If he needs to rely on fudging, then he really isn't improving. That's my opinion. Of course a GM that makes sure the game is fun is always successful. I just don't think success equates to skill.
I agree. I had to go to work so I could not give a full answer. If the GM is new and he over CR's the encounter. He should take try to figure out what he did wrong. If he is experienced then and this is a regular thing then he may not be able to judge encounters correctly. Not everyone is cut out to be a GM. Some people are good at mechanics, some are good at storytelling. I think in order to satisfy most gamers you should be decent at both. Part of the mechanics side is judging CR's. You might hide it bu fudging, and the players might be fooled, but it does not make you a good GM.
PS:The above is assuming no one sided dice rolls are the reason for the encounter not going as planned.
We either make them take the one or have a alternative rule in place like you can take 1/3 or get one reroll. Other wise it's a bit unfair to the guy who gets the 2 then watches his buddy with the 1 reroll for max HP.
I rarely fudge rolls, usually if I want a certain outcome I just use my desired result.. I do not consider this cheating rather part of my telling the story.
I am considering to implement hero points so the pcs can reroll once in a certain ammount of time, I havent used them before, but I intend to bestow a fraction of divinity on them, hero points might be a good method to simulate part of their increased potential.
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?
There's no harm whatsoever. I'd say it's part of the learning process, both in how to DM with an eye to producing fun no matter what was previously written on the page and in learning how to gauge his player's skills.
A GM cheating is simply an arrogance of saying 'I know that game would have THIS happen, but I demand that instead THAT happens because it would be better for everyone'.
-James
Telling people that they're having fun wrong is simply arrogance of an even higher magnitude.
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.
I have responses thus far from 3 out of 6 players. All in favor of hidden fudging over hero points.
|
Telling people that they're having fun wrong is simply arrogance of an even higher magnitude.
A GM cheating is simply an arrogance of saying 'I know that game would have THIS happen, but I demand that instead THAT happens because it would be better for everyone'.
-James
Luckily, I don't cheat, and thus do not fall under his statement. :)
I usually do not fudge dice and I certainly do not want to pull punches but sometimes you can choose to fudge the dice or spend alot of times making repairs and/or having a grumpy group of players.
When players die they tend to leave behind alot of loot, if the player in question wants to make a new character you have a sudden boost of wealth in the party, need to find a way to introduce a new character and basically eating alot of playtime that could have been used in a more productive fashion. Most players just do not think it is fun to have their characters raised from the dead a dozen times, some do not want to be raised at all, and sometimes the party is not in a situation where it is easy to come by, unless you stress credibility.. which is basically the same as fudging anyway.
I have responses thus far from 3 out of 6 players. All in favor of hidden fudging over hero points.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.
OK now I have 3 in favor of fudging, 1 in favor of hero points. I am a little surprised at the hero point vote. Those 4 account for the 4 veteran players. I may have to wait a lot longer for responses from the 2 newbies.
Still so far it went pretty much as I expected.
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 ignore hp rolls that are 25% or less of the maximum amount allowed by the roll:
d4 (olden days) - minimum 2
d6 - minimum 2
d8 - minimum 3
d10 - minimum 3
d12 - minimum 4
If you roll a value that's below the minimum, re-roll. If you roll a low roll that's at least the minimum, that's what you get. Sometimes a character just doesn't have that much divine luck, and hopefully they've put a good value into constitution. If not, it can make for an interesting play experience.
OK now I have 3 in favor of fudging, 1 in favor of hero points. I am a little surprised at the hero point vote. Those 4 account for the 4 veteran players. I may have to wait a lot longer for responses from the 2 newbies.
Whichever way they vote, let me congratulate you on what I would consider an exceptionally nice touch as GM.
Actively soliciting player feedback regarding optional rules is, to my mind, a class act.
OK now I have 3 in favor of fudging, 1 in favor of hero points. I am a little surprised at the hero point vote. Those 4 account for the 4 veteran players. I may have to wait a lot longer for responses from the 2 newbies.Whichever way they vote, let me congratulate you on what I would consider an exceptionally nice touch as GM.
Actively soliciting player feedback regarding optional rules is, to my mind, a class act.
Thank you Kirth, I do appreciate that.
Now I can't help thinking... how do satisfy that one player who likes hero points? And would it be fair to him if I did.
In fact, his character died not too long ago - could not fudge without it being obvious. Critical hit with a great axe. He has worked it into his roleplay - now he won't face opponents with great axes. Nice touch I thought.
