For Players That Don't Like Fudging Dice

[wraithstrike]

Even GM's that don't fudge rolls or make "mistakes" too often to allow the players to be successful really want the players to well 99% of the time.

Would you be ok in a game where the GM allowed you to get to the last boss, and you spend +6 months time in real life to get to the boss and you lost?

Just to be clear it would be a tough and fair, but winnable fight. Maybe too many failed saves on the party's part or too many crits from Team Evil..etc...

Why didn't the party try to run away and come back later?

Who knows.. Strategy is not the point there. The point would be that the party failed/TPK'd/etc.

[GhostwheelX]

As an alternative to TPK or failing the entire adventure, I prefer this.

[Backfromthedeadguy]

I would rather lose fairly than be given a win. Those types of victories are hollow and easily forgotten. Besides I love a great death scene.

[Rynjin]

Backfromthedeadguy wrote:

I would rather lose fairly than be given a win. Those types of victories are hollow and easily forgotten. Besides I love a great death scene.

On the one hand, I agree with this.

On the other hand dying in certain scenarios f#~!s up the entire story, since in many cases it's hard to bring in a new character, and that really sucks.

I think it really depends on the circumstance.

I don't mind failing in the very end, but somewhere in the middle? Kinda sucks.

If you fail at the end, whatever, you got to experience everything.

If you fail in the middle (especially in the case of a TPK), the campaign sometimes can't be salvaged.

Nothing worse than an unfinished story. I live in a constant state of disappointment that the Elvenbane series will never be completed because Andre Norton died.

Feels bad man.

[mkenner]

wraithstrike wrote:

Would you be ok in a game where the GM allowed you to get to the last boss, and you spend +6 months time in real life to get to the boss and you lost?

Yes.

[StDrake]

The first three posts above taken together basically sum it up - dice are evil and one has to be prepared to handle that. Main thing is not to let things end in a "you're dead, oh well, the end", but to wrap it all up somehow.

Two possibilities I'd expect if I were one of those players:
-the bad ending closing movie - the heroes failed and there's no going back, they're probably dead so at least it no longer affects them directly, but it still means it's the final boss that gets to make his plan come true and the tale of what that results in should be told to the players.

-the last chance - the heroes may have failed, but somehow survived it (probably captured or taken as dead and ignored as they lay in puddles of their own blood and shame of their defeat) and there may still be hope if they find a way out of what their failure brought about to them and the world around

If I'd see one of those I'd have to accept it and would cope with the loss

[mkenner]

I don't really understand the mindset behind people who want to use dice but also want a guaranteed win. I'm not saying this to be offensive, I seriously don't understand.

There are many awesome diceless RPGs out there with a narrative focus. Growing up, Amber DRPG was one of my favourite RPGs. These days Nobilis is also quite popular I understand although I've never played it myself.

You don't even really need rules to play diceless. I ran a game off the cuff for a group of my friends based on the Supernatural TV show. No dice, no rules, no GM fiat. The only guideline we used was "we've all watched the show, let's try and stick to its genre conventions in the story we tell".

There are even games out there where you have dice mechanics but an opt-in system for character fatality, such as Dogs in the Vineyard. (Or at least so I understand, I've read the rulebook but still can't figure out how to play that system).

If you use dice merely to prompt unexpected events or give you ideas, then you could use a set of tarot cards or something similar and draw them for inspiration during a narrative based diceless game.

Pathfinder on the other hand is a very crunch heavy, gameplay and simulation based system. I don't really understand why people would use this system and then fudge the dice-rolls.

[Chengar Qordath]

GhostwheelX wrote:

As an alternative to TPK or failing the entire adventure, I prefer this.

I'm quite a fan of that as well. Killing a character and having the player re-roll a replacement tends to just strikes me as boring compared to the other possibilities, especially with how much goes into creating a new character and all the plotting issues sudden character death can cause. It's a lot more fun to make them suffer plot-appropriate reversals.

To toss out an example from a game I GMed:

Spoiler:

the party's barbarian recovered a legendary weapon, and decided to use the status of said weapon unify several a coalition of barbarian tribes beneath her banner. Naturally, one of the other chieftains objected to this, and thus single combat ensued. After the chieftain gets a pair of lucky crits, the PC barbarian goes down.

Now, I could have just killed the PC off at that point, but instead I opted to have the chieftain spare the PC on the grounds that "she didn't deserve an honorable death." Then he stole the PC's legendary relic weapon, united the tribes under his banner, and wiped out her tribe for supporting her. Now we have a new antagonist, and the barbarian PC gets a new quest hook to gain the strength and resources to avenge her honor and her tribe.

Or we could've killed the PC off, the party shrugs, and the next day meets a suitable replacement. That doesn't sound nearly as fun to me.

[Kazaan]

Two solutions which may be employed separately or in unison.

1) Hero Points. Players each get a pool of spendable points with which they can fudge their own results, cheat death, etc. Points are earned on leveling up or performing challenging, heroic deeds and/or particularly good RP. This can also be used to average out disparate play experience and/or rolled stats as an experienced player or a player with high starting stats has the bar set higher for what qualifies for earning points while a less experienced player or one with particularly low stats has much more leeway.

