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.
I don't think you'd automatically know if I was fudging. In 30+ years no one has known when I fudge. I rarely fudge but when I do there is a good reason. I think GMs who constantly fudge need to check their GMing skills. They are doing something wrong with adventure design if they need to do it often. Once or twice in a campaign, not a big deal. In the game I'm running, I have fudged twice in two years. One was during a reincarnation (I didn't like the troglodyte option I rolled so I simply chose a race the player was eyeing for the previous few months). The other was to change the encounter a bit because sometimes the published adventure doesn't take into account proper CRs.
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.
This is where opinions differ. I do not believe the GM's word is law, it's just the GM's word. The rules are there for a reason and the moment you circumvent the rules you might as well be playing story time.
Maybe I've just had horrible GMs over the years, well okay just one, but I would always get that crap from him. He told me that constructs are immune to all magic, and I was like "wut?". He would change the way the world worked on a whim to screw the players if he thought they were having too easy a time of it. Every combat was brutally difficult and would incapacitate half the party and then somehow they'd take JUST ENOUGH damage from that last swing the fighter does before he goes down that they all crumble to dust. Why bother?
GM's word is not law, he is a referee, a liaison between the players and their characters/the game world. He is a participant just as much as the players in the shared narrative. If the players say "we don't think it's fair you sent an APL+5 CR monster at us in our sleep" it's the GM's job to to reason with the players not to say "shut up and take your lumps".
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'.
It wasn't jumping in heroically unless there was risk. The fighter dies, because invulnerability makes the heroism of his choice utterly meaningless.
I am honestly not trying to make trouble here. But I have a question for those of you in the absolutely no fudging camp.
Have you been burned by a GM (or GM's) in the past?
Has a GM fudged/cheated in a way that you found troubling? I ask because the passion of your arguments seem to imply that you have personal issues with fudging.
Basically the purpose of fudging is so that the game is not less fun because of how the dice fall. So to hear people say that TPK's are fun, or that they would rather have a TPK than have the GM fudge seems odd to me.
I believe in honesty of course, but these seem like extreme views to me.
|
I recall such a time.
The DM was running us against a monster in the style of a horror movie. The party met it in a dream sequence, in which it stalked the group and picked off NPCs one by one, until only PCs were left, and it killed off everyone before they awoke in their beds. A kind of Alien/Relic thing that could go incorporeal and sucked out brains.
Later on, the party found it in the dungeon, with a NPC wizard studying it. Long story short, we ran, it got free, chase begins.
It all finally came to a head at the last session before the group was going to break up. Trying to save the one last NPC, all but the party barbarian make the last stand against it, while the barbarian carries the NPC out. Unfortunately, the door would not open.
It became obvious over the next few rounds that the DM wanted the barbarian to get the final blow on the creature as part of a side plot. The incorporeality and other abilities could be handwaved as it being a much higher CR, but this was blatant 'it won't die until the guy I want to kill it hits it'.
Kinda of cheapened the climax for me.
So to hear people say that TPK's are fun, or that they would rather have a TPK than have the GM fudge seems odd to me.
TPKs are generally reasonably easy for the players to avoid. You retreat or surrender. Or your death-before-dishonor character gets to go out with a bang, proving it wasn't just talk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Peoples opinions on fudging may have to do with their preferred style of DMing, or which edition of the game they started with.
Older editions of Dungeons & Dragons required the DM to make a lot of rulings, as the rules weren't as complete as more recent editions. Since the DM was already making many decisions, fudging a roll wasn't that different and was probably more acceptable. DMs had more power in the game.
With more recent editions, however, the rules are fairly complete, and many see the DMs job as only being there to referee and run the NPCs. The current rules editions moved the power from the DM to a codified set of rules (A mistake in my opinion), so a DM changing things on the fly is not acceptable.
(Yeah, there are old-school gamers who dislike fudging, just as there are gamers who started with the recent versions who find it acceptable. But what I said above could be the case for a lot of people.)
|
GM's word is not law, he is a referee, a liaison between the players and their characters/the game world.
I totally respect where you are coming from and your preferred style of play. However, the Core Rulebook explicitly states "The GM's word is law".
Ironically, the insistence that that GM's must stick to rules/dice results no matter what is in fact a houserule or fiat of the rules in and of itself. So, refusing to allowing cheating is in effect breaking the rules. Funny, huh?
