I don't like to kill characters who have done everything in their power to proceed cautiously and are just suffering a run of bad luck so I have fudged before. Do something stupid, or even something smart but risky and the dice will fall where they may. But in line with that I loathe bringing people back from the dead, so in any game I run if your character dies well, "This is the really real world, there ain't no coming back."
That seems harsh and a little heavy-handed. What if they have eligible classes with the capacity to bring characters back from the dead, are they cut off from those spells? Or is it just that they can't hike down to the nearest church and pop back to life? I think that, combined with the "I'll decide if you deserved death" sentiment, would be a rough way to play, but then, I'm not in your campaigns. ;)
Back on topic, I fudge rolls, absolutely (although sparingly.) I do not roll in the open for this very reason. The story being told isn't mine, it isn't the players, it's ours collectively and I won't let dice dictate it. Should the entire party get wiped out (TPK) halfway through the campaign when something goes awry with an enemy encounter? Not in my world. Individual characters may fall, to be (hopefully) retrieved and brought back by their compatriots, but letting the dice truly dictate takes away much of the need for a GM in the first place. I echo the sentiments of others: listen to your players. If they want hardcore chance-dictates-their-fate, then give it to them; if they want an adventure full of peril but where the odds are somewhat in their favor, that's what they should get. If your own GM style clashes with what the players want, it might be time to get new players.
For the people who claim that "I fudge to make it more fun for the players," I have an honest question that I can't wrap my head around:
Why do you know what's fun for the players better than they themselves do?
Because when I'm the GM (and I've done a LOT of it, under a lot of systems, over more years than I like to count*), I don't have anything near that kind of superior knowledge. That's why I use hero points -- so that the PLAYERS get to decide when it would be fun for them to fudge. We're all aware of it, there's a transparent mechanism for it, and it allows each player to make his or her own decisions in those regards, rather than forcing me to dictate it to other people.
I don't claim to be the sole arbiter of fun at the table, "and thou shalt have no fun save unto me," or anything like that.
I don't assume that the players are so dumb they can't figure out what's fun for them. I'm generally deeply insulted by a DM who treats me that way. I like for things to be a bit more open, more honest, and more of a group decision.
P.S. I'm not trying to be a jerk here; I just honestly don't get it.
---
* Just so no one says "you'll learn with experience."
For the people who claim that "I fudge to make it more fun for the players," I have an honest question that I can't wrap my head around:
Why do you know what's fun for the players better than they themselves do?
Because when I'm the GM (and I've done a LOT of it, under a lot of systems, over more years than I like to count*), I don't have anything near that kind of superior knowledge. That's why I use hero points -- so that the PLAYERS get to decide when it would be fun for them to fudge.
I totally agree that a (good) hero point system is far superior to GM fudging, but I still think that the occasional fudge is sometimes better than nothing at all.
I totally agree that a (good) hero point system is far superior to GM fudging, but I still think that the occasional fudge is sometimes better than nothing at all.
You and are on exactly the same page then.
They told me.
Why do you know what's fun for the players better than they themselves do?
To expand on this thought - my players and I have discussed this many times. To put it simply, the players don't mind the GM fudging to save them. As long as it is not that often, and they can't tell that is what the GM is doing.
So for me it is very simple. Most of the time, the PC's die - because I can't fundge the attack roll, or damage without them knowing it, or because it is obvious what will happen if they fail a certain save.
But for the few time when I can turn death into unconsiousness without them realizing it - I will do that.
For the people who claim that "I fudge to make it more fun for the players," I have an honest question that I can't wrap my head around:
Why do you know what's fun for the players better than they themselves do?
I won't claim to know what's fun for the other players better than they do, but I will say that, as one of the people sitting at the table, I have to make it fun for me too. In my Sunday game, for example, I know exactly what fun is for 20% of the table and I know at least a portion of what counts as fun for the other 80%.
Why do you know what's fun for the players better than they themselves do?
They told me.
From what I've read of some of your past players, I don't doubt that for a second.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But for the few time when I can turn death into unconsiousness without them realizing it - I will do that.
I guess my question is still along the lines of "why not let them do that?"
I mean, do they actively want to be lied to?EDIT: In retrospect, a lot of people do want to be lied to, to "spare their feelings." All the time. So maybe I shouldn't be surprised. I guess I'm the weird oddball who can't stand it.
|
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.