2) Villain Points. Villains often have foibles. We've all seen it, the monologue in the middle of the fight, the magical glowing weak spot, the inept guards, bickering with his evil second-in-command who wants to be first-in-command, etc. Regulate this by having a pool of Villain Points for the GM which he can spend to get players out of particularly sticky situations. The BBEG sits there and goes flat-footed for 2 rounds extolling his virtues and prowess and explaining how you're going to fail yadda yadda yadda when he has the party on the ropes is a fine opening for the party to regroup and make a comeback. The group of Orcs you're fighting suddenly start fighting each other because Gork stole Karchak's kill. So on and so forth. Basically, it's all systematized so you aren't allowed to simply fudge results forever... eventually, they run out of free chances.

[mkenner]

GhostwheelX wrote:

As an alternative to TPK or failing the entire adventure, I prefer this.

I like how this is done. By working it into an actual set of rules and mechanics it allows the players to know upfront how it works and makes it a much more honest way of doing it.

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Killing a character and having the player re-roll a replacement tends to just strikes me as boring compared to the other possibilities, especially with how much goes into creating a new character and all the plotting issues sudden character death can cause. It's a lot more fun to make them suffer plot-appropriate reversals.

Absolutely. This means that there is still a consequence for failure, which makes your victories meaningful. Failure doesn't have to equal death, and particularly in pathfinder death doesn't have to be the end.

[Pan]

Kazaan wrote:

1) Hero Points. Players each get a pool of spendable points with which they can fudge their own results, cheat death, etc. Points are earned on leveling up or performing challenging, heroic deeds and/or particularly good RP. This can also be used to average out disparate play experience and/or rolled stats as an experienced player or a player with high starting stats has the bar set higher for what qualifies for earning points while a less experienced player or one with particularly low stats has much more leeway.

This. With hero points you can take the gloves off for fights. Players have one more resource available to save their characters. Love us some hero points at my table.

wraithstrike wrote:

Would you be ok in a game where the GM allowed you to get to the last boss, and you spend +6 months time in real life to get to the boss and you lost?

Yes, I would be ok. Probably has to do with us playing Call of Cthulhu among many other games. I am used to character death. Our preferred style is fantasy quagmire (formerly known as fantasy vietmnam)and sandbox. I will say that I have seen much character death in my gaming time but no TPKs. /knock on wood.

[Ruggs]

Kazaan wrote:

1) Hero Points. Players each get a pool of spendable points with which they can fudge their own results, cheat death, etc. Points are earned on leveling up or performing challenging, heroic deeds and/or particularly good RP. This can also be used to average out disparate play experience and/or rolled stats as an experienced player or a player with high starting stats has the bar set higher for what qualifies for earning points while a less experienced player or one with particularly low stats has much more leeway.

Another vote for this. I've always appreciated a 'drama' mechanic ingames. That is, a subsystem that allows you to add in the heroics when it really matters...but at an expense of some type.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

When I am the player, yes I want a real honest to goodness chance of death. Freebie wins are boring.

As a GM:
I will give a 3rd vote for adding in the hero points to your campaign.

A few other things I try to keep in mind.

I almost never fudge the dice unless I screwed up or if it is necessary for the story. Examples:
A) Just last night there was a room where the armory was filled with traps. Every item they checked was supposed to have a 10% chance to be a minor trap. Well I made the rolls ahead of time so they wouldn't see me rolling and give the game away. Unfortunately, I rolled 40+ times without a single trap. The odds of them checking out more than 40 items would have been low. So they would never have set off a trap. But for the story arc, they needed the clue that the weapons had been trapped. So I just made a few of them trapped.
B) Last campaign, I seriously misjudged the synergy of a particular combination of spell casters, mook archers, and terrain. It was stunningly more effective than I had realized. The PC's had almost no chance to get away, let alone win. On the fly I cut the number of successful mook attacks in half and gave all the bad guys a -4 on their saves. The party still barely survived after everyone being into the single digits or negatives on hit points and using over half their spells. By the book it only came out to APL+2. I expected it to be tough, but not that tough. So that problem was on me.

I try to avoid using high crit multiplier weapons for major combatants. The barbarian hitting for 27 points of damage is painful. A lucky roll making that 108 damage just killed the PC unexpectedly.

I try to avoid using SoD spells. I think SoS are ok, especially for the boss fights. So I'm more likely to hit the wizard with a feeblemind (horrific for a caster) than I am a disintegrate spell. Even a terrifically optimized PC can roll a 1 on a save sometimes.

[Claxon]

I think hero points to keep characters from really dying is enough.

I want death to be a real and distinct possibility. I do not want success to be given, but earned. If I wanted it to be easy without chance of real failure, even arbitrary (because the older I get the more I realize life is often arbitrary) failure, I'd rather sit and home and day dream about it.

[Touc]

Been there, ran the 3rd edition Red Hand of Doom, months of gaming, hours and hours. At the finale, the 10th level party wiped except for a druid who shifted and escaped. It was a pyrrhic victory because they did (accidentally) cause the entire enemy base to collapse, destroying the BBEG. But, awesome, memorable and players still talk.