Any thoughts on how I can give him hero points and still be balanced with the other PC's? Or should I not care about that, and just give him what he wants?
Any thoughts on how I can give him hero points and still be balanced with the other PC's? Or should I not care about that, and just give him what he wants?
I don't see a problem at all -- you can essentially be running a game using hero points, and each player chooses whether to remain in control of his or her own points, or whether to cede them to the GM to use on his or her behalf. In other words, all the players who prefer GM fudging simply allow you to play their hero points for them.
If you, as GM, choose to keep track of the points ("I've fudged for Bob twice now, leaving him with one to go"), then that's exactly how it works; but even if you aren't too careful in keeping track, the system is analogous and should work pretty well.
If you, as GM, choose to keep track of the points ("I've fudged for Bob twice now, leaving him with one to go"), then that's exactly how it works; but even if you aren't too careful in keeping track, the system is analogous and should work pretty well.
That's does sound like a good idea.
Although I don't know how they will feel about it as a group. It feels to me like it will set that player apart from the others as a kind of "holier than thou, I don't need the GM to determine when to save me" kind of thing.
If I were in the hidden-hero point group I might feel slight resentment. But then I tend to be overly-sensitive.
If I were in the hidden-hero point group I might feel slight resentment.
If I have a choice of chocolate ice cream or vanilla, and I choose vanilla, would I feel resentful towards someone who picked chocolate? That makes no sense to me, but never mind that -- because if they feel resentful anyway, why couldn't they ask to take their hero points back over from you? Maybe after a session of forgetting about them, or agonizing about when to use them, etc., they decide that they're better off giving them back to you?
If I were in the hidden-hero point group I might feel slight resentment.If I have a choice of chocolate ice cream or vanilla, and I choose vanilla, would I feel resentful towards someone who picked chocolate? That makes no sense to me, but never mind that -- because if they feel resentful anyway, why couldn't they ask to take their hero points back over from you? Maybe after a session of forgetting about them, or agonizing about when to use them, etc., they decide that they're better off giving them back to you?
I don't think the choice is as simple as the difference between chocolate and vanilla.
In one case the GM is still deciding when to use the hero points to save the character. In the other case the player takes the responsibilty himself.
His preference for using the hero points himself indicates that he would do so less often, or at different times than the GM would chose for him.
You don't see that at all?
I find it interesting that some of the posters who would NEVER consider fudging a dice roll, are okay with fudging hit points. If, as someone says, fudging a dice roll in combat is cheating, then so is fudging hit point rolls, or even granting average hit points. My players would be outraged. If they roll a 1, they expect to have to live with it. When they roll a 10, they want to bask in that feeling of success.
So everybody fudges, just in different ways. Whatever works for your party is the key, and as long as people are having fun, more power to you.
The issue with fudging in game to them/us is that it takes "the moment" away. Your character dies a valiant death or you one shot the BBEG, then the DM fudges and all of a sudden it is basically "that did not happen".
His preference for using the hero points himself indicates that he would do so less often, or at different times than the GM would chose for him.
You don't see that at all?
I see it, but fail to see it as a problem, especially if you read the rest of my last post.
OK now I have 3 in favor of fudging, 1 in favor of hero points. I am a little surprised at the hero point vote. Those 4 account for the 4 veteran players. I may have to wait a lot longer for responses from the 2 newbies.
By the way, what specific hero point system did you propose? (They're not all created equal.)
I see it, but fail to see it as a problem, especially if you read the rest of my last post.His preference for using the hero points himself indicates that he would do so less often, or at different times than the GM would chose for him.
You don't see that at all?
Kirth - of course I read the entire post. I get your point that if they feel resentment, they can join the non-hidden hero point group. I get that.
I was just somewhat troubled that you stated the choice was similar to a choice between chocolate and vanilla. I assume your point was that the choice is trivial.
Also, if I were the resentful player, I doubt my response would be to take control of my hero points. Especially if I had already stated that I was more in favor of fudging. I would just simply feel the resentment.
I do acknowledge that there are certain advantages to using the hero points yourself. Because then the GM need not be concerend about hiding when they are used. In the case of this player, his last death could have been averted by his choice.
However most of the players in my group perfer to be ignorant of when they are saved - be it from simple fudging or the application of a hidden hero point. That is the reason most of them prefer hidden fudging.