I totally respect where you are coming from and your preferred style of play. However, the Core Rulebook explicitly states "The GM's word is law".
Specifically, page 396, left column, under Judge:
The Game Master must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one, are his tools, but his word is law. He must not antagonize the players or work to impede their ability to enjoy the game, yet neither should he favor or coddle them. He should be impartial, fair, and consistent in his administration of the rules.
A GM's word is law. Period.
A GM's tenure ends as soon as the players agree to go somewhere else, so Mr. "I AM THE LAW!" can do it all he wants, as long as he doesn't mind playing by (with?) himself.
On a different note, I'm starting to believe that anytime someone ends follows a statement with the sentence, "Period.", it's because he or she doesn't want to have to go through the trouble to use things like logic or persuasion, and thinks everyone will somehow instantly turn off all critical faculties and blindly accept whatever is being said. Which they don't. So why not save seven characters and a space?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A GM's word is law. Period.A GM's tenure ends as soon as the players agree to go somewhere else, so Mr. "I AM THE LAW!" can do it all he wants, as long as he doesn't mind playing by (with?) himself.
On a different note, I'm starting to believe that anytime someone ends follows a statement with the sentence, "Period.", it's because he or she doesn't want to have to go through the trouble to use things like logic or persuasion, and thinks everyone will somehow instantly turn off all critical faculties and blindly accept whatever is being said. Which they don't. So why not save seven characters and a space?
I couldn't agree more. Period.
|
|
A GM's word is law. Period.A GM's tenure ends as soon as the players agree to go somewhere else, so Mr. "I AM THE LAW!" can do it all he wants, as long as he doesn't mind playing by (with?) himself.
Exactly. Which is why I said the GM needs to read the table and not abuse their privilege.
On a different note, I'm starting to believe that anytime someone ends follows a statement with the sentence, "Period.", it's because he or she doesn't want to have to go through the trouble to use things like logic or persuasion, and thinks everyone will somehow instantly turn off all critical faculties and blindly accept whatever is being said. Which they don't. So why not save seven characters and a space?
So...why not just refute their argument and save a whole paragraph? Question mark.
|
The rules allow the dm to do anything at any time for any reason. If he changes the dice roll, it's totally within his purview to do so.
A gm who uses these powers incorrectly is very noticable. A gm who uses these power in the right way will probably never draw the attention of the players for *fudging* or heavy-dm-handedness.
The DM is god position isn't a position at all, but the de facto method the game was designed to be run in. Just like everywhere else, there are people with issues who become dms, and try to manipulate the party into doing things they don't want to do. That's a personal issue, not a systematic one, and is no more or less likely than in any other place where one human interacts with another one.
Interestingly, it's less effective than meeting the same person in a work environment, since with a game, you can walk out with minor consequences if they become too irritating. Meanwhile, if you leave your job, you suffer the consequences of not having a job. :p
The best gms know when to listen to the table, and will use their gm-god powers to transform most potential errors into storyline. But even so, they're still using the dm-as-god point of view. It's impossible to dm without it, since you can't create plot, npcs, storyline, if you don't allow yourself those powers.
Oh, yeah. Period. :p
Actually, I think the real problem people have isn't with gm-as-god so much as an individual person being a dick, and their own inability to stand up to that person.
Having ultimate powers in a game doesn't mean you won't suffer real-world antagonism if you treat your friends poorly. However, it doesn't make much sense to me to point at a game rule and then argue backward to a poor dm. If that person is a bad gamer, then they'll be a bad gamer no matter the ruleset they're using.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am honestly not trying to make trouble here. But I have a question for those of you in the absolutely no fudging camp.
Have you been burned by a GM (or GM's) in the past?
Has a GM fudged/cheated in a way that you found troubling? I ask because the passion of your arguments seem to imply that you have personal issues with fudging.
Basically the purpose of fudging is so that the game is not less fun because of how the dice fall. So to hear people say that TPK's are fun, or that they would rather have a TPK than have the GM fudge seems odd to me.
I believe in honesty of course, but these seem like extreme views to me.