I roll dice in front of the players and don't pull punches. If the players believed I was fudging rolls behind a screen, it would lessen the experience, and we might as well go diceless because the GM will make sure we live. The thrill is gone.

That said, not every hero's story ends with one defeat, and I usually arc the story line to cut unlucky die rolling players who perish a break (whether it be finding out their deceased friend's soul is retrievable and about to be sold in the daemon markets, culminating in a side trek where the player's soul is escaping and the party is rescuing, or simply a grateful NPC who they helped at 1st level revealing the raise dead scroll their family has held for generations). It's generally never easy, but it shouldn't be, and therein is some of the fun.

[TheNightmareOne]

I'm in favor of letting the dice fall where they may. I roll in front of my PCs, and if they come up all 20s for my Big Bad and the party gets wiped, that's the way it goes. I would expect no less from the DM of any campaign I was a player in: sometimes luck is just flat not on your side.

[Tormsskull]

I'd prefer to TPK. I may be upset right at the moment because I just lost my character, but I definitely wouldn't want the GM to arbitrarily save my character.

If there's going to be another campaign after the campaign that just TPKed, fast-forwarding twenty years or so and updating the world with the results of the failure is a great way to start a new campaign. Repeat players will appreciate the background info and character tie-ins. New players will realize their character's actions have an affect on the world even beyond them as a player.

[FlySkyHigh]

Death is not the End is a very good way to look at it. I find that in games, it usually boils down to the individual. Oftentimes if a whole group suffers from a TPK (of which has only occured twice in games I've GM'd) then it's relatively easy to work this into some new subplot, usually involving the primary antagonist having captured them and spared them from death only to force them to suffer further, and the inevitable escape blah blah. The only times I really have seen character death is usually in non-story related combat, mostly random encounters, often due to the fact that the players don't think much about what they're fighting because of it. In those scenarios, it's often common that the player just wants to make a new character.

Of the two TPKs that were in my games, one was the ending of the game because the players wanted to move on to a new game, the other was as previously stated, a hook for a new subplot. In the five TPK's that I've been a PLAYER in, two of them were story hooks, two of them were "yeah, game's over, you lose", and one was as Tormsskull mentioned, a chance for us to keep the world but fast forward.

[redward]

wraithstrike wrote:

Even GM's that don't fudge rolls or make "mistakes" too often to allow the players to be successful really want the players to well 99% of the time.

Would you be ok in a game where the GM allowed you to get to the last boss, and you spend +6 months time in real life to get to the boss and you lost?

Absolutely, 100% yes. In a recent game, we were playing the only PFS Scenario to have a "Hard Mode" built in. We opted in. And we wiped on the first encounter. Total time played: about 30 minutes.

It was disappointing. It was frustrating. It was humbling. It is one of my favorite PFS memories. I want to know that failure is always an option.

I would like, however, to kind of turn the question around. When you start a campaign, ask your players if they would like you to fudge dice rolls--if it is in the best interest of the story--and see how many say yes.

In fact, I'd be interested to see the response here. Who as a player would prefer that their GM fudge rolls to keep the story on track?

[TheDailyLunatic]

wraithstrike wrote:

Even GM's that don't fudge rolls or make "mistakes" too often to allow the players to be successful really want the players to well 99% of the time.

Would you be ok in a game where the GM allowed you to get to the last boss, and you spend +6 months time in real life to get to the boss and you lost?

Just to be clear it would be a tough and fair, but winnable fight. Maybe too many failed saves on the party's part or too many crits from Team Evil..etc...

Why didn't the party try to run away and come back later?

Who knows.. Strategy is not the point there. The point would be that the party failed/TPK'd/etc.

Hell yes! I came to play swords and sorcery, not Magical Tea Party. Any indication of fudging and I lose interest. If I did get TPK'ed, though, I'd like to continue roleplaying as part of a new party sent to clean up after the first one's mess.

[Avatar-1]

redward wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Would you be ok in a game where the GM allowed you to get to the last boss, and you spend +6 months time in real life to get to the boss and you lost?

Absolutely, 100% yes. In a recent game, we were playing the only PFS Scenario to have a "Hard Mode" built in. We opted in. And we wiped on the first encounter. Total time played: about 30 minutes.

I've played a different scenario and wiped in the first encounter.

I cannot understand the line of thinking that 30 minutes of playtime and then wiping on that first encounter still makes for a fun game.

It's meant to be a 5 hour session of fun, and you're overwhelmed in only 30 minutes.

You can't always pick back up from where you started, especially in these PFS scenarios - that scenario can't be replayed, meaning you've lost the entire story, not to mention the character (sometimes permanently). Sure you can play for no credit, but I'm sure most people take that option as the exception rather than the rule.

[redward]

Avatar-1 wrote:

redward wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Would you be ok in a game where the GM allowed you to get to the last boss, and you spend +6 months time in real life to get to the boss and you lost?

Absolutely, 100% yes. In a recent game, we were playing the only PFS Scenario to have a "Hard Mode" built in. We opted in. And we wiped on the first encounter. Total time played: about 30 minutes.

I've played a different scenario and wiped in the first encounter.

