me that at times it is a valid use of the gm toolbox. So in this case, it would be impossible to cheat since the players have already given their tacit agreement.
Some people think that calling a creature a lizardfolk and using the stats from an orc is cheating. My group doesn't. The definition of cheating in d&d often depends on the rules laid down before the game even starts.
However, I would venture the opinion that the default is that the gm can manipulate rolls at he wants, since it's covered in rule zero. If you don't trust your dm to use rule 0, then don't play with him :p
games where the dice are "interpreted" and the actual roll isn't very important.Could you provide a few examples I could look up to explain this?
Fiasco is one example. Initial setup of a game, the dice have "concrete" effects. You roll a die, look on the table and it tells you the result. At the end of the session, you roll the dice you accumulate through play and then interpret the results, but it's completely dependent on your interpretation.
PDQ is another system that is very open to interpretation. Especially in Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies, players are given a lot of authority to narrate the results of their dice. For example, a player pleading to the king for aid fails the roll horribly, he could interpret the result in a lot of ways:
1) The character does something that causes a failure (they insult the king)
2) Someone else interferes (an old rival whispers a lie in the kings ear)
3) The king responds favorably, but is unable to offer assistance (just not enough troops to send)
4) Something interrupts the audience (a crossbow bolt hits the king in the throat)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, I'll have to look those up.
I disagree. I think people like to put this nice face on it, but it really is cheating. It's saying publicly 'oh no I don't do this' but secretly you do.
What do you call what I do then? You know, where I tell my players 'I will sometimes ignore dice results to avoid situations I think will be less fun. Is this a problem?'
Because I'm totally open about my fudging. Does that make it not cheating?
I do not tell my players that I fudge, but we've all(my group) had our try at DMing for each other, we can all read between the lines and know that it can happen. Just never when, or where. They trust me enough that I don't fudge in order to make a situation unfavourable or less fun for them, which I never do.
But ultimately, DMing is a game of smoke and mirrors. How you lead on the adventure is up to you. You may create complex dungeons to let your players solve them in any way they wish, after all diversity is fun. But you may already know how the campaign will end, or that the players will eventually end up in this dungeon no matter what road they take - reflavouring it to fit in of course, or perhaps delaying it until later. Or you simply create a good enough reason for them to go there, something you know their characters won't say no to. All the cards are in your corner.
And this is all fine for most players, they want to believe that they are in control but in the end you set all the DCs, you decide where all the roads will end up, how all encounters will be designed, what people they will meet, what motivations they will be given and how the story will proceed and ultimately end. You may go with the flow as much as you can and try and pre-decide as little as possible, but there are always things you will decide secretly that the players will have no power over, and you will maintain the illusion that it was through their actions this came to pass.
I'm not saying you have to decide that the players will fail a roll or action before they even perform it, far from it. I enjoy leaving things up to chance as a DM as well, even important story elements such as a spy trying to infiltrate their group, and the only thing that stands between that is a few sense motive checks. But there comes times when you actually do decide something, perhaps you think the action they are trying to perform is too hard? Or you simply wish something to happen, because it would make the game more fun.
I never admit any of this to my players. I never tell them if I fudge a roll, I never tell them if a certain encounter with assassins would have happened if they went left instead of right, and I will be evasive or even lie to maintain that illusion. Why? Because ultimately, it makes the game more enjoyable for everyone.
|
|
The thing is most groups of players don't sign up for storytime
Subjective AND wouldn't a boardgame be just as good then. Don't want that pesky story thread ruining a great nights metagaming and dice rolling.
We are whole planes of existence apart on how we view a roleplaying game James. We have had this dance before and came to this conclusion, how about we sit this one out?
It's all about balance and my players, new and old, trust me to act in the best interest of the game as a whole. What that means is as interpreted by the DM. Why we still need them over a computer.
S.
|
|
I'm terrible at bluffing. I've used a GM screen and hid my rolls, but it's always obvious if I fudge a roll. I've also grown to feel that a GM screen gets in the way. I can't read the players as well or see the whole table.
So by getting rid of the screen I 99% of the time make my rolls out in the open. But I will fudge a roll on a rare occasion. I just make sure it is obvious to the players who pay attention to that sort of thing.
Usually when I fudge a roll it is to reduce the indicated damage to the PC of a young player so they won't be on the verge of death or a low level PC that would die otherwise when the player had done everything right.
If it is Pathfinder Society play with serious gamers, the dice fall where they will.
|
|
I'm terrible at bluffing. I've used a GM screen and hid my rolls, but it's always obvious if I fudge a roll. I've also grown to feel that a GM screen gets in the way. I can't read the players as well or see the whole table.