I'm opposed to fudging. I'm in favor of mechanics that can be used to save the "story" from bad dice. Go back to page 1 and read my post on Nacho Cheese points. Instead of ignoring the dice "because you want to", have a limited resource that allows you to ignore the dice because of a specific rule. Each character gets a "get out of jail free" point (or 2), if they spend them wisely and always keep one in reserve, they probably won't ever die. If they get reckless, spend the points willy nilly, they're more likely to die.
The rules allow the dm to do anything at any time for any reason. If he changes the dice roll, it's totally within his purview to do so.
A gm who uses these powers incorrectly is very noticable. A gm who uses these power in the right way will probably never draw the attention of the players for *fudging* or heavy-dm-handedness.
The DM is god position isn't a position at all, but the de facto method the game was designed to be run in. Just like everywhere else, there are people with issues who become dms, and try to manipulate the party into doing things they don't want to do. That's a personal issue, not a systematic one, and is no more or less likely than in any other place where one human interacts with another one.
Interestingly, it's less effective than meeting the same person in a work environment, since with a game, you can walk out with minor consequences if they become too irritating. Meanwhile, if you leave your job, you suffer the consequences of not having a job. :p
The best gms know when to listen to the table, and will use their gm-god powers to transform most potential errors into storyline. But even so, they're still using the dm-as-god point of view. It's impossible to dm without it, since you can't create plot, npcs, storyline, if you don't allow yourself those powers.
Oh, yeah. Period. :p
Actually, I think the real problem people have isn't with gm-as-god so much as an individual person being a dick, and their own inability to stand up to that person.
Having ultimate powers in a game doesn't mean you won't suffer real-world antagonism if you treat your friends poorly. However, it doesn't make much sense to me to point at a game rule and then argue backward to a poor dm. If that person is a bad gamer, then they'll be a bad gamer no matter the ruleset they're using.
I said it before... if the rules create bad stories/situations that you have to ignore them, why are you using the rules at all? Why not get better rules or add a rule that prevents those problems?
I am honestly not trying to make trouble here. But I have a question for those of you in the absolutely no fudging camp.
Have you been burned by a GM (or GM's) in the past?
Has a GM fudged/cheated in a way that you found troubling? I ask because the passion of your arguments seem to imply that you have personal issues with fudging.
Basically the purpose of fudging is so that the game is not less fun because of how the dice fall. So to hear people say that TPK's are fun, or that they would rather have a TPK than have the GM fudge seems odd to me.
I believe in honesty of course, but these seem like extreme views to me.
Many love when the results are tired to how dice fall, and removing that makes them feel cheated. Without PC death, or even TPK out comes are a given - PCs will win. Then many players just aren't having fun, the game feels like a shame. Why spend time coming up with a back story, a build, driving here, and rolling dice when GMs just pick what's next? What's the point?
Fudge a roll and I can't trust your rolls ever. Did the monster miss because my clever idea to up my AC or GM's whim? No victory is really because of team work, it's because eventually we'll win. I might stay in a game this happens in BUT it's always more fun, for me, without the fudging. Even with my PC's death or a TPK. It's not that those are fun in and of themselves, they are price you pay for the other victories to be enjoyable.
Side note: One minor annoyance I am pretty good at telling when the runner is fudging so it's super boring to site and think, "Doesn't matter what this damage is, I won't kill him."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said it before... if the rules create bad stories/situations that you have to ignore them, why are you using the rules at all? Why not get better rules or add a rule that prevents...
Obvious answer here. This is a poor argument because it comes down to "Why are you using the rules if they aren't 100% perfect all the time?"
There is NO perfect ruleset, which is also why there are dozens of different methods for rpgs to use. The gm is responsible for using his word as law powers to fix any problems that might come up, as provided in the game.
Phrasing in absolutes is a good way to create strawmen.
If the rules create good stories/situations 95% of the time, and bad ones 5% of the time, but provide a method to deal with that 5%, should you be spending your time complaining that the game allows for that fixing? Or should you be complaining about bad gms running bad games and trying to blame it on that corrective method? It's not like they'd be doing any better if they were gm'ing a different system.
I said it before... if the rules create bad stories/situations that you have to ignore them, why are you using the rules at all? Why not get better rules or add a rule that prevents...
Obvious answer here. This is a poor argument because it comes down to "Why are you using the rules if they aren't 100% perfect all the time?"