I cannot understand the line of thinking that 30 minutes of playtime and then wiping on that first encounter still makes for a fun game.

It's meant to be a 5 hour session of fun, and you're overwhelmed in only 30 minutes.

You can't always pick back up from where you started, especially in these PFS scenarios - that scenario can't be replayed, meaning you've lost the entire story, not to mention the character (sometimes permanently). Sure you can play for no credit, but I'm sure most people take that option as the exception rather than the rule.

I can't understand how someone could enjoy "winning" knowing that the GM switched to rubber bullets as soon as things got scary.

We signed up for hard mode, Tier 10-11. What's the GM supposed to do when we underestimate the encounter and run in unprepared? Have the bad guy burn a couple rounds monologuing while we recover?

If it had been First Steps with new players, yeah, a little leniency might be in order. But if I'm going to brag about taking down a Runelord, I want to know that I actually earned it.

As for losing the scenario, I can and intend to replay it for credit in January.

[Avatar-1]

Yeah, look, fair enough - hard mode is hard mode. I guess I'm talking about normal play.

[Mark Hoover]

If I spent +6 months on getting to this guy it better not be:

GM: roll this save
Me: 14?
GM: you failed. Roll up new characters

Barring that then yes. I say yes, because I've had it rigged on me, but the OTHER way. I had a GM plan for our characters to fail. We get to the palace of the demon lord w/me holding the artifact blade. DL can't take it from me; I have to give it up or lose it to a mortal. He captures us and gets my party members to turn; after much drama I slay my own friends (I was not supposed to win). Now it's me & the DL and I get really lucky and I'm WAILING on him. I've got him down, 0HP, ready for the death blow. I raise the sword and the GM says:

Roll a save

I roll, he tells me I fail. My character is catapulted a thousand years into a post-apocalyptic future. My family and homeland have been turned to ash; all elves are pariahs, and I'm considered the lowest failure in history. Oh yeah, and one of my legs was destroyed in the time travel...and replaced by a combat tail (don't ask). All of that on a die roll I didn't know was coming, couldn't avoid, and had no idea the difficulty of.

My point is: if I'm gonna die, let me go out swinging. Don't hedge either way to make it an auto win OR an auto lose. But I do agree w/the idea that -40HP doesn't always have to mean game over. "You wake up..." was a running gag between me, my brother, and my HS buddies in the old 1e days for as often as we should've died. I think Ghostbusters II said it best when they said:

Death is but a door
Time is but a window
I'll be back

[Chengar Qordath]

redward wrote:

Avatar-1 wrote:

redward wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Would you be ok in a game where the GM allowed you to get to the last boss, and you spend +6 months time in real life to get to the boss and you lost?

Absolutely, 100% yes. In a recent game, we were playing the only PFS Scenario to have a "Hard Mode" built in. We opted in. And we wiped on the first encounter. Total time played: about 30 minutes.

I've played a different scenario and wiped in the first encounter.

I cannot understand the line of thinking that 30 minutes of playtime and then wiping on that first encounter still makes for a fun game.

It's meant to be a 5 hour session of fun, and you're overwhelmed in only 30 minutes.

You can't always pick back up from where you started, especially in these PFS scenarios - that scenario can't be replayed, meaning you've lost the entire story, not to mention the character (sometimes permanently). Sure you can play for no credit, but I'm sure most people take that option as the exception rather than the rule.

I can't understand how someone could enjoy "winning" knowing that the GM switched to rubber bullets as soon as things got scary.

For some players, the fun part of the game doesn't come from having tough combat encounters with a real risk of death.

[redward]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

redward wrote:

I can't understand how someone could enjoy "winning" knowing that the GM switched to rubber bullets as soon as things got scary.

For some players, the fun part of the game doesn't come from having tough combat encounters with a real risk of death.

I keep seeing that, but only from GMs. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that I've never seen someone say, "as a player, I'd prefer it if my GM fudged a die roll if it would better serve the story."

Do you, as a player, feel that way?

[Avatar-1]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

For some players, the fun part of the game doesn't come from having tough combat encounters with a real risk of death.

To be fair, this goes both ways. For some players, the fun part does come from that.

Before you enter a campaign, (or in PFS, a scenario), it's vital to know which way your GM/group wants to swing.

[Rynjin]

redward wrote:

I keep seeing that, but only from GMs. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that I've never seen someone say, "as a player, I'd prefer it if my GM fudged a die roll if it would better serve the story."

Do you, as a player, feel that way?

I've seen it. I've thought it sometimes too as a player.

If I'm really attached to a character, I don't want them to die. Sometimes it's inevitable, but having him die to something like rolling a 1 on a save (that he would have passed on a 2...or even a 1 if that roll wasn't an auto-fail) or getting critted for max damage from some random minion suuucks.

Like my Barbarian. I like my Barbarian. I like how the GM runs things (though of course I wouldn't say otherwise in this thread given who the OP is =p).

I have three places where I could have easily died.

1.) I failed a save vs a Stinking Cloud. Had a I not rolled a 1, I would have beaten the DC by over 10 points.

2.) I was hit by some super-ultra-chocolaty-super-attack from some guy the GM rolled up because I'm pretty sure he wanted to show me he could build a guy who could kill me quite easily.

