|
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).
I'm not seeing why this is bad. I'm chalking it up to different expectations and playstyles.
Forgive me if this has been asked before, but I want to know what people think.
I had a dream last night of trying to save some helpess man from this demon spawn. I was running to him as fast as I could, but right before I got there, the demon did something like a finger of death, and the man died. I started getting upset, but then the man stood back up and said, "Actually, I am okay. The DM changed his mind." Thus my questions.
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 never fudge dice. Ever. Not as a PC, or as a GM. I have this thing about being dishonest, and a bigger thing about being dishonest with people I consider my friends.
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.
It's probably not much higher than the fighters normal attack bonus +15. Ie, if the fighter has a +22 to hit, having it higher than 37 would for the most part exclude him from the battle and of course make it all the worse for everyone in the party who has a lower bonus.
The base is going to be around 30, plus whatever modifications you add. 10 + CR 12 + triple plateau bonus (3). You can go higher, like around 37, but you will ensure the fighter only hits on iterative attacks on a nat 20. Some buffs will help, but most abilities on give a +2 or 3 at that point. If the dragon is CR 15, it would be a base of around AC 35.
The thing is though, most players already know dragons are tough. This is usually an encounter you blow all your big spells and buffs on. Unless you're trying to outsmart them as a GM and get them to waste their spells on a weak dragon while a big bad prepares, there'd really isn't anything to hide.
This is something neither of us will convince the other of, it is personal preference and play style. If you were to GM for me though, you're not really hiding anything that significant though.
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.This. Metagaming is bad news at my table. There is no faster way to get on my bad side as a GM than by doing it.
** spoiler omitted **
Now, I've been running and playing for a very long time, and I'm a very patient, accepting GM. It takes a lot to get me angry enough to take immediate action against players, but metagaming is something I do not abide.
I know another GM who had his players pull a similar maneuver. Except, his solution was an albino red...
You could have just as easily laughed of a storm when they found out that the Red Dragon was a Half-White Red Dragon, which of course makes him immune to both Fire and Cold damage, while also gaining +4 AC, +8 Str, +6 Con, +2 Int, and +2 Cha.
Would have been veeeeerrry funny to see them begin using all those ice weapons only for it to do diddly. :P
Or he could have just stopped playing the game. If I ask my players not to do something, and they keep doing that, I see no reason to continue DMing for them. Griefing them to 'teach a lesson' is a waste of my time.
Agreed. I'm just always amused by the idea of cross-bred dragons. They're just so much fun, and it would entirely be a fun enemy for a game. I think I will include a half-white red dragon (hmmm, I wonder if that would make him a strawberry pink dragon :P) in one of my next adventures. The party would of course have the opportunity for Knowledge checks, or get a few clues all was not as it seemed.
I don't actually condone/encourage griefing, but if you're gonna do it, might as well do it in a funny way. ^.^
Or he could have just stopped playing the game. If I ask my players not to do something, and they keep doing that, I see no reason to continue DMing for them. Griefing them to 'teach a lesson' is a waste of my time.
I would hand the fighter a potion of true strike that also gave +20 init. Let him hit once, declare the dragon dead. Tell them they are great and powerful heroes, then ask them what board game they'd like to play now that the session was over.
But I have a passive aggressive streak.
|
I disagree that adding another rule is "GM power"...
Fair enough, though in my experience the only way optional rules like hero points or nacho cheese points make it into the game is via gm choice, i.e. gm power. The same as house rules. Of course, parties can often decline a new rule, but don't often do so.
The gm's power to continue running a game comes from the relationship with their group. I agree with this. However, we're not talking about whether a group chooses to game with a particular gm or not. In this scenario, they've already chosen to, and we're talking about what the gm can in fairness do within the bounds of the game.
There are plenty of ways to guard against a particular situation from cropping up. The problem arises when you're trying to do that along with running several npcs, explaining the setting and exploring the characters and the consequences of player choices, and trying to listen to several voices at once, all of which want your full attention all the time. :p
One of the reasons that gms have broad powers is because every now and then, they'll drop one of the nineteen balls they're juggling. Some gm's are happy with breaking the mood of the game and telling their players that npc 32 isn't actually here, and you didn't just have that conversation. Others prefer using various concealment/fudging techniques to keep players immersed. Maybe npc 32 was actually killed, and they were speaking to a conjured duplicate. So, retroactively, they failed their checks to recognize it as such. Or possibly it's a disguised character, so failure as above. Or maybe it really was npc 32, only now he's not an npc the players can trust as originally intended, but rather working with the villain, which gives him an excuse to be out here. Which... kind of messes up their earlier sense motive checks.
The majority of this thread just comes down to play style, and while discussions about play style are often interesting, there is no right or wrong play style as long as everyone is having fun.
Personally, the only problems I've had with gm's were personal, and not based in the institution that is the gm. One gm, for example, used his powers for evil when his girlfriend started playing. Suddenly, semi-creepy scenes with npcs and her bathing at night began to occur with disturbing frequency. But heck, we were 15-16. It's something you learn not to do, a personal issue and not an institutional one.
Of course, this kind of reflects the same benefits and issues of the whole monarchy system, except instead of torches and pitchforks, you just find a new table to game at.