There is NO perfect ruleset, which is also why there are dozens of different methods for rpgs to use. The gm is responsible for using his word as law powers to fix any problems that might come up, as provided in the game.
Phrasing in absolutes is a good way to create strawmen.
If the rules create good stories/situations 95% of the time, and bad ones 5% of the time, but provide a method to deal with that 5%, should you be spending your time complaining that the game allows for that fixing? Or should you be complaining about bad gms running bad games and trying to blame it on that corrective method? It's not like they'd be doing any better if they were gm'ing a different system.
Let me get this straight. Instead of looking at my actual idea, the Nacho Cheese point, you're dissecting the language and logic I used around it. What kind of logical fallacy is that? I'm sure I made another spelling, grammar or logical mistake again, but that isn't the point, this isn't a debate website, this is a website about a game. Don't attack me and my language, look at the merits of the actual concept.
You admit the rules aren't perfect. I'm presenting a catch-all concept that greatly reduces the number of times that will happen. My solution is relatively simple, easily workable and removes a possible area of distrust between players and GMs, or even between the group and their dice. It can reduce the stress a GM might have in a specific situation by removing responsibility for the outcome from his shoulders. It's fairly simple to tailor to a specific group for their desires on mood and feel of their game.
I've just listed a lot of positives my solution. Your only negative is that I used an infered logical fallacy (which I wasn't trying to be absolutist, all rules systems break down at some extreme).
|
|
Actually... I didn't say a thing about your nacho cheese points. You replied to my post, and I replied to your one sentence response. You can't accuse me of not looking at your actual idea when I wasn't posting anything to do with you, and you jumped in with a one-sentence response. More bad logic.
Though, looking at your post about nacho cheese, I've got to say that there's a lot of similarity to hero points there. However, the point remains that dm powers are the catch-all concept installed into the game. You want nacho cheese points or hero points? It's gm power that's installing those into the game. It's just another gm tool that puts a bit more power into the hands of the player.
And I should point out that you "attacked" my post before I said anything to or about you. If you think I'm attacking you, then I suggest you take a minute to reevaluate, reread the post you responded to, and realize that whatever you may have thought, it was a general statement and not a directed one.
Actually... I didn't say a thing about your nacho cheese points. You replied to my post, and I replied to your one sentence response. You can't accuse me of not looking at your actual idea when I wasn't posting anything to do with you, and you jumped in with a one-sentence response. More bad logic.
Though, looking at your post about nacho cheese, I've got to say that there's a lot of similarity to hero points there. However, the point remains that dm powers are the catch-all concept installed into the game. You want nacho cheese points or hero points? It's gm power that's installing those into the game. It's just another gm tool that puts a bit more power into the hands of the player.
And I should point out that you "attacked" my post before I said anything to or about you. If you think I'm attacking you, then I suggest you take a minute to reevaluate, reread the post you responded to, and realize that whatever you may have thought, it was a general statement and not a directed one.
I apologize, I assumed you had read earlier pages of the thread.
I disagree that adding another rule is "GM power". The rules are a method of determining the outcomes of specific actions and scenarios. The GMs power and authority come from the relationship they have with their gaming group. Some groups are built around shared power, some are built around an authority figure. Even in a GM-less RPG, there is often one person in the group who is more influential than the others and that is determined by the groups dynamics, not the game. I've been in D20 games where the GM wasn't the most "powerful" individual at the table and instead a player seemed to be determining the outcome of the game.
Various point mechanics in various incarnations have been interesting, but small bonuses to rolls isn't enough to guard against what is being discussed in this thread. Some GMs and players may be interested in a defined method of avoiding those situations instead of just being told a vague statement about how a GM can do anything necessary for a game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the problems I have with rolling in the open is that it can give the players information I don't want them to have, like the creatures' stats. If they see me roll a 7 and I hit AC 20, they now know what my bonus to attack is and they can make different, metagaming, combat decisions. The same goes for saves. I need to be able to hide this information and the players can observe how well I do. I always give them the result but I don't want them to know how easy or hard it was to make that roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the problems I have with rolling in the open is that it can give the players information I don't want them to have, like the creatures' stats. If they see me roll a 7 and I hit AC 20, they now know what my bonus to attack is and they can make different, metagaming, combat decisions. The same goes for saves. I need to be able to hide this information and the players can observe how well I do. I always give them the result but I don't want them to know how easy or hard it was to make that roll.