So by getting rid of the screen I 99% of the time make my rolls out in the open. But I will fudge a roll on a rare occasion. I just make sure it is obvious to the players who pay attention to that sort of thing.
Usually when I fudge a roll it is to reduce the indicated damage to the PC of a young player so they won't be on the verge of death or a low level PC that would die otherwise when the player had done everything right.
If it is Pathfinder Society play with serious gamers, the dice fall where they will.
I rarely fudge dice, I like to see the fear on the PCs face as a 20 comes up. Another type of fudge, one I do employ, is adjusting the hp or AC of the monsters to micro-manage the encounter. Gaging if the PCs are having fun or if the fight has become stale. How do you feel about that sort of fudging?
S.
|
|
I never adjust AC arbitrarily. I always make sure to use the actual rules for that. (Power Attack, Combat Expertise, total defense, class abilities)
Sometimes I will mark down the totals for average HP rolls and max HP rolls for the monster, and decide based on the encounter which total to use. This is helpful for when a monster turns out to be overpowering the party and keeps me from being pegged to a certain total, and allows for variation between enemies. Nothing more frustrating than seeing a PC leave the enemy with 1 hit point left during a dull drag of a fight.
|
|
Third, what would be wrong with a player saying the same back to you? Would you have a problem with them saying the same? Why or why not? Would you call their actions 'cheating' or simply 'fudging' when they decide that either rolling a crit in round 1 would lessen everyone's fun?
Fourth, why hide it at all? Instead of fudging you simply say 'he's going to save against that spell cause it's too early for him to be defeated' etc? Would that lessen the game? Assuming yes, does needing to have to rely upon deception sit well with you or does it give warning signs that this isn't really worth the price paid?
-James
If the player says that back to me, I'd reply 'right on, we're going diceless!'
If they complain that they want to play D&D, then I say 'alright, then we will set limits. Every time you fudge to get an advantage, I can fudge for the bad guys to get an advantage. Everytime you fudge to give the bad guys a break, I can fudge to give your characters a break.'
Why hide it? For the same reason I hide who the bad guys are. It's one thing to know you're going to win. It's another thing to know exactly how you're going to win.
I don't hide the fact that I fudge, I just hide when it happens. And no, it doesn't bother me. In fact, it doesn't feel like a price in the slightest.
One note, I never fudge to have an enemy survive. If an NPCs time is up, it's up. I'll just find another one.
|
|
I understand both sides of the argument. However I usually choose to fudge because I feel that being a DM is like conducting aconcert then it is refing a sporting event. My players tend to be more into roleplaying and are a creative lot that rarely (if ever) stick to the adventures that are laid out (sometimes I think I have skill focus[Gamer wrangling]) so I often have to ad hoc rolls, encounters, and npcs.
When I fudge anthing (dice roll, treasure, etc.)Ido it to make sure the story continues and is still fun. I have no problems killing a character and have been the perpertrator of more then one TPK, but sometimes it's better NOT to kill a character. I also don't do it every game either so it's not so much a "safety net" as it is a "deus ex" option.
The gm is there to portray the npcs,monsters,gods,appetizers, and whatever else of the world which is normally a fantasy world to boot. It's not out of the realm of reasonable belief to think that maybe the reason that what looked like a deadly hit was deflected by deific intervention. As long as it's not so prevalent to make it so the characters expect it almost like an extra defense or seperate pool of hitpoints.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the DM wants something to happen a certain way she/he doesn't have to roll.
This is precisely the mindset I want to get rid of. When it comes to storyline, then sure, the DM controls NPCs, etc. When it comes to combat and the dm says "rocks fall you die" it's as bad as saying "he hits you" when you roll a natural 1. The dice are there for a reason, to provide a equalizing factor between a challenge and a lesser or greater ability, and provide a deciding factor in an even challenge. The moment you take that away it unbalances the game, one way or another.
When the players do it, we call it cheating. When DMs do it we call it fudging? It's the same thing. The rules are there to be abided by, not ignored. Now the DM always has tools in his belt to fix the bad scenarios that come up when dice roll bad, but you need to be PROACTIVE about it not REACTIVE. In other words set up house rules or come to an understanding with your players before play begins what you will do in such a situation.
Fudging is ok if you as a DM has made a mistake, like placing higher level monsters/npc/whatever, and do not wish to cause a party wipe...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Death to the weak, Fudge for the mighty.
Death to the weak, Fudge for the mighty.
All hail mr. Fishy XD
Thanks, I'll have to look those up.