What bothers me about some of the posts in this thread is that some of you consider GM’s fudging die rolls to be a morality issue. When someone says something like “I don’t fudge because I don’t like being dishonest with my friends”, what I hear is “GM’s who fudge are liars, and not good friends”.
I say to that - whoa, slow down, that is way too harsh!
I won’t deny that some GM’s fudge for inappropriate reasons, but even in those cases, it is going way too far to imply they are not good friends.
Despite the abundance of rules in this game we all love, it is still not an exact science. The dice can sometimes ruin what could have been an entertaining scenario. Some of you would prefer a lousy scenario, or even a TPK, rather than have your GM alter a die roll.
If you feel that way, I respect that. But I don’t think you should imply that GM’s who fudge are dishonest or bad friends.
As a DM, I roll in the open. The players deserve to know whether success is their own or the result of DM fudgery. To fudge a roll takes that feeling of deserved success away from them. If they're having trouble and you need to fudge something, fudge the HP of the guy they're attacking or some other "can't be seen" quantity (maybe the floor the bad guy stepped onto wasn't as sturdy as it looked...)
The key is to avoid letting the players know you're interfering.
However, that isn't to say that I won't rig things that happen off-screen or when they're otherwise not directly against the PC. That I do all the time in the interest of brevity. The only time fudging/rigging is not acceptable is when the PCs are currently influencing that situation in some way.
I wish my GM respected players like you do.
I do enjoy threads like these. Getting into the why we play the way we play helps throw rules and practices in better relief. I've seen a lot of well intentioned house rules or methods fail horribly because of a base assumption that hadn't really been talked out or examined carefully.
I have a strong belief that the rules you use have a strong influence on how you play, figuring out how it actually works can be harder though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What bothers me about some of the posts in this thread is that some of you consider GM’s fudging die rolls to be a morality issue. When someone says something like “I don’t fudge because I don’t like being dishonest with my friends”, what I hear is “GM’s who fudge are liars, and not good friends”.
I say to that - whoa, slow down, that is way too harsh!
I won’t deny that some GM’s fudge for inappropriate reasons, but even in those cases, it is going way too far to imply they are not good friends.
Despite the abundance of rules in this game we all love, it is still not an exact science. The dice can sometimes ruin what could have been an entertaining scenario. Some of you would prefer a lousy scenario, or even a TPK, rather than have your GM alter a die roll.
If you feel that way, I respect that. But I don’t think you should imply that GM’s who fudge are dishonest or bad friends.
Hey man, cheating is cheating. Didn't your parents, teachers, elders, authority figures, coach, or perhaps random stranger ever pass on the idea that cheating is wrong and shouldn't be done? Yeah, I see cheating as a morality issue because it's dishonest. Cheating at a game with your friends is dishonest.
verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often followed by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
noun
8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
10. Law . the fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick.
11. an impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat.
If you don't want the dice involved, don't use them. The dice never "ruin a scenario". If you didn't want someone to fail, then maybe you should have set the DC lower. If you're going to roll the dice and then "fudge" them, and "fudge" is just a cute way of saying cheat in this case, then yeah you're being dishonest. I'm not a fan of dishonesty.
In my humble opinion, I believe one of the worst things to happen to gaming of any sort is the idea that it's "okay to cheat sometimes", like it is in some way morally alright. Total party kills are a risk of the game, just like Bankruptcy is a risk of monopoly, or running out of coins is a risk in D&D: Shadows over Mystara. Maybe the party should have ran away. Maybe they'll be a bit more cautious in the future when they realize their PCs are mortal and might bite it if they're not careful.
But seriously, let's at least be honest with each other in real life if not in game. Cheating is cheating, and when you're cheating in a game that you play with your friends, you're being dishonest with your friends, and you should man up and accept that you're doing something that most people would find morally wrong (cheating of course). Trying to sugar coat it, or make out like it isn't what it is is more dishonesty.
I hear what you are saying Ashiel but role playing games are kinda strange in regards to cheating, especially from the DM's chair. Part of what makes cheating suck in most games is that you are getting an unfair advantage over other players. Rpgs are kinda unique in that there aren't really many other games with a role like that of a DM. As had been stated many times on this thread many DM's cheat not to screw the other players but to give them an advantage they would not otherwise possess when they really need it (or mitigate circumstances that would otherwise be a disaster) which you have acknowledged but I think may not be an absolutely terrible thing for many players. While I don't cheat as a DM or player personally I actually do appreciate when a DM occasionally softballs something that would really suck, especially if it arose because of a circumstance I have absolutely no control over(incredibly crappy dice rolls being the most obvious).
In the end I think most of it comes down to what has been established between players and DM. If your DM tells you he will simply never fudge a roll (like I tell my players) and he does then yes he would be lying to you and that could be a problem but otherwise I don't think a bit of cheating is a big deal to some people in a non competitive game that's based on telling a good story.
Except it's not cheating nor dishonesty. RAW explicitly states GM's may fudge, as has been mentioned in this very thread. The game's creators going as far back as Mr. Word of God Gary Gygax Himself have written entire articles dedicated to the tool, condoning it, reinforcing its RAW status and even providing commentary and tips on its proper use, which has also been mentioned in this very thread. By merit of being RAW alone, it cannot logically be considered cheating unless misused, which is as I mentioned a function of a poor GM rather than a poor mechanic. If players perceive this as dishonesty or cheating, then they quite frankly don't have a very firm grasp of the rules to begin with (nor of the role of GM and their purpose within the game session) and are hardly credible. I'm not saying that to step on any toes here, I'm just being bluntly honest.