A whole other can of worms. I can see arguments for and against this.
One of the problems I have with rolling in the open is that it can give the players information I don't want them to have, like the creatures' stats. If they see me roll a 7 and I hit AC 20, they now know what my bonus to attack is and they can make different, metagaming, combat decisions. The same goes for saves. I need to be able to hide this information and the players can observe how well I do. I always give them the result but I don't want them to know how easy or hard it was to make that roll.
Exactly
I will never give out a creature's AC*, or it's BAB, or anything like that. That tells a lot about the creature, and at the power scale I'm usually dealing at, things like knowing, say, a creatures Will save modifier might directly affect their tactics.
On rare occasions, this also lets me adjust the dice rolls as I see fit.
To me, my job as GM is to run the story. The dice aren't the story; the dice are tools used to tell the story, just like NPCs, combat encounters, hidden mysteries, and every other tool that I use. So if, in my opinion, ignoring the dice will tell a better story, I'll do it every time. Since combat is largely irrelevant to story, it'll rarely happen during combat, but it does happen.
* I will tell the players "you missed by a lot" or "you were darn close," and eventually will just come out with it after a few rounds, but you'll pretty much never find me going "it's AC is 22, did you hit?" in the early rounds of combat - that's just not something the players would know, any more than they should know what my result was when I'm making a save (or even what my roll was, for that matter).
On the other hand, other times the dice are just rolled for effect. Is that cheating? Obviously not - it's part of the smoke and mirrors of being a GM, just like saying "everyone make a Spot/Perception check" when there's nothing to see, and then nodding knowingly.
Being a GM is an art, not a science, and thus it's virtually impossible to quantify what makes a game "good" or "poor." If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that many of these folks who would "know" if a GM was fudging the dice would in fact not know much of the time, and many who view it as terrible have actually been the beneficiary and had more fun for it. Because Pathfinder/D&D is a strange, collaborative animal more akin to improvisational theatre than anything else.
thingsies and stuffywuff
+1 I agree completely.
My players are not privy to any of my creature's stats, and I roll my dice in secret. I might be fudging or not, you'll never know. Anyone who has a problem with that is welcome not to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thingsies and stuffywuff+1 I agree completely.
My players are not privy to any of my creature's stats, and I roll my dice in secret. I might be fudging or not, you'll never know. Anyone who has a problem with that is welcome not to play.
Unless you are making up the stats for all of your own creatures, the players can look them up like anyone else, whether they know you are fudging right then or later, as has been stated people that fudge die rolls and think they are great at lying about it aren't really fooling anyone . It's called suspension of disbelief and the players do it to keep from having a bad time. I don't think this is about absolutes, I think it's about the best answer and when the game is being run by a competent GM who is actually prepared fudging is almost never the best answer, but it is almost always the easy answer.
I personally never fudge rolls as a DM although I admit this has led to some hilarious and sometimes disappointing results such as a situation where my much loved (by me) BBEG rolled a 1 on his fort save against finger of death (3.5) and died instantly. (what can I say he had a ridiculous fort save I thought he would be ok.) Being fair is important to many of the players I play with so I don't cheat, much as I would sometimes like too.
What exactly is the problem with the players adjusting tactics based on what they think they know about enemy stats?
Let's assume a CR 10 encounter for argument's sake, so I'm assuming that a typical save DC vs. PC abilities will be, say 18-22.
Case one.
You run into an unknown creature, and throw an enchantment of some type at it; you say the DC is 20. I roll on the table, get a 2, and announce that it saved. Oh crap! It's got at least a +18! The party spends no further resources trying any sort of Will save based spells or abilities on it. Same could go for Reflex, Fort, etc.
Case two.
You run into an unknown creature, and throw an enchantment of some type at it; you say the DC is 20. I roll and announce that it saved. Hm ... this doesn't tell the party anything except that it didn't work; they still need to probe at its defenses more to be sure what will work well and what won't.
Big difference between the two scenarios, never mind the "breaking the third wall" aspect of being too blantant about save modifiers.