I disagree. I think people like to put this nice face on it, but it really is cheating. It's saying publicly 'oh no I don't do this' but secretly you do.
What do you call what I do then? You know, where I tell my players 'I will sometimes ignore dice results to avoid situations I think will be less fun. Is this a problem?'
Because I'm totally open about my fudging. Does that make it not cheating?
Another game I like involves zero dice rolls from the GM, Apocalypse World (and it's recent variant, Dungeon World). Players get to roll the dice, on a success, they get what they want, on a moderate success, there is a drawback to their success or its only partial. On a failure, the GM has a list of "moves" they can apply to the player(s) or story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Death to the weak, Fudge for the mighty.All hail mr. Fishy XD
Mr. Fishy almost did a "Cereal Guy".
|
|
When the players do it, we call it cheating. When DMs do it we call it fudging? It's the same thing.
Exactly.
However, the key difference is that GMs can legally cheat while players do not have the same privilege. The Core Rulebook itself states (pg. 402) that GMs shouldn't feel bound by the dice rolls and that is within their rights to cheat as they see fit. A GM's word is law. Period.
Now, like others have stated the GM needs to carefully read their table when making that call. If they abuse that privilege most likely the players won't be having much fun which defeats the whole purpose of playing the game.
|
|
Fudging does NOT have to mean ignore/lie about a dice roll. The PC's miss a search roll and the very cool / important clue / item is missed. You move it to another room and drop the search DC, or have it in an obvious place so they find it latter. That IS fudging. Is that a game breaking, call the police the GM is lying, thing to do?
S.
|
|
Gotta admit, I'm not all that great on the search checks. My party tends to just take 20 on every room once they know it is clear. So we don't bother much with rolling, they say 'we search' and I tell them what they find.
Evil lying GM*! (Note this predicates on the idea the players have the time to 'take 20'. If true then you aren't an evil lying GM, you can relax.)
S.
*Ignoring of course the rule someone pointed out on page 402 - I'm just off to rip that from my book. I'm sure Jason meant to get around to adding an errata for this 'rule'. Gives the GM WAY to much power.
|
|
My wife pointed out my 'tell' after a game, which was having a pause after rolling the dice. Been working on that since.
Sometimes it can be very obvious. I have a player running an eladrin (Savage Species progression) who was the only character without Evasion caught in a dragon's breath. I ended up deciding to pull the old 'yeah, you're unconscious. Really unconscious.' line due to his character being the healer and outsiders inability to be raised. We had the party burn a number of CLW charges from a wand as justification and moved on.
The other side of the coin was an ambush by drow while they were traveling the Underdark. Most of the guys were taken care of handily. It was the drow fighter with serious AC that was the big problem. He and the party fighter went at it for a few rounds, which quickly showed that the PC was outmatched. I let the dice fall where they may, and the PC fighter fell before the warlock could fell the drow.
So I guess the difference between fudging for me is 'could the players have done anything about the death before it happened?'
Clerics get divine intervention when there gods are well pleased in my games.
Suggested is something equivalent to one Spell level higher then they can cast...So, 'as your hit, you are knocked unconsess, the others see somthing that is like the image of your god taking the blunt of the force standing in your place, then dissapear in that second.'
But, that happens once per a compain type thing.
I'm seeing a lot of comments along the lines of "it's OK if they don't know you're doing it." That might work until someone like me joins the gaming group -- within a few sessions, I'll ALWAYS know when you're fudging. Most people think they have a million ranks in Bluff, and yet almost everyone is childishly transparent when they're lying.*
I don't want to be that guy. When I'm the DM, I roll in the open, and don't fudge the dice. But...
"Oh noes! I can haz TPK!"
Well, yes, that can happen, and it's not automatically wrongbadfun. I use hero points, which puts clear limits on fudging, and puts more narrative control into the players' hands, and serves to mitigate the TPK by random encounter somewhat. But if they blow through all their hero points and still get in over their heads? I let 'em die. And I can attest that the cries of "TPKs are never fun!" are wildly incorrect. Some of the most exciting and memorable game sessions I've ever played in -- on either side of the DM screen -- have involved a TPK.
--
* One of the reasons I wouldn't mind playing with TOZ as DM -- at least he's man enough to admit it, and not treat the players like drooling idiots.
|
|
* One of the reasons I wouldn't mind playing with TOZ as DM -- at least he's man enough to admit it, and not treat the players like drooling idiots.
I don't have to. They do a fine job on their own. :P
I don't have to. They do a fine job on their own. :P
That's one of those scenarios where I would've let them die.