By the way, what specific hero point system did you propose? (They're not all created equal.)
Actually I had not thought that far yet. My next game is in mid-october.
I know there is a Hero Point system in Pathfinder, but I have not read it yet.
Thus far my thoughts were along the lines of something like a couple of "get out of death free" cards. Basically changing death to unconsiousness.
I was just somewhat troubled that you stated the choice was similar to a choice between chocolate and vanilla. I assume your point was that the choice is trivial.
Not at all -- my point was that if everyone is starting equal, and everyone gets the exact same choice, then it's irrational to feel resentment towards someone else simply because they chose differently than you did.
If ice cream flavor were the most important thing in the world, my answer would be the same.
I was just somewhat troubled that you stated the choice was similar to a choice between chocolate and vanilla. I assume your point was that the choice is trivial.Not at all -- my point was that if everyone is starting equal, and everyone gets the exact same choice, then it's irrational to feel resentment towards someone else simply because they chose differently than you did.
The resentment would come from wanting everyone to be held to the same standard.
The resentment would come from wanting everyone to be held to the same standard.
Sure, and if the standard is "you get 5 hero points," then that standard is the same. Now we start the game, and everyone gets to choose: do you want to track and spend your own hero points, or do you want the GM to do it for you?
The standard is the same. The choices are the same. The end result is likely the same. The only difference is that 3 people don't want to think about it and intentionally say they don't want to know what happens to their points, whereas the fourth person says, "I'd like to track my own, instead of making you do it, if that's OK."
Imagine two barbarian PCs. One player carefully tracks how many rounds of rage he has left, and the other player says, "I can't keep track, can someone else do it for me?" and the DM says, "sure, I'll take care of it." That's more or less what I'm looking at. If player #2 then turns around and also adds, "And please don't tell me when I'm about to run out, I want it to be a secret because it's more fun for me that way," then it's an even more exact match. The only resentment I'd have is if one choice somehow meant that you could never run out of rage, ever, and the other one held you to a strict limit... and in that case it wouldn't be the unlimited rage person resenting the limited one!
The resentment would come from wanting everyone to be held to the same standard.Sure, and if the standard is "you get 5 hero points," then that standard is the same. Now we start the game, and everyone gets to choose: do you want to track and spend your own hero points, or do you want the GM to do it for you?
The standard is the same. The choices are the same. The end result is likely the same. The only difference is that 3 people don't want to think about it and intentionally say they don't want to know what happens to their points, whereas the fourth person says, "I'd like to track my own, instead of making you do it, if that's OK."
Imagine two barbarian PCs. One player carefully tracks how many rounds of rage he has left, and the other player says, "I can't keep track, can someone else do it for me?" and the DM says, "sure, I'll take care of it." That's more or less what I'm looking at. If player #2 then turns around and also adds, "And please don't tell me when I'm about to run out, I want it to be a secret because it's more fun for me that way," then it's an even more exact match. The only resentment I'd have is if one choice somehow meant that you could never run out of rage, ever, and the other one held you to a strict limit... and in that case it wouldn't be the unlimited rage person resenting the limited one!
I understand your point, but many people want everyone to play the heroic character that accepts death, and if player B chooses to not die then they resent him for his playing. It is just like on these boards when people get into arguments over play style.
I understand your point, but many people want everyone to play the heroic character that accepts death, and if player B chooses to not die then they resent him for his playing. It is just like on these boards when people get into arguments over play style.
I agree. The thing is, in this case player A doesn't accept death, either. He lies to himself and pretends he does, but then trusts the DM to choose for him not to die.
And, like play style, I feel that there's room in the hobby for both groups. In this particular case, I think there's room at the same table for both groups.
And, like play style, I feel that there's room in the hobby for both groups. In this particular case, I think there's room at the same table for both groups.
Kirth is correct. Group A would have hero points that I spend for them at my discretion. While Group B (one player) would spend the hero points at his discretion.
However I would spend the hero points the same way I fudge now - which is only when the players cannot tell I am doing so. The difference in this case comes down to the players either knowing, or not knowing they are being saved.
I am going to go with the majority, and continue as I have been - which is fudging the damage if I can get away with it. I accept that many of you find this unacceptable and would never play in such a game.
I will say again in my defense that most of the time, I cannot get away with it, and so I don't fudge at all. In fact I cannot remember the last time I was able to get away with it, so I might even go so far as to say I have not yet fudged in the 10 levels of my campaign.