3.) I was hit by Finger of Death from a Lich immediately upon opening a door, caught 140 damage to the face, and dropped to around 20 HP.

Of the three, only the first pissed me off. Had I died there, I would not have been having any fun whatsoever. Luck of the dice screwed me there, and that's never a good feeling.

The second was a pretty exciting fight (well it would have been had I not already been frustrated from rolling SIX CONSECUTIVE ONES on attack rolls gaaaaaaah), and I'm glad it happened.

The third was just funny because the only reason I got hit was because I was standing behind the person who opened the door...who was invisible. It helps that immediately afterwards I got to do the The Slow Walk through a corridor full of mooks and bash the Lich's skull in after our Sorcerer trapped him in an ice tomb.

Had I died in either of the last two fights, I would have been like "Well, Crokus met his match. All in all not a bad end".

Had I died to the first, my immediate thought would have been "Auto-failing on a one is such b!~+#+++ why the f#+@ is this even a rule aaaaaaargh", which isn't a fun mindset to be in.

[Pink Dragon]

Like Rynjin, I don't like the auto-death on a single failed saving throw. I don't mind if the DM makes the character "hors de combat" on such occasions. A string of failed rolls is another matter, and I don't mind if a character dies because of a string of bad luck on die rolls.

For me it also depends on circumstance and whether I know if the DM is fudging. I don't want to know about fudging, but if my character screws up I don't mind if that character dies. If the character plays well but is killed anyway without some compensatory glory, that doesn't sit well.

However, in general, death should be permanent. I absolutely despise raise dead, resurrection and the like. I would rather have a DM fudge a die roll than have a character brought back from the dead. All bringing back from the dead should be banned from the game, IMO.

[thenobledrake]

As a GM, I set up encounters so that there is more than one way to "succeed" and always an option to attempt avoidance or escape (though sometimes the "escape" option is to go deeper into the unknown - such as a cave in behind the party leaving their only way to escape the monster in this room to go down a passage they have yet to explore).

I work very hard to make sure of multiple possible outcomes - and so I have no fears of or qualms about letting the dice do what the dice do.

If that means the party makes it to some point where the players are deeply invested and they suffer defeat which ends the campaign (or necessitates a dramatic change, such as playing the characters in their post-defeat state as slaves/undead/existing as spirits on another plane working to ascend the ranks toward being outsiders of appropriate alignment) then it is because that is where the players took the game. I am not in control in any way - I didn't put the PCs in that fight, I didn't stop them from fleeing, and I didn't decide their actions that resulted in failure.

As a player, I expect similar behavior from a GM - I expect that what happens to my character is as a result of what I chose and how the dice rolled, rather than the result of his predetermined design or worse, his whim at the moment that it would be "so cool," if some particular thing happened no matter what.

That said, I do have to make one other statement as a bit of a disclaimer: Because of the above, I have a preference for gaming systems with more predictable success rates - such as games which use a pool of dice to determine numerous successes, or just AD&D or D&D Next where the game is built so that gaining levels means that the chance you have to succeed at something you do increases, rather than the Pathfinder style of rules where some things (attacks) have to be heavily invested in to keep your same effective success chance as you level up, and others (poor saving throws) grow steadily less likely to succeed in situations you actually get into.

For a quick mechanical contrast to illustrate what I am meaning:
In AD&D, a character started with a certain chance of succeeding at a saving throw - let's use 40% as an example - and would eventually see that save increase all the way to 80-90% likely to succeed.

In Pathfinder, a character starts with a certain chance to save against level-appropriate threats - let's say 40% again for our example - and will have to heavily invest in that save to keep the same success chance because the DC he is looking to beat increases much faster than the standard rate of improvement for a saving throw (target save DCs are 12 at CR 1 and 27 at CR 20, an improvement of 15, but a saving throw bonus increases only by 10 or less without investment - meaning you'd have to make up the other 5 to 9 points by investing in the right things just to not actively get worse at making saving throws).

[thenobledrake]

Pink Dragon wrote:

However, in general, death should be permanent. I absolutely despise raise dead, resurrection and the like. I would rather have a DM fudge a die roll than have a character brought back from the dead. All bringing back from the dead should be banned from the game, IMO.

I don't think I have ever seen someone express this opinion in quite this way.

I have seen "the DM should fudge so that characters never actually die."

I have seen "death should be permanent." In both flavors (with, and without 1-roll-deaths).

I have never seen the combination...

Wouldn't a GM fudging to prevent death, but permanent death if a character dies, mean that PC death only ever happens because the GM basically said "rocks fall, but only some of you die."?

Perhaps it's just my past experiences with GMs that abused their position of "power", but that's the only time I have ever been genuinely mad about a character death - when I knew it was because the GM chose that outcome, rather than letting chance decide.

[Pink Dragon]

Not so. Death of a character should be a result of bad decisions by the character or a very bad string of luck, and should be permanent. Death for trivialities like one failed saving throw or because the DM wants the character dead shouldn't happen at all.

Obviously there is flex as to what is a bad decision, and some DM's can be "a**holes" but that is besides the point.