I personally never fudge rolls as a DM although I admit this has led to some hilarious and sometimes disappointing results such as a situation where my much loved (by me) BBEG rolled a 1 on his fort save against finger of death (3.5) and died instantly. (what can I say he had a ridiculous fort save I thought he would be ok.) Being fair is important to many of the players I play with so I don't cheat, much as I would sometimes like too.
I agree with you totally. Even though fudging in this situation would have probably made the encounter better. I learned over the years that is it better to let the BBEG die in this case. The players enjoy this kind of thing a lot, and the encounter is still memorable - just for different reasons.
I only fudge if I can do so prevent a PC from dying, and only if the players will not be able to tell I am doing it. As such, it is a rare situation where I can do this, so death does happen in my campaign.
My players definitely know that they can and will die.
But if I have a choice, I will always prefer to knock them out, rather than kill them... unless they really deserve it because they did something reckless.
What exactly is the problem with the players adjusting tactics based on what they think they know about enemy stats?
It's not about what they think. It's about what they know. I think they should adjust tactics based on what they think. I don't think I should be telling them what the creatures' stats are on round one.
I agree with you totally. Even though fudging in this situation would have probably made the encounter better. I learned over the years that is it better to let the BBEG die in this case. The players enjoy this kind of thing a lot, and the encounter is still memorable - just for different reasons.
Yep and despite the build up to the Villain the players didn't think it anti-climatic at all, oh how they cheered. *sheds a tear for his Villain*
If you have an experienced player, especially someone who has run a game before, with very little info they can probably tell you within 2-3 points the stats of a creature, even if they've never seen it before.
DC's, with a few notable exceptions, are 10 + 1/2 CR with a few extra points the higher you get in CR (like +2 at low, +4 by CR 5, +6 at 10). It's not exact, but you'll be in the ballpark.
Attack bonuses are usually about double CR once you're past CR 3. A few points lower than this if they have a large number of attacks.
AC is about 10 + double CR, with a few extra points the higher you go (grows faster than DC bonuses).
Creature type usually determines good/bad saves.
Lastly, all of this can be figured out/inferred from knowledge checks by the characters.
If you're DMing for a new player, there are smoke and mirrors. If you are DMing for someone who has ran their own game, there isn't that much mystery. I've been playing for a long time, even ran my own games, I own most of the books for every game I play. I don't play because I'm mystified about what happens behind the DM screen.
In addition, if you watch any type of sport with any regularity, you need only watch someone play for a few seconds before you can tell what level they perform at (like the difference between high school, college and pro football). You could require a Perception or Sense Motive check, but I think that it would have to be a Free Action and be allowable by the 3rd round of combat.
Hiding rolls isn't the same as fudging them.
|
|
I've been playing D&D or some variant for about 30 years now so I guess I'm pretty old school.
Here's a link from the original DMG by Gary Gygax on controlling the game, observing dice rolls, and handling difficult players. It does a pretty good job of describing my overall DMing philosophy even though its been a long time since I sprung an ethereal mummy on someone.
I've been playing D&D or some variant for about 30 years now so I guess I'm pretty old school.
Here's a link from the original DMG by Gary Gygax on controlling the game, observing dice rolls, and handling difficult players. It does a pretty good job of describing my overall DMing philosophy even though its been a long time since I sprung an ethereal mummy on someone.
The analogy I would use to describe that advice is like the recommended mileage for oil changes. It used to be true, every 3,000 miles you needed to change your oil. If you still use an older car, you should probably still change the oil every 3,000 miles. Many new cars though, can go twice to four times as long without an oil change.
The old advice applies, but it applies to that style of gaming. Not everyone games that way anymore. Not only are there many different types of games, how you play a game can vary widely. It isn't outdated, it's just limited in scope.
One notable difference for me, is that instead of hiding various rolls (like stealth, perception, etc) is to put them in the open. The players know the "result", but you can instead twist the meaning of that result. The thief rolls poorly to sneak into the castle, instead of having him caught by the guards, he makes it inside and discovers that what wanted to steal is already gone (possibly with evidence that it was stolen by someone else!). As a player, I'd rather roll my own success and failure. As a GM, I actually prefer to touch the dice as little as possible, relying as much as possible on the players' results.
If you have an experienced player, especially someone who has run a game before, with very little info they can probably tell you within 2-3 points the stats of a creature, even if they've never seen it before.