Weird, I haven't seen this rule. Do you mean Rule 0? Because it doesn't say anything like you describe. Why not just remove the dice and let the players and GM sit around the table and tell a story if you don't want failure, or want limited amounts of failure. Why bother with a game that has stuff like Death & Dying rules, heavy mechanics for inflicting and sustaining damage, and spells like Raise Dead, or things like Saving Throws if you're just going to cop out when you think it's convenient?
When you reduce the game to its core elements, a group of players don't even need a GM if they desire only a non-stop 1-20 grind-fest with absolute transparency and no "unpleasant" surprises. They can roll random CR-appropriate loot pinatas and resolve the encounter with their own dice in plain view, then go to Munchkins-R-Us, sell and repurchase all day long.
Whoa, stop the car, and turn over the keys. You've obviously in no condition to drive here. You're sloshing all sorts of things together. What does "not cheating" and "munchkins-R-us" and random dungeons have to do with each other? You need to step back and re-evaluate the stuff you're spewing here. What do "unpleasant surprises" have to do with anything? Wouldn't that be kind of the point of the random-element? Shouldn't there be unpleasant surprises? "Holy crap, that orc got a critical hit on Alexander! Quick, get that orc off him, and where are the potions!?"
Seriously, you're either horrible confused or you're trying to pull a bait & switch and babble on about munchkins and not having a GM being somehow connected to not cheating. That's purely fallacious. I've been GMing for more than a decade and I don't cheat, and not one thing you have mentioned so much as comes close to describing any game I've participated in except in fact the random dungeons (because sometimes it's fun to generate a random dungeon and let the players explore it, complete with random treasure and the like, because it makes it all a mystery).
That's in essence exactly what is created when players expect to be without constraint, and when a GM is hogtied by the players in what tools s/he may employ to provide the game experience for which GM's are even necessary. In that atmosphere, why even waste your time with a GM?
What are you even talking about? Exactly what about "not cheating" is constraining to the GM? Are you suggesting that cheating is required for a GM to challenges his players? If you are, then let me assure you that you are dead wrong. And what is "be without constraint" nonsense? Are you saying that by some means the GM not cheating is somehow going to remove all levels of constraint? What is it that you're trying to say?
Tabletop role-playing isn't World of Warcraft and a game like that would be bugger-all fun to anyone but the hardest of hardcore twinks and munchkins interested only in numerical and statistical optimization (in which case I'd suggest they just go play WoW and not even waste their time TTRPG'ing, it's cheaper and far more rewarding).
And now you babble on about WoW. What the heck dude. What does NOT CHEATING have to do with World of Warcraft? What does it have to do with numbers? It doesn't matter if you're high op, low op, no op, kick in the door, deep immersion RP, in Eberron, Faerun, Golarion, or on the #@*$#$ $*@$($ moon, cheating is cheating. It has nothing to do with how strong the PCs are. Are you suggesting that a GM should cheat rather than just actually be a GM? Should perhaps they just throw random junk at the party as desired and cheat to make the party win, or throw random junk at the party that's way weaker than them, and just cheat on the rolls ("Oh well the goblin gets another crit on you" - "The dragon trips and stumbles, missing his attack for the third time in this round."). Seriously, what are you trying to say?
Which is why players call upon a GM...to provide them with an interactive, dynamic game and campaign that is fun. That is why I say GM'ing is stagecraft, they are at once producer, director, tech crew, support crew, secondary crew, understudy, and bit players in a production in which the players are the top-billing actors.
The GM is commonly referred to as a referee. That is, the guy who keeps the game running and keeps track of the rules. The game is not his own personal movie where he is the director. Go write a novel if you don't want to play a tabletop RPG where stuff happens. Part of the shared experience is that not everything is set in stone. "The party is beset by orcs in the night! Will they survive? What will happen next? Nobody truly knows".
Like I said, there are games where you don't even roll dice. If you don't want to actually roll dice, why not try an alternative? If you're so dead-set on cheating, why play a game that assumes you won't cheat?
Provided the GM is experienced, mature and responsible enough to use his or her toolbox properly, why deny them tools they can otherwise use to craft a quality game experience (especially ones explicitly granted them by RAW) and push the game ever closer to "Ghetto WoW with Dice"?
Cheating is the mark of a weaksauce GM. A GM who cheats doesn't understand how to use his toolbox, so he falls back to cheating. Also, you apparently have no understanding of GMing, since you apparently think that without GM-cheatery that the game defaults to World of Warcraft; which displays a gross incomprehension of both GMing and the GM's toolbox.
==================================
PS: To all those out there who say it's A-OK for GMs to cheat, let's flip it around reverse-style. If you can cheat, so can your players. Maybe they want to roll 20s all the time. If you're not going to follow the rules, then neither should they. Fair is fair after-all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is cheating depends on the social contract of the group. I don't want a GM who has to fiat everything. It only leads me to question their GM'ing skills. My monsters are consistent with the world and rules. They don't get random extra skill points, hp, spells, and so on. I understand some players know the game better than the GM, so why not ask the player to help you. When I play in someone's games and destroy their illusion of powerful NPC's, which I did recently. No I did not power game. I tell them how the party interacted with their plans to invoke Murphy's Law. That makes them a better GM, and makes my next session better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end I think most of it comes down to what has been established between players and DM. If your DM tells you he will simply never fudge a roll (like I tell my players) and he does then yes he would be lying to you and that could be a problem but otherwise I don't think a bit of cheating is a big deal to some people in a non competitive game that's based on telling a good story.