And as a final point, the DM's will is in the end the only factor in the game, and this starts at scenario design. However, because DM's are not infallible in designing encounters, some "fudging" might be needed by a reasonable DM when the scenario wasn't designed equitably.

[Rogue Eidolon]

Rynjin wrote:

Had I died to the first, my immediate thought would have been "Auto-failing on a one is such b*~#%%~% why the f##$ is this even a rule aaaaaaargh", which isn't a fun mindset to be in.

I highly recommend telescoping rolls. On a nat 20, roll again and add 20. On a nat 1, roll again and add -20. Repeat as necessary if you get lots of 1s or 20s in a row (if you get 20 and then 1 or 1 and then 20, you don't telescope). This allows you to maintain a sliding scale of effectiveness even against things that are nearly automatic, and it changes the odds of things like "what happens if you throw 20 loser NPCs with scrolls of save or lose against a high level character that need a 1 to fail". It's mostly in the PCs' favor because I rarely throw enemies that require a nat 20 to hit or that make saves except on a 1.

[thenobledrake]

Pink Dragon wrote:

Not so. Death of a character should be a result of bad decisions by the character or a very bad string of luck, and should be permanent. Death for trivialities like one failed saving throw or because the DM wants the character dead shouldn't happen at all.

Obviously there is flex as to what is a bad decision, and some DM's can be "a**holes" but that is besides the point.

And as a final point, the DM's will is in the end the only factor in the game, and this starts at scenario design. However, because DM's are not infallible in designing encounters, some "fudging" might be needed by a reasonable DM when the scenario wasn't designed equitably.

Okay, I think I get it...

To translate it into how I would provide you the experience you wanted as a player while I were your GM: house-rule out any situation where a 1-roll-death is possible without various bad choices and unlucky rolls preceding it, and any way to come back from the dead.

Then run the game exactly like I do normally.

To your final point, I find that players are a lot more favorable to me saying "sorry guys, this scenario is not shaping up quite how it was supposed to - how about a do-over?" than they are to me making on-the-fly adjustments including ignoring or altering dice results.

[Chengar Qordath]

redward wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

redward wrote:

I can't understand how someone could enjoy "winning" knowing that the GM switched to rubber bullets as soon as things got scary.

For some players, the fun part of the game doesn't come from having tough combat encounters with a real risk of death.

I keep seeing that, but only from GMs. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that I've never seen someone say, "as a player, I'd prefer it if my GM fudged a die roll if it would better serve the story."

Do you, as a player, feel that way?

As stated up-thread, I tend to prefer non-death consequences for failure. That's true when playing or GM-ing.

Avatar-1 wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

For some players, the fun part of the game doesn't come from having tough combat encounters with a real risk of death.

To be fair, this goes both ways. For some players, the fun part does come from that.

Before you enter a campaign, (or in PFS, a scenario), it's vital to know which way your GM/group wants to swing.

Truth. Making sure everyone's on the same page as to what kind of campaign the group is running is always important. Some folks like their games tough and tactical, others are fine with a more lighthearted tone. Trying to play/run a different style of game from what the group wants will always lead to trouble.

[The Urge of the Mystic]

If your players are gonna TPK, let them TPK. Nothins more awkward than a GM stumbling all around to make you live. It's like if you're playing Monopoly and the person winning goes, "Shucks. Here's 10 million dollars. It's pretty much everything I have! Enjoy winning.. yeah??"

People prefer these scenarios, "Remember that time Ogarth my Barbarian got smashed 20 times by that boss before he died! At the last hit, he went flying into the jungle...we spent 2 hours searching for his body. It was all jumbled up when we found him. At least his magic equipment was A-okay!" vs. "Remember that time we were losing and the GM let us win that battle....."

If you reaaaalllyyy want to give players a chance to live. Give them hero points at the BEGINNING of the game that lets them save their character, somehow!

[The Urge of the Mystic]

You could also use a 2d10 or a 3d6 system (instead of a d20) if you're paranoid about the randomness of the die... It's a little more controlled this way......

[born_of_fire]

sometimes the quick, in combat fudge to prevent a tpk is preferable to the out of combat rp acrobatics required to assemble a new, cohesive party that is deeply invested in the ap and of appropriate level. the longer one particular party of characters progresses the story, the more this is true.
not all dm saves are clumsy, obvious gestures. my dm makes very good use of herolab to constantly monitor the health, status and resources of every party member so he knows how hard he can push and when to back off. this is not to say there is no risk of death in our game; we can still die by being very stupid or very unlucky but we haven't had any "ah crap, i didn't intend to kill off 4/6 of the party" nights lately.

[wraithstrike]

To my players I am not asking this due to our current game. It is for a game I may run later next year. :)

[Pink Dragon]

@atthenobledrake

Yes, that is how I would prefer a game. I don't like do overs either. Needless to say this is all about personal preferences.

[The Beard]

I can honestly say that I would much rather have a TPK than attain victory through fudging of rolls. There is no accomplishment in it if the GM pretty much handed it to you. Besides, it's easy to tell when someone is fudging rolls. Don't let anyone tell you it isn't, because it most definitely is easy to tell.