But if this player's monk takes more fatal damage, and I can reduce it without him realizing it - I will totally do it.
I understand your point, but many people want everyone to play the heroic character that accepts death, and if player B chooses to not die then they resent him for his playing. It is just like on these boards when people get into arguments over play style.
If they resent the other player for not being Heroic, than they're essentially trying to dictate another player's actions and motives and fate and that's worse than GM fiat because it's another player.
Anyway, as a player, I don't care if the GM realizes a key monster is too powerful and softens it or vice-versa, as long as it isn't frequent and blatant. I really don't care if the GM has things in the background happen without them rolling for it. However when it comes to player interaction and you fudge the rolls, it really cheapens the effect of the dice. If you weren't going to play by the dice, why even roll them?
Never being able to kill an enemy until it shines and always being at the brink of death is just annoying. If the first couple of rounds is scripted, then why bother rolling? You may as well just call it a cut-scene, because that's what it is. To put it bluntly, I hate being an actor in the 'GMs' story, I expect the GM to be the arbitrator of our[The Players] story. As soon as the GM starts fudging dice to tell his story, they messed up. What's key is whether it's for the GM's plot or if its for the players and if they want it.
In fact, his character died not too long ago - could not fudge without it being obvious. Critical hit with a great axe. He has worked it into his roleplay - now he won't face opponents with great axes. Nice touch I thought.Interesting that you would have denied this to him, but are happy with the end result. I would posit that this should be food for thought here.
Personally, I see DM fudging along the lines of cheating at solitaire. You can argue that there's no cheating because you agree with yourself on the rules, that you're having fun this way, etc.
And sure.. have fun. There's nothing inherently wrong with having fun (as long as its not at others' expense).
However it's not the same game. And I would say that for me, it's a better game when you just let the cards fall where they fall rather than peek, switch them around etc so that you will 'win'. Sure done straight up you don't win all the time, but then again winning means something (however small) in part because of that.
-James
Yes, I would definitely deny him this. I was not happy with the result, I just said it was a nice touch. It is nice that he worked the method of his death into the roleplay of his character, but I would still prefer that he did not die at all, and I am certain that he feels the same. In my group we rarely find dying to be fun.
Where he and I differ is the method that would have hypothetically been used to save him. He would prefer to have used a hero point, and I would prefer to have fudged to lower the damage.
What this boils down to for me is how often characters die. I think it should rare - perhaps once or twice in a character's lifetime. But I have found (especially since our switch to Pathfinder) that the PC's can dish it out way better than they can take it. Which means the challenging encounters can lead to death fairly easily.
Those of you who think this means I am a bad GM kindly keep your opinions to yourself.
Let me state again that the vast majority of the time, I let the chips fall, and the PC dies if that is what the dice say. But I never WANT the PC's to die. I would always prefer that they come very close to dying. That is challenege enough in my opinion.
In my group we rarely find dying to be fun.
I still have fond memories of our Age of Worms campaign, with not one but two TPKs in the Spire of Long Shadows. That's still one of my favorite adventures ever, and in retrospect, none of the "no-death" campaigns I've ever been involved with can hold a candle to AoW, in terms of my own enjoyment.
In my group we rarely find dying to be fun.I still have fond memories of our Age of Worms campaign, with not one but two TPKs in the Spire of Long Shadows. That's still one of my favorite adventures ever, and in retrospect, none of the "no-death" campaigns I've ever been involved with can hold a candle to AoW, in terms of my own enjoyment.
My players bought me the Red Hand of Doom adventure, because we had kept hearing about it on the WotC boards (and it was developing a bit of a reputation for being tough). Everyone rolled up some characters and TPKed during the first encounter. Instantly they were elated - this campaign was going to be awesome, they thought. They rolled up yet more new characters, thinking of where they messed up before, and coming up with some ideas on how to work together.
I restarted the game with their new-er characters, and they managed to triumph. Oh how excited they were. One of the PCs actually died twice in the adventure later on (go-go rod of resurrection), and it still to this day is that player's favorite campaign he as ever been in, as well as the favorite campaign for the rest of the players in that group; so I am told.
In my group we rarely find dying to be fun.I still have fond memories of our Age of Worms campaign, with not one but two TPKs in the Spire of Long Shadows. That's still one of my favorite adventures ever, and in retrospect, none of the "no-death" campaigns I've ever been involved with can hold a candle to AoW, in terms of my own enjoyment.