You have 2 options. Either you let the dice fall where the lie, or at some point you have to make the call if someone is going to have to abide by the rules. Being cushy on the players and fudging in their favor will make them bolder, since even if they don't know you cheated, they'll begin to feel like they can handle it, even if you've just been carrying them. Then at some point, the curtain falls. Either they realize that they can't die, or you come out and decide to let a PC have their failure. But oh look, now you're showing favoritism. Why did you cheat to save X, Y, and Z, but now I get to die?
Trust is good. I trust my players (except one of them 'cause he tries to cheat) and they trust me ('cause I don't cheat). Sometimes I use a GM screen 'cause they're useful for notes, sometimes I don't, but when I am, I pickup the screen before touching the dice when the monster rolls a 1 or a 20, because it builds trust. This goes double for new players who I've not gamed with.
Also, I've heard plenty of new players defend their cheating habits with "well the GM is going to cheat, so why can't I?". Not an acceptable answer, and yet it's also right. If I cheated as a GM, I'd entirely expect you to cheat. I don't however, and I have one rule. If I catch you cheating, Smite Chaos is coming your way. If I catch you cheating once, I will cheat once, and restore the balance. That cheating will probably come in the form of a critical hit with a scythe from a storm giant, or maybe I'll randomly declare that you rolled a 1 on that phantasmal killer spell.
Don't cheat unless you expect to be cheated.
What is cheating depends on the social contract of the group. I don't want a GM who has to fiat everything. It only leads me to question their GM'ing skills. My monsters are consistent with the world and rules. They don't get random extra skill points, hp, spells, and so on. I understand some players know the game better than the GM, so why not ask the player to help you. When I play in someone's games and destroy their illusion of powerful NPC's, which I did recently. No I did not power game. I tell them how the party interacted with their plans to invoke Murphy's Law. That makes them a better GM, and makes my next session better.
Words of wisdom if there ever were any. I often have people in my online games ask for GMing advice. The first thing I tell them is accept that the GM is fallible, the GM isn't always right, and that the players can and will often know stuff that you don't. Many of them have been playing for a long time, and most people who take the game mildly seriously will bother to read their class features, and while some people have difficulties with english, most people aren't actively trying to cheat (we can hope). So don't be afraid to get help from your table's resident rules lawyer. Maybe even get them to help you design an adventure sometime, so you can get a feel of how it is done.
People weave tangled webs when they deceive, and at some point they are likely to be found out, or at least people will begin expecting it. Better to be honest, work together as a group, and become a better GM for it overall.
Also, getting feedback from your players is an excellent idea. Feedback on the adventures, the encounters, the story, and so forth. Ask 'em what they like, what they feel like is working, what they might want to explore a bit more, and so forth. Communication, honesty, trust, all of these things are nothing but grade-A awesome for a gaming group, and for a GM.
Hmmm let me try and explain farther: Being a DM is often much more of an art than a science. Sometimes the hard numbers of the game are creating an unfavorable situation in which no one is having fun and the DM, reading the table, makes an adjustment to increase the enjoyment of the everyone playing(which can include fudging dice). Yes it can go wrong and yes there are plenty of examples of abuse from malicious DMs but if you're all friends who are working towards a positive social experience it will often work out for the better. I guess what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to making those decisions things aren't necessarily black and white, there can be a lot of grey.
Well I guess to clarify I realize that you do experience things that black and white and there is nothing wrong with that but it's not necessarily a universal experience.
|
|
Now THIS is more in line with the last thread we had on fudging.
People arguing about the moral implications of playing D&D.
What bothers me about some of the posts in this thread is that some of you consider GM’s fudging die rolls to be a morality issue. When someone says something like “I don’t fudge because I don’t like being dishonest with my friends”, what I hear is “GM’s who fudge are liars, and not good friends”.
I say to that - whoa, slow down, that is way too harsh!
I won’t deny that some GM’s fudge for inappropriate reasons, but even in those cases, it is going way too far to imply they are not good friends.
Despite the abundance of rules in this game we all love, it is still not an exact science. The dice can sometimes ruin what could have been an entertaining scenario. Some of you would prefer a lousy scenario, or even a TPK, rather than have your GM alter a die roll.
If you feel that way, I respect that. But I don’t think you should imply that GM’s who fudge are dishonest or bad friends.
Hey man, cheating is cheating. Didn't your parents, teachers, elders, authority figures, coach, or perhaps random stranger ever pass on the idea that cheating is wrong and shouldn't be done? Yeah, I see cheating as a morality issue because it's dishonest. Cheating at a game with your friends is dishonest.
...verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often followed by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
noun
8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
10. Law . the
Wow!! Really? Wow!!
OK I back off this one.
Now THIS is more in line with the last thread we had on fudging.