Ok, but what if the players in this group play well and it was a fair encounter, but a freak run of the dice earns them a TPK?
Statistically that will happen eventually, and you have a campaign ending event that is no ones fault. Sure, the GM could do something other than kill the characters but isn't this sort of Deus Ex Machina just fudging done a different way? Having to roll up a new character in the middle of campaign really takes the wind out of my sails and is definitely not fun for me.
The let the dice fall where they may approach just seems so mechanical and predictable to me. To me it seems like the GM is absolving herself of making judgements and is letting the dice run the game. I suppose it is fair, but I guess I'm in the camp that emphasizes narrative over consistency.
To me it seems like the GM is absolving herself of making judgements and is letting the dice run the game. I suppose it is fair, but I guess I'm in the camp that emphasizes narrative over consistency.
Question remains, though: why do the players absolve themselves of that responsibility, and put it all on you? A decent hero point system prevents the freak TPK but also keeps the players in the loop.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question remains, though: why do the players absolve themselves of that responsibility, and put it all on you? A decent hero point system prevents the freak TPK but also keeps the players in the loop.
But that's like, hard work man. Can't you do that for us? Where's the next railroad station so we can get aboard the Plotline Express?
;)
Question remains, though: why do the players absolve themselves of that responsibility, and put it all on you? A decent hero point system prevents the freak TPK but also keeps the players in the loop.But that's like, hard work man. Can't you do that for us? Where's the next railroad station so we can get aboard the Plotline Express?
;)
Why yes, that is pretty much how we like it.
Scenario A - big fight, PC takes a huge hit from something, and the dice say he drops to -12. Not dead, but close.
Scenario B - big fight, PC takes a huge hit from something, and the dice say he drops to -16 - meaning dead. But the GM rolled the damage behind the screens (as he does most of the time) and fudges the damage so the PC is at -12. Not dead, but close.
Scenario C - big fight, PC takes a huge hit from something, and the dice say he drops to -16 - meaning dead. But the player uses a hero point (or some similar system) and reduces the damage so he is at -12. Not dead, but close.
We definitely prefer A and B because we can't tell which is occuring - so we assume is it A.
Why yes, that is pretty much how we like it.
Well, as long as your players are happy. No offense, but I would never, ever play in a game like that.
Why yes, that is pretty much how we like it.Well, as long as your players are happy. No offense, but I would never, ever play in a game like that.
That is hard to hear - but I understand your feelings for the most part.
But keep in mind that most of the time I can't use Scenrio B without the players knowing - so instead they die.
But keep in mind that most of the time I can't use Scenrio B without the players knowing - so instead they die.
I wish houstonderek were here to chime in. When we sat down at the table to discuss our first game together, he said, "The first time my character doesn't die if I get in over my head and don't run? I quit the game, right then, no discussion."
I sort of feel like that, too.
It sounds like you've got a houserule that says, "instead of dying at -Con hit points, you remain in the dying condition no matter how much damage you take." Like I said, that's cool if everyone is on board with it, but you might want to advertise the fact up front, to make sure no one is getting something they didn't expect.
As long as we weren't playing with Kirth or derek anyway.
See, you're up-front about fudging, and I'd have a pretty good idea when you were doing it, so I suppose I'd have the option to request a merciful death when my turn came around without offending you.
For those that want to play "only by the rules," well, fudging is in the rules. So if it's "only by the rules ... with no fudging," you're playing by a house rule and not RAW.
CRB p402 - The takeaway sentence from the paragraph is: "Still, it's no good if a single roll of the dice would result in a premature end to your campaign, or a character's death when the did everything right."
That is incorrect. The rules never tell you to fudge. They state the GM has the right to change the rules. Saying you can do something, and you are supposed to do something are not the same.
But keep in mind that most of the time I can't use Scenrio B without the players knowing - so instead they die.
I wish houstonderek were here to chime in. When we sat down at the table to discuss our first game together, he said, "The first time my character doesn't die if I get in over my head and don't run? I quit the game, right then, no discussion."
I sort of feel like that, too.
It sounds like you've got a houserule that says, "instead of dying at -Con hit points, you remain in the dying condition no matter how much damage you take." Like I said, that's cool if everyone is on board with it, but you might want to advertise the fact up front, to make sure no one is getting something they didn't expect.
No, we play with the rule that says you die at -Con. In my example scenarios the PC in question has a 16 Con. I knew I should have made that clear.