I can see what you are saying, and I don't disagree with you that it was fun for you. Going out in blaze of glory. Striving to succeed against insurmountable odds. Cool stuff, I mean it.
That is just not the way we play. For us a TPK means everyone makes a new character. Is that what is meant for you guys in the campaign you mentioned?
We put hours of thought and effort into making our characters. So for everyone to die and have to make a new one would not be that fun for us at all. We would talk about it for years afterwards, and it might not seem so bad later on down the line. But the night it happened, it would be a very quiet solemn ending to that game.
Also, when you say "no-death" campaign, what does that mean? Do you mean campaigns where no one ever dies? Because we have never had one of those.
For us a TPK means everyone makes a new character. Is that what is meant for you guys in the campaign you mentioned?
We had a tendency to have a lot of characters each (especially at lower levels), and run them on alternating adventures, and sometimes swapping groups out when they happened to end up at similar levels. There are a lot of advantages to that kind of setup: you can trade off DMing without disrupting an ongoing campaign; you can accommodate varying participation when people's RL interferes with game night; you can have the groups of PCs stumble upon the aftermath of situations that another group of PCs might have actually caused; and -- maybe most importantly -- it's a lot easier to recover from a TPK.
We put hours of thought and effort into making our characters.
Us, too. In fact, a lot of my houserules are needlessly complex simply to allow more opportunity to spend more hours on character building. I personally tend to have detailed portraits, short stories (and one novella), lineages, and the whole nine yards for anyone who makes it past 6th level or so. But those things get accumulated gradually, not all at once.
Also, when you say "no-death" campaign, what does that mean? Do you mean campaigns where no one ever dies? Because we have never had one of those.
I should have said, "no permanent death," like when people get killed but you resurrect them right away -- they might as well not have died at all, then. I even like to use a 1e-style "resurrection survival" to make it unlikely that a dead character can be easily popped back to life, and my homebrew world is full of Morganti weapons that can destroy a victim's soul. When my favorite (and longest-lived) ranger character got killed in a Morganti duel, we made it into a campaign-altering event; the King declared Morganti weapons illegal, and anyone carrying them thereafter was suddenly treated a lot differently. As a result, I remember that character, and his legacy, a lot better than I would have if he had retired after saving the world again.
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.
But that last part really is the point. Listen to your players. Know them. In my group, I have a longterm player who I know wants the dice to determine his fate; who would rather his character die, even randomly and nonsensically, because as a gambling sort he enjoys the chance aspect of it all.
In the same group I have a player who would interpret an accidental death as my intentionally killing her character off. If her character dies, it better be meaningful and "make sense" to her.
I don't fudge for the first player. I do occasionally fudge for the second player, if I feel I must, though I never do so to give her some kind of advantage over everybody. I just have to feel my way through those situations. It is what it is; she's a smart person and a good player, and I have adapted to her needs because I am a good GM who's been doing this for 31 years. It doesn't mean I pull punches. It means I choose them more carefully for her.
In either case, I roll behind the screen. And to me, the screen is the best proof that fudging is within the GM's purview. There has been a screen since the first edition, and it has been explicitly stated from the beginning that it is there to hide not only the GM's notes, but his rolls as well.
As said, know your players. Show you know them well, and they will trust you.
I have considered ripping off Mutants and Masterminds, were PCs get hero points (their version work differently) when GMs reroll for NPCs or force PC failure. It gives GMs control without players feeling helpless, plus no need for secrecy.
Going out on a limb here, I'd be willing to wager most of the militantly anti-fudging folks have no compunction with a character getting a cheapo res and heal each and every time they die with no consequences save monetary.
You'd lose that wager. Houstondetek is the most anti-cheating, please-let-my-character-die player I have ever encountered. He'll quit a game over GM fudging, and will often refuse or "forget" to use his own hero points. He's also against easy resurrection, and loves the fact that I brought back resurrection survival rolls (if I remember correctly, he even mentioned a return to permanent Constitution loss even if the resurrection were successful) and included Morganti weapons.
Most of the 1e players I know, myself included, skew towards that end of things: difficult resurrection, lots of permanent death, and very little fudging. Any PC who somehow makes it past mid-level is definitely remembered, in that kind of a game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM's shouldn't fudge. The dice are likely a better dictator of drama than the DM. The dice will provide organic highs and lows throughout the game. The DM will provide a monotonous set of highs and lows that are easily seen through.