People arguing about the moral implications of playing D&D.
lol that's not what I was trying do, I was trying to figure out a way of separating the idea of DM fudging from the concept of a friend stabbing you in the back because those seem like silly equivalencies to me but against a passionately argued stance I was basically left with "Der, maybe things are a bit more complicated...."
But the truth is some people really do feel that way so what are you gonna do but accept their feelings as a valid personal experience and move on.
Now THIS is more in line with the last thread we had on fudging.
People arguing about the moral implications of playing D&D.
lol that's not what I was trying do, I was trying to figure out a way of separating the idea of DM fudging from the concept of a friend stabbing you in the back because those seem like silly equivalencies to me but against a passionately argued stance I was basically left with "Der, maybe things are a bit more complicated...."
But the truth is some people really do feel that way so what are you gonna do but accept their feelings as a valid personal experience and move on.
I think it's important to make a distinction.
All cheating is fudging. Not all fudging is cheating.
I would define cheating as altering the rules of the game without knowledge/consent of the other players and/or GM.
Fudging is on the fly altering of the rules, but it is with the consent of the group.
Not playing well with others is always bad. Playing well with others is good.
We have got a bit off track.
Rolling in front of players when you want to keep a roll secret is not the same as ignoring the die roll(s). Side note I admit the more you hide the more many players assume you are ignoring die rolls.
A game group may agree that GMs can ignore die rolls with it being a "normal" part of the agreed upon rules. If are claiming to be in the "I never change or ignore a roll" camp while doing so you are being dishonest by lying. Being dishonest is bad. If you admit it you are being honest, honest is good. The importance of morality is, I would hope, undebated. The fact that some people are dishonest neither proves nor disproves anything.
Eacaraxe, I'm assuming you are trying to demonstrate your point by taking the opposite side to what you consider a silly logical extreme, but I would suggest avoiding ones that literally don't work. Pathfinder needs a runner, even if literally all they do is make judgement calls about what is and is not RAI/RAW. Other wise the dead condition doesn't stop you from taking actions.
As far as I'm concerned fudging rolls is a horrible idea with few upsides and huge piles of downsides, regardless of cheating or not. At best it smooths out some rough edges at the expense of all of lowering the highs. At the worst it's a life sucking vampire the slowly drains the joy out of the entire hobby. I've seen people who think fudging is a great have way more fun in games that it didn't happen in repeatedly and the same problems repeatedly (PCs becoming power gamers hoping a high numbers mean fewer "Oh you missed it by one!" and enough damage to avoid, "Sorry you didn't get through the DR").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, looks like I certainly stepped on at least one toe.
Weird, I haven't seen this rule. Do you mean Rule 0? Because it doesn't say anything like you describe. Why not just remove the dice and let the players and GM sit around the table and tell a story if you don't want failure, or want limited amounts of failure. Why bother with a game that has stuff like Death & Dying rules, heavy mechanics for inflicting and sustaining damage, and spells like Raise Dead, or things like Saving Throws if you're just going to cop out when you think it's convenient?Yes, Rule 0. The same one that also states in essence 'the GM's role is to ensure their players have fun' which hinges a critical responsibility to that and every other tool.
Wonderful, 'cause rule 0 doesn't exist. At least not as you describe it. Good to see you hiding behind it so fiercely. The closest thing we have to rule 0 is...
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
So if you wanna make a house rule. That's fine. If you decide that knowledge DCs are too high for your liking, then you can lower them, but consistency and understanding of these changes. Perhaps this is not what you meant by Rule 0, but if you didn't, I'd like to see some citation about this rule 0.
...and, here we go with the "fudging rolls automatically means the GM is giving players a pass on everything or copping out" argument. What, a GM which attaches an ex post facto modifier to a roll, be it a secret modifier to a PC's roll or a flat modifier to an NPC roll which can be a bonus or a penalty either way cannot do so without going to an illogical extreme?
You mean like "The slick moss on the side of the cliff makes climbing a bit harder, so the DC is +2 higher" or "Because the ground below is covered in exceptionally dense - yet soft - foliage, you receive a +2 bonus on your Acrobatics checks to avoid getting hurt from falling onto it"? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that's called a circumstantial modifier, and it's typically informed to the players when it is going on.
But if you mean like adding or subtracting points on saving throws so they dodge or get hit by stuff when they shouldn't, and then not telling anyone, yeah, you're a dirty cheater.
Would you say that telling a player who rolls a 21 on their Knowledge (planes) check on an erinyes "...oh, and you've heard you might want to bog her down in melee but you're not sure why" counts as an auto-win, cop-out, fun killer and all that bad stuff you claim to be associated with fudging by default? Because that's exactly the kind of thing that also counts as fudging as it would be applying hidden or ex post facto modifiers to a roll, or giving a player more information they otherwise would be privy to by RAW.
WTF!? You're saying using a skill exactly as it's used and then giving them information that goes along with the success is cheating? Does not compute! The DC is 10 + monster's CR (or 15 + CR is you're dealing with a unique monster like the Terrasque) so the DC to ID the Erinyes is 18. If the person got a 21, then not only did they ID the plane of existance she is from (DC 20 Planes), but they also determined some of her vulernabilities. Your argument makes no sense.
A check of 18 in that case only reveals baatezu attributes, and an erinyes' actual combat tactics would be at least a DC 23 check.