DC's, with a few notable exceptions, are 10 + 1/2 CR with a few extra points the higher you get in CR (like +2 at low, +4 by CR 5, +6 at 10). It's not exact, but you'll be in the ballpark.
Attack bonuses are usually about double CR once you're past CR 3. A few points lower than this if they have a large number of attacks.
AC is about 10 + double CR, with a few extra points the higher you go (grows faster than DC bonuses).
Creature type usually determines good/bad saves.
Lastly, all of this can be figured out/inferred from knowledge checks by the characters.
If you're DMing for a new player, there are smoke and mirrors. If you are DMing for someone who has ran their own game, there isn't that much mystery. I've been playing for a long time, even ran my own games, I own most of the books for every game I play. I don't play because I'm mystified about what happens behind the DM screen.
In addition, if you watch any type of sport with any regularity, you need only watch someone play for a few seconds before you can tell what level they perform at (like the difference between high school, college and pro football). You could require a Perception or Sense Motive check, but I think that it would have to be a Free Action and be allowable by the 3rd round of combat.
Ok, the party is all level 15. Standing before them are 2 elves, one in chain and the other in robes. What is the attack bonus of either of them? What are their saving throws?
Let's make this a little easier. There is a large white dragon flying over the heads of the party. What is it's attack bonus? What is it's AC? How about it's Reflex save?
I don't think that the players should simply be able to assume anything. There are way too many things that they won't gleen from a knowledge check. That dragon, maybe it's got some barbarian class levels. Maybe it has some oracle levels. You can't assume anything. Heck, you don't even know what the CR is of the dragon. The large white dragon can be a young adult (CR 9), adult (CR 10), or mature adult (CR 11), and that isn't accounting for things like a template being thrown on there.
|
|
Big difference between the two scenarios, never mind the "breaking the third wall" aspect of being too blantant about save modifiers.
Why is the first scenario bad? And what do you mean 'third wall'?
It's not about what they think. It's about what they know. I think they should adjust tactics based on what they think. I don't think I should be telling them what the creatures' stats are on round one.
But you're not telling them the creatures stats, and they don't know what made up that high total. Stats can fluctuate through the combat. That high save might not be so high after a temporary bonus expires.
Ok, the party is all level 15. Standing before them are 2 elves, one in chain and the other in robes. What is the attack bonus of either of them? What are their saving throws?
Let's make this a little easier. There is a large white dragon flying over the heads of the party. What is it's attack bonus? What is it's AC? How about it's Reflex save?
I don't think that the players should simply be able to assume anything. There are way too many things that they won't gleen from a knowledge...
I recommend cracking open your Bestiary and checking my numbers.
Fire Giant (CR10) attack bonus +21
Frost Giant (CR9) attack bonus +18
Adult White Dragon (CR10) attack bonus +20
Succubus (CR7) attack bonus +11 (they're mostly casters and have energy drain so they drop a couple points)
Obviously this doesn't apply to wizard/sorcerer NPC's. But look at most fighters, level 10, +3 weapon, +5 Strength, Weapon focus, weapon training, you'll be in the neighborhood of +20, probably a little higher... though after power attack you'll come back towards +20.
Armor Class 10 + CR + a few extra points for CR plateaus (dragons tend to have a higher AC than most monster types)
Succubus AC 20 (10+7+2 from my formula = 19, 1 off)
Fire Giant AC 23 (cr 3 higher than succubus)
Frost Giant AC 21 (cr 2 higher than succubus)
Adult White AC 27 (about triple the CR plateau bonus)
Pathfinder isn't as formulaic as D&D4e, but it's isn't far off the mark. If you look in the back of the bestiary, you'll actually see the tables for how to design monsters and what stats they should have based on their CR. Do you know immediately whether a monster is CR 9 or 10? no, but the difference is relatively small. Is the party going to notice the difference between a CR 7 and 12 monster pretty quickly? probably.
I use these metrics when planning characters even. If I'm a frontline fighter but I can't get my AC over 30 at level 10, I know I'm going to get hit a lot and either get more AC, or find ways to save myself ahead of time.
|
|
I don't think that the players should simply be able to assume anything. There are way too many things that they won't gleen from a knowledge...
I totally agree here.
I've also had some players get upset when the monsters they encounter aren't identical to their Bestiary stats and things don't play out exactly like their meta-gaming expectations.