That's why I use hero points -- so that the PLAYERS get to decide when it would be fun for them to fudge.
That is not a bad idea either. It is a way to possibly keep those who want to accept death and those who don't at the same table.
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.
Ok, but what if the players in this group play well and it was a fair encounter, but a freak run of the dice earns them a TPK?
Statistically that will happen eventually, and you have a campaign ending event that is no ones fault. Sure, the GM could do something other than kill the characters but isn't this sort of Deus Ex Machina just fudging done a different way? Having to roll up a new character in the middle of campaign really takes the wind out of my sails and is definitely not fun for me.
The let the dice fall where they may approach just seems so mechanical and predictable to me. To me it seems like the GM is absolving herself of making judgements and is letting the dice run the game. I suppose it is fair, but I guess I'm in the camp that emphasizes narrative over consistency.
They still want the death. I have a player like that in my group now. The dice gods were against him that day. Freak dice also kill the potential super cool BBEG encounter when the BBEG can't roll above a 5. Sometimes it just isn't your day. That can apply to the NPC or PC.
I understand it is not fun for you, but everyone has their own preferences. As for rolling up characters, I am the type that would be willing to take the hit. I do have a backup ready though so I am not sitting at the table for half the session with nothing to do.
Some might argue that I am not really suffering since I get to jump back into the game with the new character, but the goal of death in game is not to fun my fun in real life. I, well most players actually, are deeply invested in their characters, and have plans for them down the road in the campaign, and it sucks to think about what could have been.
At the same time I also have a greater sense of accomplishment if I do make it to the end with the same character.
There is nothing wrong with narrative over being consistent. I don't think either way is really unfair. It is just a difference in playstyle. The game is part ability, and part luck. Sometimes luck is really bad that day. At that point the GM has to decide if he will interfere on behalf of the NPC or PC.
PS(to be clear about how I normally do things):For my group I help the players out at low levels but the help disappears as you level up. The overall abilities of the group also have a hand in this. Now if a player wishes to receive no help, even at level 1 then I respect their wishes.
PS2:Sometimes routing a boss character in one round is cool. It bumps the player's confidence.
edit: I forgot to speak on the issue of the TPK ending the campaign. TPK's don't have to end the campaign. NPC(future PC's) can take up the quest. How they get involved is up the group though. Some people just play through the quest again. I have seen other ideas around here that make not ending the campaign an option.
To me it seems like the GM is absolving herself of making judgements and is letting the dice run the game. I suppose it is fair, but I guess I'm in the camp that emphasizes narrative over consistency.Question remains, though: why do the players absolve themselves of that responsibility, and put it all on you? A decent hero point system prevents the freak TPK but also keeps the players in the loop.
Many players feel a responsibility to the group to keep their character alive to help the group if this is in combat. The other players might feel the same way.
There could also be the player who just gets annoys that the others wont just accept their death.I think it is important in this case for everyone to realize that not everyone wants the same thing out of the game if you have a mixed table, and respect the other players though.
Yeah Cory the Cleric might not use his hero point. If Cory states this up front have backup plans in case he dies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some codified rules on some players having fudging immunity and others not.
Player Characters have a pool of Conviction, which functions like Action points. All PCs get 6 Conviction. Conviction is replenished at the beginning of each 4-hour session.
Conviction can be used per the table below:
1pt - Roll twice, keeping the best roll *
2pt - Re-roll **
2pt - Take an extra move-equivalent action ***
3pt - Take an extra standard action ***
* Declare before any roll
** Declare after any roll, can be used multiple times for multiple re-rolls,
*** On your turn only
Conviction Variant - As a variant, Conviction can be replenished every day (i.e. when spellcasters regain spells).
THE DEATH FLAG
The death flag is definitely designed for campaigns where characters can’t come back from the dead. This lets those campaigns get rid of random lethality without eliminating death altogether as a possibility. This is done with a change in the “social contract” between players and GM. Whereas in standard D&D the player is at the mercy of the GM and the rules, with the death flag the player decides when the stakes of a conflict are life and death.
As an Immediate action, a player character can choose to raise his Death Flag and gain 6 Conviction instantly (even if this brings their total Conviction pool above 6).
When the death flag is raised, the normal rules for death apply. If the death flag has not been raised, then the character, if killed, is treated as reducing the player character to 1 hit point above death. The Death Flag can be lowered by spending 6 Conviction.