One shotting the BBEG? Great. Those rare moments make for great memories later. "Yeah, my character was so cool he one shotted the dragon, remember?"
Character dies? Great. Now there's some real room for role playing. Even if your games are role playing light, it highlights the need for serious thought behind future tactics. It creates consequences. Read that word again: consequences. That's important.
See, if the DM fudges the results then no character build really matters. No feat selections matter. No skill point allotments matter. In essence, the character doesn't matter. Frankly, I find it insulting when I'm playing in a game and the DM is fudging.
Worth noting: DM's who fudge rolls either think that they're smarter than they are, or that players are dumber than they are. I notice this stuff when it happens, and so do a lot of other folks. Used to, I would quietly seethe while pretending I didn't notice just out of good manners. These days, I outright refuse to play at a table where fudging is happening. I expect that the person DMing a game I'm playing in to be fair, and trustworthy. I sure don't expect him to insult me by thinking I'm too dumb to notice his juvenile attempts at force-feeding drama.
I'm an adult. I game with adults. I expect every member at the table to act like adults.
DM's shouldn't fudge. The dice are likely a better dictator of drama than the DM. The dice will provide organic highs and lows throughout the game. The DM will provide a monotonous set of highs and lows that are easily seen through.
One shotting the BBEG? Great. Those rare moments make for great memories later. "Yeah, my character was so cool he one shotted the dragon, remember?"
Character dies? Great. Now there's some real room for role playing. Even if your games are role playing light, it highlights the need for serious thought behind future tactics. It creates consequences. Read that word again: consequences. That's important.
See, if the DM fudges the results then no character build really matters. No feat selections matter. No skill point allotments matter. In essence, the character doesn't matter. Frankly, I find it insulting when I'm playing in a game and the DM is fudging.
Worth noting: DM's who fudge rolls either think that they're smarter than they are, or that players are dumber than they are. I notice this stuff when it happens, and so do a lot of other folks. Used to, I would quietly seethe while pretending I didn't notice just out of good manners. These days, I outright refuse to play at a table where fudging is happening. I expect that the person DMing a game I'm playing in to be fair, and trustworthy. I sure don't expect him to insult me by thinking I'm too dumb to notice his juvenile attempts at force-feeding drama.
I'm an adult. I game with adults. I expect every member at the table to act like adults.
I think I might give a standing ovation for this.
*steps up out of chair and applauds*
The problem with the "I game with adults stance" is that not everyone plays with adults. I have played with children and those games are run very differently than the ones with adults.
Also, as an adult, I don't have an issue with fudging as long as it is rarely done. It must only be done to make the game more enjoyable. There are plenty of ways to fudge that don't require dice. I really want to reiterate that no one is advocating that the GM should fudge all the time and that the characters should never be put at risk. I have no problems with killing off a PC.
Just a few sessions ago I had 2 PCs die due to old age and one was close. They were aged due to an opponent that showed no mercy once they were paralyzed for several minutes. I knew that they would need some powerful magic to fix the problem. The wizard was able to teleport back to a safe point and then use 3 wishes to fix the problem. That was costly. The party learned from that and they each have invested in some diamonds now.
The last time I fudged it wasn't to prevent a death. One player had been eying the dhampir race for months and was itching to play one. Neither one of us wanted him to just create another character with the only difference being the race. The time came when he died a legitimate death. He was reincarnated and as GM, I figured this would be a good time to bring him back as a dhampir. The dice said troglodyte. I didn't like that and I knew he wouldn't either. So I fudged. He has since spent the money on a wish to go back to being a drow. He had his fun. The game was better for it. He doesn't know that I fudged since there is a result of "GM choice." I never had to break the continuity of the game either.
Character dies? Great. Now there's some real room for role playing.
Or there's room for a player not taking part in the game for half an hour or more while he makes a new character, or worse, noodling on his smart phone during that time, waiting for his character's corpse to be dragged to the temple. Or seriously strained roleplaying in the attempt to introduce a replacement character ("You seem like a goodly person. Would you like to join us in our quest against The Shadow?). Or, if none of that happens, it's because the character was immediately raised (or the replacement character popped into being, already a seamless part of the party, in the manner of a wizard remembering his familiar exists), in which case there were no consequences.
As a player and a GM, I'd just as soon the party didn't die in the first place.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm an adult. I game with adults. I expect every member at the table to act like adults.