Knowledge says it identifies the monsters "special powers and vulnerabilities", and somehow I think that includes a little more than their basic racial-type features. "She's a outsider with the law, evil, devil, and extraplanar subtype, and you know she has spell resistance 19" isn't cheating. In fact, it's nothing more than saying "The orc is a humanoid and has light sensitivity".
What about a situation where a GM says "what's your modifier again? ...ah, to hell with it, it's trivial don't even roll". Is that cheating, too, given it deviates from RAW? As a GM I have more important things to worry...
Take 10. Or if the modifier would make the minimum roll then they cannot fail on the check unless it is something special, such as Use Magic Device and it's 5% chance to biff it. You're making some very poor arguments because you apparently have no grasp of the rules at all. If the DC was in fact trivial, then that means that the player couldn't have failed it, which means that handwaving the roll is merely speeding up play because they auto-succeed.
Here's an example. The party is not threatened. They can take 10. Anything with DC 5 or lower is trivial because they can succeed even if their check modifier is a whopping -5, merely by taking 10. If the DC to see something is 10, and the Ranger's Perception modifier is +9 or higher, then the ranger cannot fail, at all.
Ergo, no cheating is involved. GM checked the DC and realized that the party could see it without bothering to roll. Poor argument.
I couldn't help but notice you had no response to my anecdote a page or so ago, in which I fudged the crap out of an NPC's full attack to ensure my players had an active role in the combat they'd spent an hour out-of-game, and in-game resources, preparing for and building up to.
Would you assert that was a trust-breaking instance of cheating that ruined everyone's fun? Because my players, who are the most important part of that equation would strongly disagree, even after learning after the fact by my own admission I'd fudged.
I didn't see your post, which is why I didn't respond to it. I will say that merely going off your own words here, my first instinct is a personal failure. You had to fudge the crap out of a full-attack? I cannot help but wonder why. Did you overshoot, undershoot, or mess something up as a GM? I guess it doesn't matter. If your players were happy, that's nice, but virtually anyone in my group would have been disappointed if they found out their victory was because you cheated and not their own.
The fact people can't justify a "no fudging at all" position without running screaming for logical extremes or pointing out actual, or theoretical, instances of extreme abuse without so much as acknowledging the possibility for moderation ought to be raising some red flags, here.
Cheating is cheating. Want an actual instance of fudgery? I had a friend that I used to game with about 3-4 years ago (he moved away). He said that dragons shouldn't be beaten because of bad saves, so if the druid cast baleful polymorph on the dragon and he rolled a 1, he would fudge it and say the dragon made the save to keep the fight going so it would be more epic. I asked him "would you let the druid prepare another spell in its place and give them their spell-slot and action back?", which was a question that he seemed not to understand the underlying meaning behind. He would have just cheated that player out of their action, their choice, their fun.
He GMed about 3 times, and then we never asked him to GM again. The reason he wasn't asked to sit in the GM chair again was a combination of gross ignorance of the rules combined with the fact he would cheat if he didn't think something was going exactly as he wanted it (for the good or the ill of the party).
That's real.
I'm addressing the role of the GM which is the very heart of this matter. A GM is way more than a referee, moderator, or arbiter. The GM is the one entrusted by the players to provide a quality, dynamic experience that is fun and cannot be quantified by dice rolls, CR's, maps, or any number of statistics.
So you say. But you can do all of that without cheating. What you describe is akin to an art student who, instead of learning to use his paints and brushes, takes a picture of a landscape and photoshop filters it to look like a painting. He's not a good artist, he's a fraud. He might even be a great photographer (like a cheater might spin a nice story) but he's a sham at what he's trying to pass himself off as.
Exactly what is it that you need to cheat on? Hm? Give me a scenario that you want to use that you feel you would have to cheat on? Exactly what is so important that you have to cheat on? If you paid attention, I said they were a referee, moderator, arbiter, storyteller, the guy who introduces new people to the game, etc, etc, etc. Cheating is not required for ANY OF THAT.
As I mentioned before, they are the stagecrafter for the PC's. And you can harp on that one word -- entrust -- all you like. That doesn't change Rule 0, that fundamentally the GM is entrusted to make sure the players have a good time and all else, including dice rolls, is secondary. If a GM fudges to ensure Rule 0 is maintained in an atmosphere in which "as the dice lay" may not ensure that, it is their prerogative as a GM.
Since you grossly misrepresent rule 0, I have no qualms with saying that I think you're just spouting wind. I want you to define something for me, because this is what my thoughts of your argument hinge upon.
"If a GM fudges to ensure Rule 0 is maintained in an atmosphere in which "as the dice lay" may not ensure that,"
Explain the above quote.
If you cannot abide that, then you really ought to start reconsidering what role a GM plays, precisely. Constraint is the heart of the issue: if you feel that a GM must be constrained in order to preserve Rule 0, you do not fully trust a GM to preserve Rule 0.
I entirely trust the GM to create house rules, or change things, assuming everyone gets a say. I might even go so far as to respect a GM who says "this isn't how it was supposed to go, do you wish me to fudge it?", since at least he was being honest with his mistakes and asking the rest of the group their thoughts on it.