READING THE PLAYERS
When a player spends Conviction, they’re saying “Hey, this is important to me. I want my character to have been the one that pulled this off - or at least, put everything into trying.”
When a player raises the Death flag, they’re saying “This is worth staking my character’s life on.”
In this case, Kirth would always have his Death Flag raised, while Dren would not.
PS2:Sometimes routing a boss character in one round is cool. It bumps the player's confidence.
Now this is a situation where I will not fudge. If the boss goes down quickly, so be it - enjoy players, enjoy.
Yup, while it sucks to have a thought-out, supposedly well prepared, BBEG go splat, the joy the players have makes up for it.
PS2:Sometimes routing a boss character in one round is cool. It bumps the player's confidence.Now this is a situation where I will not fudge. If the boss goes down quickly, so be it - enjoy players, enjoy.
Again, know your table. Some people want to storm the gates and stomp down the object of their ire as quickly as possible, but there are plenty of players who don't want to put the boss down in one round; it's anticlimactic and can cast a pall of anti-balance on the rest of the module or campaign. In cases like that, there's nothing wrong with having them able to counter the BBEG's every effort and feel like they truly control the confrontation, but how many truly dramatic confrontations between a hero and villain (or villain and hero in the case of BBGGs) start and end with a few seconds of attacks?
Back when I was first introduced to D&D some ten years ago I had regularly been gaming playing Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay first edition. In that system there was an expendable resource called fate points that basically equated to extra lives. When I began DMing I added those to the D&D game and it cured me of any need to fudge. With that I was able to play around with monsters and abilities I didn't fully understand without having to fudge or softball things if things went violently against my expectations.
In my longest running game group of close friends from high school we simply play by the rules but if something goes down that we don't like we simply rewind time and either play the encounter again or say it happened differently. We are all pretty much on the same page on how we like stories to feel and it works pretty well. I realize many people's reaction to that would probably be "then why roll dice at all if you are allowed to just change things?" To which I reply I dunno it's fun for us.
No, we play with the rule that says you die at -Con. In my example scenarios the PC in question has a 16 Con. I knew I should have made that clear.
I must have misunderstood your post; it seemed to fairly clearly state that you pretend to play by that rule, but in actuality anyone reduced to below -Con doesn't die; rather, you change the negative total to something less than Con. Was that not correct? For example:
Scenario B - big fight, PC takes a huge hit from something, and the dice say he drops to -16 - meaning dead. But the GM rolled the damage behind the screens (as he does most of the time) and fudges the damage so the PC is at -12. Not dead, but close.
See, in Scenario B, the character drops to -16, but doesn't die. Instead, you keep him alive. Therefore, while the advertised death threshold is -Con, the actual death threshold is undefined. The thing is, if the players all believe the advertisement, and one or more of them is like Derek or I, you run a high risk of creating a lot of animosity by not being honest with them up front that the actual rule you use is that negative hp total is meaningless, in order to ensure their not having to roll up a new character mid-campaign.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that rule at all, provided that it's clear and agreed-upon.
What should happen when the GM screws up the adventure design and makes an encounter too tough? I have seen several published adventures where the encounters are tougher than they should be. Age of Worms has two the come immediately to mind. As an experienced GM I can see them and make adjustments before the game starts. What about a less experienced GM? What happens when he has a TPK because of his inexperience and a poorly designed encounter? What harm is there in making adjustments on the fly to give the characters a fighting chance?
What should happen when the GM screws up the adventure design and makes an encounter too tough? I have seen several published adventures where the encounters are tougher than they should be. Age of Worms has two the come immediately to mind.
In "Age of Worms", my character was killed (full HP to negative Con) with a single critical hit. I used some hero points to negate the critical. Problem solved!
What should happen when the GM screws up the adventure design and makes an encounter too tough? I have seen several published adventures where the encounters are tougher than they should be. Age of Worms has two the come immediately to mind. As an experienced GM I can see them and make adjustments before the game starts. What about a less experienced GM? What happens when he has a TPK because of his inexperience and a poorly designed encounter? What harm is there in making adjustments on the fly to give the characters a fighting chance?
I think AoW was designed for really experienced gamers. That is why it was so full of potential TPK's.
With that aside if he makes a bad encounter he has to decide what to do based on the group. A lot of factors go into that.