I play with adults too. That's why I'm content to trust a DM to fudge a little if he feels it will enhance the story or how the game is played at the table. And I believe it's why my players trust me to do the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eacaraxe, I'll respond to your post last as it was the longest.
***
Bob, I'm not big on the idea of gaming with literal children. I think there's something inherently weird about that, especially if those children are not my own. It runs the risk of creating an inappropriate peer relationship that strikes me as unhealthy, both for the child and the adult.
Now, if the child being gamed with is my own, well heck, I fully endorse teaching my child some basic tenets of honesty, and above board behavior. Further, I want my child, ideally, to have a reasonable, intuitive sense of statistics, and consequences. The last lesson I want to teach is: "don't worry, daddy's gonna fudge those dice for you cause the rules don't apply to you, no they don't."
Making slight adjustments to the reincarnation table is an obvious fudge, and there's no way your player doesn't realize that you engineered his roll. So, why roll? There's an overwhelming arrogance in someone who thinks they're clever enough to provide just what the player wants while pretending it's nothing more than luck. Who wouldn't see through that? Who wouldn't look at the table later and say, "why'd he even bother to make me roll?"
Getting what you want consistently as a player can be fun for a while, no doubt. But it's not organic; it doesn't come with a real sense of accomplishment. Rather, it's masturbatory, fleeting and empty, signifying only the catering heart of a would-be beneficent DM.
***
Revan, where to start?
As a DM I do not want my players to die either. That's a far cry from not allowing them to die.
There's nothing players notice faster than a DM too worried about whether they'll be upset to let their characters die. Once they do realize then they lose a little bit of anticipation in every scene. "Oh, it doesn't matter what I do in this scene, trust me, ol' Revan's not gonna pull the trigger. He'll save me."
Suddenly players are biting off more than they can chew, and divorcing themselves from the personalities of their characters -- simply because you've created a situation (albeit with good intentions) that disallows them from exploring the very survival instincts of the characters they probably once longed to play.
Fudging rolls to not kill characters just makes for spoiled players. Spoiled players enjoy the game as a hobby. Strong players enjoy the game as art. That's what challenging yourself in life is all about. And that's what challenging the characters in game is about.
***
Bill, trusting someone to lie to you effectively is certainly your right in this crazy world. The reason I'm not sitting next to you on that carefree wagon is because I've never met someone capable of running a novel for players.
It's the height of ego that tells a man he can craft results better than actual results.
***
Eacaraxe, don't worry, I don't think you're breaking my balls. Blurring my eyes with a wall of text? You bet. But never breaking my balls.
Likely. It's a good word. I like it. It fits. As in "probably". As in "most".
Let me start by addressing your commentary on gaming without dice. When I wore a younger man's clothes my buddy thought he shot me with a laser gun. I know because he told me he did. What my buddy didn't know was that I had a force field up so it blocked it. Those games were fun. Then I grew up. Suddenly, that kind of raw make-believe wasn't so great anymore.
I've participated in acting exercises, and I've even had a great time doing it. But I've never fooled myself into thinking that I was enjoying an unbiased game. The problem with it runs deep. It's next to impossible for your improv buddies to be on the same page. There's no script, there's no quantifying presence. In other words, there is no anchor. That's what dice give us: a justifiable set of laws governed by pre-existing conditions and statistics that we can all come close to agreeing on the majority of the time. No longer can my force field stop your laser beam, get it?
Here's a little something I think all good DM's should strive to remember: we all paid for these pathfinder books, let's use them.
There's a great fallacy in your examples. I never said that following the results of the dice meant that a DM should reiterate those results to players in the most boring method possible. Absolutely not. The results should simply be determined by the dice. The delivery of the results should be filled with verve and flair, sometimes solemness, sometimes with enthusiasm.
Think of the dice as the steak. Think of the description of the results of the dice as the sizzle.
In your second example you imply that Tamara's death must be boring while her fudged save is super exciting. At the risk of sounding like I'm thinking outside of the box why not have Tamara die with the same descriptive license you've reserved for her near death.
In short, respect your players enough to let them die. Respect your players enough to not lie to them. Learn the game well enough to create appropriate challenges. Respect the game well enough to use the rules. Breed an atmosphere that favors personal responsibility and consequences. Let your players explore their character's instincts for survival. Stop killing off anticipation, and stop spoiling players. Do all of those things, and I promise you'll begin to discover a whole new world of surprising adventures.