If you did, you would accept that all actions a GM performs in-game is ultimately in pursuit of Rule 0 and by entrusting a GM with that you've tacitly entrusted them to take whatever action they need to take in-game to preserve Rule 0. If you do not, why have a GM at all? Players can abide by RAW on their own, generate their own encounters and resolve them with absolute transparency (every monster in the beastiary has a RAW tactics listing that can be arbitrated by the players themselves)
Rule 0 is not a pursuit. I trust the GM not to cheat. My players trust me not to cheat. If something goes wrong for me, then that means that we failed legitimately, and I can accept that. If something goes right for us, then we enjoy our victory.
And you're right, there are such things as GM-less games. Most of them tend to be dungeon crawls, but some people manage to - as a group - work out a plot or shared fantasy. This is not the norm however, and having a GM also discourages metagaming monsters in favor of your PCs, but it can be done (I can play chess with myself without metagaming or cheating, so figuring out if a monster should attack my PC would be trivially easy, but not so for everyone).
You also seem hellbent on this idea that either you have a GM who cheats or you can't have a story. That is a fallacy of epic proportions if there ever was one. The GM is typically the guy who crafts the story, sets the stage, plays the NPCs, arbitrates the rules, and introduces the challenges, the obstacles, and the rewards, for everyone at the table. None of this requires cheating, and none of this should require cheating. If you must cheat to do these, then it is a failure on your part, and perhaps the group would be better off trying to craft a shared-fantasy without you.
Horsecrap. A critical hit, by the law of large numbers, is not an unpleasant surprise. It's a statistical inevitability.
An unpleasant surprise is entering a dungeon room and ending up face-to-face with a bored marilith. Luckily, she's not immediately interested in killing you because she's bound to the dungeon, sick of the material plane and wants you to help set her loose so she can go back to the Abyss. That's a very unpleasant surprise if you're APL 9 and stand a snowball's chance against her, predominantly lawful and/or good, and reason out that if you say no, bluff her, just try to leave, or successfully unbind her she'll get really interested in killing you really quickly, and have to figure out some other way to extricate yourself from the World of Crap you've dumped yourself into.
That actually happened to me once as a player. It was not pleasant.
Hahaha, now we get to the crux of it. I love this example because it shows not only the cheating but the failure of GMing that led to the cheating. Firstly, you have included a Marilith as a possible antagonist or enemy in a game with an APL 9 and gave them no out except but to assist her or die. Fail. Something a little less insane could have worked, or maybe a young marilith (crafted to be around CR 12 or so), since adult mariliths are beyond the ability for most mortals to bind to the material plane anyway (verisimilitude is important for the story).
So really, what you're saying is "I screwed up as the GM, and put them in a situation where there is really only one right answer, and that right answer is also the wrong answer 'cause she'll kill them for releasing her because I'ma metagame the Marilith's knowledge of their alignments, and have her kill them; but not really 'cause I'ma just fudge the dice so the party can escape or defeat the being that is vastly beyond them as much as the Balrog was beyond Frodo".
That seems to sum it up pretty well.
I'll tell you why, since you seem to have missed the point. If you don't entrust a GM to ultimately abide by Rule 0, then you should just discard the GM. Without a GM to craft a story, challenge and god forbid surprise the players from time to time with something that cannot be or is not expected (which inherently necessitates secrecy and a lack of transparency), you're ultimately just engaging in a thought experiment on statistics and numerical optimization with story and metaplot concerns secondary. World of Warcraft already does that adequately within a controlled setting and is cheaper than a tabletop RPG, you may as well play that if you want statistics and numerical optimization.
Rule 0 does not exist the way you describe it. It is not a cop-out for the GMs to just cheat 'cause they feel like it. Everything you keep attributing the cheatery is entirely within the GM's toolbox from the start, no cheating required. You're trying to argue that if the GM can't cheat, you might as well not have a GM. That's fallacious and stupid.
A GM can craft a story, challenge AND surprise the players from time to time with stuff that's not expected (I don't know what you mean by "cannot be", but I'll assume it has something to do with cheating). He can do this will following the rules. Seriously this game is soooooo in favor of the GM in terms of being able to do virtually anything they want to without cheating that it's astounding. This is a game where you can make level 9 PCs cry by using level 1 goblins and kobolds as the main adversaries, without even going outside of their allotted wealth and the core rulebook.
Also, you're making foolish comments again. "Not cheating" does not equate to "wanting statistics and numerical optimization". You need to get that out of your head because it's fallacious. It sounds stupid every time you say it.
Also, I'm forced to wonder how you figure WoW is cheaper than D&D. Wow is like $15 a month, for 1 player. If you had a group who was going to play WoW together, say 4 people + the guy who would have GMed, that's $75 a month that your group is expending, whereas everyone in a tabletop game can share dice, books, and so forth if desired. Unless you mean private servers which are buggy and such (but you can play on them for free).
Likewise, while WoW has pretty decent mechanics for the most part, and the gameplay can be quite exciting (PvP is pretty fun in WoW), it offers a different experience than a tabletop RPG does. If you were to run the actual plot and such of World of Warcraft as a tabletop game, stuff would be very different in D&D. When you save Westfall from Edwin Vancleef and his Defias Bandits and pirates, then stuff will change in the game. You will have different dialogs. You might even decide to side with Edwin and help him on his quest for vengeance against the nobility of Stormwind, or steal his ship after you defeat him and sail to Kalimdor because you've wanted a life of adventure on the high seas.
The best part? The GM doesn't have to cheat for any of that.