I must have misunderstood your post; it seemed to fairly clearly state that you pretend to play by that rule, but in actuality anyone reduced to below -Con doesn't die; rather, you change the negative total to something less than Con. Was that not correct?
No, most of the time I cannot fudge the damage without the players realizing that I did. They are a smart group, they can see how much damage they tend to receive in a given encounter, and they know the rules as well as I do.
So if the BBEG is doing a lot of damage the whole fight, and then he only does a little all of a sudden - they will notice.
If I ask them how many hit points they have before giving them the damage - they will notice.
If the evil rogue gets the drop on someone and the handfull of d6's I roll behind the screens only comes up with a little damage - they will notice.
And I sometimes make these kind of rolls in front of them for dramatic effect.
In my current campaign, the players are 10th level, and there have been multiple deaths. Especially for the reckless charge into the battle types.
It is not that I don't think PC's should die, I just like it to be rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this case, Kirth would always have his Death Flag raised, while Dren would not.
Because of the many passionate arguments I have seen against fudging, I have decided to put the question to my players. I emailed them all about 10 mintues ago to ask their opinions - fudging vs hero points.
I think I know how they will respond, but I could be surprised - as I was by the many "no fudging ever" responses I have seen here. Most of us have been playing together for 20+ years, but we do have a couple of new guys.
If they tell me no fudging, that is how it will be from this point forward. I am eager to see the results. Of course I will share them with you all.
What should happen when the GM screws up the adventure design and makes an encounter too tough? I have seen several published adventures where the encounters are tougher than they should be. Age of Worms has two the come immediately to mind.In "Age of Worms", my character was killed (full HP to negative Con) with a single critical hit. I used some hero points to negate the critical. Problem solved!
** spoiler omitted **
I don't use hero points. The adventure did introduce fate points later on, but long after one of the harder encounters. You didn't negate a PC death that occured because of bad design though. You negated a negative result that occured due to random chance.
What should happen when the GM screws up the adventure design and makes an encounter too tough? I have seen several published adventures where the encounters are tougher than they should be. Age of Worms has two the come immediately to mind. As an experienced GM I can see them and make adjustments before the game starts. What about a less experienced GM? What happens when he has a TPK because of his inexperience and a poorly designed encounter? What harm is there in making adjustments on the fly to give the characters a fighting chance?I think AoW was designed for really experienced gamers. That is why it was so full of potential TPK's.
With that aside if he makes a bad encounter he has to decide what to do based on the group. A lot of factors go into that.
I've noticed that too and my group is a mixed bag. Some of us have played for a very long time while others have little experience.
It's the bad design or lack of experience that can be a very good reason to fudge. I think that it should be needed less and less as. The GM improves. If he needs to rely on fudging, then he really isn't improving. That's my opinion. Of coruse a GM that makes sure the game is fun is always successful. I just don't think success equates to skill.
Because of the many passionate arguments I have seen against fudging, I have decided to put the question to my players. I emailed them all about 10 mintues ago to ask their opinions - fudging vs hero points.
I think I know how they will respond, but I could be surprised - as I was by the many "no fudging ever" responses I have seen here. Most of us have been playing together for 20+ years, but we do have a couple of new guys.
If they tell me no fudging, that is how it will be from this point forward. I am eager to see the results. Of course I will share them with you all.
Alas is a rare that I get all of my (6) players to respond to my emails with any real speed. So we may have to wait a few days before I get their opinions. So far no one has responded. Sigh. Perhaps I should have offered an XP bonus.
I have been known to make my players keep the 1s they roll as hit points. Usually, I roll with them and they take the higher of the two rolls. That means that we both have to roll a 1 for them to have to take it. It also means that the expected value of a roll is a little bit higher than for a single die roll.
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.
:)
Heh, I don't want to just forgive you, I want to buy you cake! :P
What about Hit Points?
How many of you actually make your players keep a 1?
There has been more than one occasion when I don't 'see' a poor roll. all hit point rolls are made in full view of the table (and if they are having a bad run I will 'call it' when they finally get at least 50%.
I mean it's all fudging right? even the little stuff?
I've been using average HP ever since the 3E DMG recommended it because "a low roll hurts worse than a high roll helps", and I feel it encourages fairness. It makes it less about luck and more about your choices, I feel.
d12 = 6.5 per level
d10 = 5.5 per level
d8 = 4.5 per level
d6 = 3.5 per level