Take that white dragon for example. Maybe that 1000 year old dragon figured out a way to suppress its vulnerability to fire (e.g. from the 3.5 Suppress Weakness feat). I'm sorry, Mr. Wizard, that your fire spells (that you immediately cast without bothering to make a knowledge roll no less) didn't do as much as you expected, but monsters are people too. While there are some commonalities they all their have own individual traits and differences.
I let my players know ahead of time that I actively modify and tweak the base monster stats to suit my needs. I don't do something cheesy like change stats in a middle of a fight or actively try to trick players, but they know not to make any assumptions.
I've also had some players get upset......
If a GM defense of fudging is that the players are having fun makes it rightgoodfun.
Then the inverse should also be true... If your players are getting upset at the way you GM then .....well ...
I let my players know ahead of time that I actively modify and tweak the base monster stats to suit my needs. I don't do something cheesy like change stats in a middle of a fight or actively try to trick players, but they know not to make any assumptions.
I think this a perfectly reasonable response. I like being surprised as a player, I don't need to know the exact stats of something before I fight it. This is also an example of communication between the GM and players, cause they have an opportunity to respond and give their input (maybe one player really wants to fight a traditional red dragon).
But you're not telling them the creatures stats, and they don't know what made up that high total. Stats can fluctuate through the combat. That high save might not be so high after a temporary bonus expires.
It's not about what they think. It's about what they know. I think they should adjust tactics based on what they think. I don't think I should be telling them what the creatures' stats are on round one.
Actually you would be telling them the stats. If I roll a 7 and hit AC 20, then O have +13 to hit. If The DC to avoid being dominated is 25 and I succeed on a 5, then the party knows I have +20 to my Will save. That gives them a lot of information especially if the opponent isn't straight out of the Bestiary (an NPC or creature with a template).
Ok, the party is all level 15. Standing before them are 2 elves, one in chain and the other in robes. What is the attack bonus of either of them? What are their saving throws?
Let's make this a little easier. There is a large white dragon flying over the heads of the party. What is it's attack bonus? What is it's AC? How about it's Reflex save?
I don't think that the players should simply be able to assume anything. There are way too many things that they won't gleen from a knowledge...
I recommend cracking open your Bestiary and checking my numbers.
Fire Giant (CR10) attack bonus +21
Frost Giant (CR9) attack bonus +18
Adult White Dragon (CR10) attack bonus +20
Succubus (CR7) attack bonus +11 (they're mostly casters and have energy drain so they drop a couple points)Obviously this doesn't apply to wizard/sorcerer NPC's. But look at most fighters, level 10, +3 weapon, +5 Strength, Weapon focus, weapon training, you'll be in the neighborhood of +20, probably a little higher... though after power attack you'll come back towards +20.
Armor Class 10 + CR + a few extra points for CR plateaus (dragons tend to have a higher AC than most monster types)
Succubus AC 20 (10+7+2 from my formula = 19, 1 off)
Fire Giant AC 23 (cr 3 higher than succubus)
Frost Giant AC 21 (cr 2 higher than succubus)
Adult White AC 27 (about triple the CR plateau bonus)Pathfinder isn't as formulaic as D&D4e, but it's isn't far off the mark. If you look in the back of the bestiary, you'll actually see the tables for how to design monsters and what stats they should have based on their CR. Do you know immediately whether a monster is CR 9 or 10? no, but the difference is relatively small. Is the party going to notice the difference between a CR 7 and 12 monster pretty quickly? probably.
I use these metrics when planning characters even. If I'm a frontline fighter but I can't get my AC over 30 at level 10, I know I'm going to get hit a lot and either get more AC, or find ways...
I wasn't arguing your numbers. I'm arguing that the players shouldn't know them automatically. I have never told them that they are up against a CR 10 opponent. I let them figure out how tough the opponent is by how I play it/them.
Can you tell me the AC of a large white dragon? That's all the information I'm going to give. I'm not going to tell you how old it is. I'm not going to tell you about any defensive magic items. I'm not going to tell you about any possible class levels. I'm not going to tell you about any templates. All you know is that the party is roughly level 12 and that the white dragon is large.
I don't have any problems with the players using some common sense and/or knowledge skills to figure things out. I just don't go for metagaming.