Are you alleging this absolutely cannot occur in a game in which the GM fudges? Because, I'll refer you to my constant and repeated calls for moderation and responsibility in the use of fudging as a tool in the GM box, in which it should be used when appropriate in ultimate pursuit of Rule 0. Anything else is a misuse and therefore the sign of a poor GM.
This is similar to telling someone who doesn't drink Alcohol that drinking for the sake of drinking is entirely awesome if they do so in moderation. I don't cheat, I see no benefit in cheating, and nothing you have described as of yet has been anything that cannot be done (easily, I might add) without cheating. I'll drink my water, and you can give me your keys.
As I have repeatedly tried to stress, it is not cheating or fraud until it is misused. Not accepting that is the sign of a distrustful player. If no GM can be trusted to keep Rule 0 at heart, and must operate by constraint, then you may as well get rid of GM's. Then you may as well just be playing World of Warcraft, since the game you end up with is in no way a facsimile of tabletop role-play.
Yes, yes, I'm sure you're not misusing it. Now hand over you keys, and spend the ride home figuring out why your repeated fallacies and disgruntled attitude against World of Warcraft is probably a result due to your cheatery intoxication.
*chuckle*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is an assumption made about fudging that is way off base. Just because many of us have no problem with fudging once in a while, we are also not advocating a total disregard of the rules under all circumstances. We advocate some fudging when it enhances play for the players. If one of my players doesn't mind that their character dies, I have no need to worry about fudging. If that same player is having a bad night with die rolls, fudging one so that he takes less damage or is missed on one attack might be acceptable if he wants his character to live.
The higher level the party, the less I see a need to fudge. Once in a while though, the die roll is not ideal and there is a better outcome. What about those times when the rules don't take into account new rules? For example, reincarnate doesn't have dhampir on the list. Is it wrong to have the character come back as a dhampir if he wants to play that race anyway? Why force him to roll up a whole new character when a simple fudge works better?
No one is saying that the dice results don't matter. They certainly do. When the dice interfer with the fun, it's time to focus on the fun. I have fudged entire encounters because I knew that the party would win anyway and I didn't want to waste the hour of combat. Just tell them that they won and move on.
As for the Core Rules and fudging, open your book to page 402.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure I fudge. I don't like to fudge. I think everybody likes it best when the Big, Dramatic Thing happens totally naturally. But I will fudge and I will do it completely without guilt if I think it is what the players need to have fun.
I don't fudge to serve myself. When I fudge, it is to serve the story, the game, or one or more players. I think intuitive people know this is so, intuitively. There is no way to "prove" whether this is right or wrong, only the best we can do in the moment.
I am a very, very honest person, but I think arguments against fudging based on some supposed total disclosure principle are total pretentious hogwash. The game is not real life, where real people are counting on your honesty to make tough decisions. The game is a fantasy that gives the keys to being Santa Clause to the GM to do with as he thinks is right, and Santa Clause always comes through, whether coming through means allowing a bad thing to happen naturally, or twinkling his nose to change an outcome into a second chance at achieving something great and memorable.
Way off topic, but I seriously hate it when people break up quotes like that. It just looks so sloppy to me.
Fudging can be cheating. There are what I call narrative groups that expect to win, and to be heroes. I am not the proper GM for such a group. They also want a cool story so they might play a bit more loosely with the rules
Some people want the opportunity to become heroes based on their own abilities as players. They want a cool story, but they also want consistency with the game world and the rules.
With that said:
While dying sucks I would rather have a character die/fail than be given a victory or be allowed to live. I realize not everyone is like that, but that will define if a GM is cheating.
If you GM for group 2, and you allow them to live they will resent you for it, and call you a cheater, whether you fudge for or against them. In their eyes you have broken the social contract, so yes a GM can cheat since he is breaking an agreement. Quoting rule 0 all day long won't change that.
I am not saying a GM who fudges is a bad GM. It is not my place. I can only say listen to your players.
Fudging can be cheating. There are what I call narrative groups that expect to win, and to be heroes. I am not the proper GM for such a group. They also want a cool story so they might play a bit more loosely with the rules
Some people want the opportunity to become heroes based on their own abilities as players. They want a cool story, but they also want consistency with the game world and the rules.
With that said:
While dying sucks I would rather have a character die/fail than be given a victory or be allowed to live. I realize not everyone is like that, but that will define if a GM is cheating.
If you GM for group 2, and you allow them to live they will resent you for it, and call you a cheater, whether you fudge for or against them. In their eyes you have broken the social contract, so yes a GM can cheat since he is breaking an agreement. Quoting rule 0 all day long won't change that.
I am not saying a GM who fudges is a bad GM. It is not my place. I can only say listen to your players.
I can get behind this 100%.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, I need to apologize to you. I'm not the great guy you think I am. I lie to my players, constantly.
I lie anytime the villian tells them something untrue to conceal his allegiance.
I lie anytime the helpful NPC tells them something he thinks is true when it isn't.
I lie anytime their characters see something that isn't actually there, from illusions to hallucinations.
I'm sorry. I hope you can forgive me.
:)
I am not saying a GM who fudges is a bad GM. It is not my place. I can only say listen to your players.
+1
This has been my point. To say that GM's who fudge are liars, bad friends, and bad people is more than a little insulting - to people that you don't even know.