[Paulicus]

I'll just reiterate what others have said: hero points are great for this. I say let the PCs die, but find a creative way to continue the story-- taking a new direction, or some creative resurrections or (very rare) fudges if it fits the story better than just rolling up a new PC.

[Eirikrautha]

Couple of points here:

At the danger of creating another dualistic manichean analogy that everyone hates, I would categorize the responses for this topic into "RPGs as Narratives" and "RPGs as Contests". If you feel the purpose of your Pathfinder game is to tell a compelling story involving the various characters your players have created, then death should be part of the narrative/story... it should make "sense" (be meaningful) in terms of your game. Having a character die because of a few bad rolls is ridiculous in terms of most narratives. But having a player die to the BBEG might fit the overall story very well, or even add to it (such as creating motivations or dramatic plot devices). So it depends on the circumstances of the death. "Fudging rolls" is not the only way to avoid inappropriate deaths, but saving a character is not "cheating" when the purpose of the game isn't "winning" (in a narrow sense).

Alternatively, if you see your game as a "contest" (a game to be "won"), then of course winning and losing are a vital part of the game. You chose bad tactics, the dice were against you, you didn't foresee particular pitfalls, you suffer the consequences. It's the basic algebra of a competitive game. Your character dies because he failed. No one playing "Robot Wars" expects to come through unscathed... you build your robot to get destroyed. Likewise, you build your character with the knowledge that it will get damaged and maybe killed. It's the price of admission.

With this in mind, I will tell you that I am much more a "RPG as Narrative" sort of person. I'm building an alter ego to explore, not just a set of numbers to challenge. So death (especially random or arbitrary death) is a big deal. If the death of my character serves a purpose, then I'm ok with it. If the death of my character is because of my own gross stupidity (not "Well, you could have expected to eventually face a monster that turns you to stone... no one should have to hint that to you earlier..."), then I will have no irritation other than at myself. But if I die simply because I roll a 2... well, that's just stupid...

Actual example:

One player in a game I was playing in was standing on top of a ship's forecastle when another boat tried to board us. He declared that he (while wearing full plate w/armor penalties) was going to run and jump off of the forecastle 15' onto the other boat and bull rush the person on that square off of the other side of his boat. Of course he failed miserably, fell in the water, got chomped and death-rolled by the BBEG's pet. I had no sympathy for him whatsoever... as it was the product of his own stupidity, doing something unnecessary that had no chance of success!

Death ends a story. There's a right time for every story to end, but in media res is usually not a satisfying ending. And if I'm going to be irritated or disappointed by this hobby (which I don't get paid for, or gain any other benefit for other than enjoyment), why would I continue to do it?

[sick boy]

I'd rather lose, I like story, I like roleplaying BUT, I am roleplaying as much as the DM is storytelling, so if my character dies in a fight, or to whatever (even a stupid failed save or die situation that i hate so much), I'd like the DM not to fudge it and let me die, same for the whole party.

We all died on the last boss of the adventure? Well tough s***, we had a good run and a lot of fun getting there but not all stories have a happy ending.

To me, if the DM fudges rolls to let us win, there's no point in playing.

[Pan]

Eirikrautha wrote:

Couple of points here:

At the danger of creating another dualistic manichean analogy that everyone hates, I would categorize the responses for this topic into "RPGs as Narratives" and "RPGs as Contests". If you feel the purpose of your Pathfinder game is to tell a compelling story involving the various characters your players have created, then death should be part of the narrative/story... it should make "sense" (be meaningful) in terms of your game. Having a character die because of a few bad rolls is ridiculous in terms of most narratives. But having a player die to the BBEG might fit the overall story very well, or even add to it (such as creating motivations or dramatic plot devices). So it depends on the circumstances of the death. "Fudging rolls" is not the only way to avoid inappropriate deaths, but saving a character is not "cheating" when the purpose of the game isn't "winning" (in a narrow sense).

Alternatively, if you see your game as a "contest" (a game to be "won"), then of course winning and losing are a vital part of the game. You chose bad tactics, the dice were against you, you didn't foresee particular pitfalls, you suffer the consequences. It's the basic algebra of a competitive game. Your character dies because he failed. No one playing "Robot Wars" expects to come through unscathed... you build your robot to get destroyed. Likewise, you build your character with the knowledge that it will get damaged and maybe killed. It's the price of admission.

With this in mind, I will tell you that I am much more a "RPG as Narrative" sort of person. I'm building an alter ego to explore, not just a set of numbers to challenge. So death (especially random or arbitrary death) is a big deal. If the death of my character serves a purpose, then I'm ok with it. If the death of my character is because of my own gross stupidity (not "Well, you could have expected to eventually face a monster that turns you to stone... no one should have to hint that to you earlier..."), then I...

I think you have fallen into the roll vs role trap. You assume you can have one or the other, but not both. There is a difference in preference but just because I prefer one over the other doesn't mean I get to call the other badwrongfun or shallow.

Eirikrautha wrote:

Death ends a story. There's a right time for every story to end, but in media res is usually not a satisfying ending. And if I'm going to be irritated or disappointed by this hobby (which I don't get paid for, or gain any other benefit for other than enjoyment), why would I continue to do it?

I agree res is not satisfying yet media is full of examples of it being used. The good thing about this game is you get to choose how you play it. It is flexible enough for people of many different preferences.

[krevon]

In the event of tpk, I've ran sessions in the "afterlife" where the group proved they were worthy to be sent back. Then I have yet another story line to go with.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

Ok Eirikrautha, I'm going to both agree and disagree with you.
.
First,
Some people do only like what you call a 'narrative' game and some only like what you call a 'contest' game.
.
Second,
Most people I know actually don't look at it as and either-or type of situation. The game should be both. Actually many of us don't like either end of the spectrum and can be reasonably satisfied over a pretty wide range toward the middle of the spectrum. Sometimes I like a bit more narrative and sometimes I like a bit more contest (against the BBEG's not my fellow players or the GM).
.
From your descriptions, I would say you are actually just a bit to the narrative side of the middle. Not really clear over on the end of the spectrum. But I don't really know that and I could be completely wrong.
.
Third,
For me, the narrative has to be plausible. If my story is about lots of lethal fights with bad people nearly as skilled as myself, well in a plausible set-up, sometimes the bad guys do win.
.
Did you watch the HBO series "The Band of Brothers?" Some of the good/nice guys did get injured, killed, or maimed. Sometimes even is stupid ways and maybe because they got put under a bad officer. Because that kind of thing does happen. But there were also new characters coming in later in the series (like the might-be-psychotic lieutenant who's name escapes me at the moment) that did become main central characters that were instrumental in the victory/survival.
.
Would the narrative of that series have been better if the director had said "Well, the audience really feels sorry for the guys at this point. So let's not have the German artillery actually kill anyone important or likable. And then they all charge across the open space without anyone important or likable getting killed by the machine guns. Oh and yeah the snipers can't kill anyone either. Well, maybe someone can die in the last 10 minutes of the series, but not until then." To me that would have been a lame movie.
.
I have no problem being the character that dies at some point. That proves it is a lethal situation and that the bad guys really are the bad guys. Then I can come in as the Lt. that helps to salvage the victory and beat the really evil and mortally dangerous BBEG.
.
I guess, to me, some of what some other people call a 'narrative' game seems more like a 'fairy tale' game. Oh we can't have bad luck happen. Send in the fairy godmother to save them. Again. And again... It might be useful as a parable to teach values to little children, but it is not what I consider an engrossing tale that I want to imagine myself being a part of.
.
Now on the other side. I no longer usually like the campaigns that have the 1700% mortality rate campaigns that I did as a teenager. Yes, a few guys that die to traps or enemy mook action is in my opinion often a reasonable part of the plot. However, I don't like needing to bring 3 characters to the game with me every night because I will probably need all 3 and might have to borrow some off another guy.
.
Wherever you find yourself on the spectrum is fine. As long as you can find some people to game with that are sorta near the same point on the spectrum, you can all have a fun hobby. It is really only a problem when people on one end of the spectrum try to game with people on the other end of the spectrum. One or the other (or more probably both) are going to be frustrated. This seems most likely when someone is actually near one end of the spectrum but thinks he is near the other.
.
I actually once had a GM say he was a killer GM running an incredibly lethal campaign. I was worried that it would be too 'Killing Fields' for my taste, but I brought a couple of PC's with me to give it a try anyway.
.
He did use way overpowered monsters/NPC's. But in actuality he would have them use horrible tactics or just fail their rolls all the time so no one was ever actually in any real danger. It was very quickly apparent to all of us that if your hitpoint got low, the bad guy would just switch targets. If you failed your save, it was suddenly enervation instead of finger of death. The bad guy was becoming exhausted and his SR was lower so no the check of 13 works even though the check of 17 didn't before. This particular demon is vulnerable to fire from your elven sorcerer even though most of them are immune to it. Etc... It was just boring.

[Tormsskull]

Pan wrote:

I think you have fallen into the roll vs role trap. You assume you can have one or the other, but not both. There is a difference in preference but just because I prefer one over the other doesn't mean I get to call the other badwrongfun or shallow.

I don't think so. Eirikrautha is describing two extremes. I think there are gaming groups in both extremes, but most groups are probably in the middle somewhere.

Heck, I'd consider myself a narrative GM to the point that I create really in-depth backstories for all NPCs and important places. I do my best to try to get the players interested in all that, connect the PCs to important events either as a group or as individuals.

And still, if the dice say you die, you die. The only time I've been willing to fudge it a bit is if I feel like I designed the encounter wrong.

So far we've had two PC deaths in my current campaign. The first PC died because of saving his ally/bad tactics (moving to melee range to cast invisibility on a downed PC to prevent ghouls from eating him). The second died when he separated from his party and tried to grab a treasure chest that was underwater. He was already very hurt, the chest was trapped. He suffered enough damage to go unconscious, and eventually drowned.

[Matthias]

Only time I am a fan of TPK as a DM is when the party does something particularly dumb, for example charging a village of werewolves (they knew the town was werewolves) at level 3 with no silver weapons and with none of the casters having magic weapon or a similar buff spell at the ready (my group had 7 players including 4 casters, a druid, wizard, magus, and oracle). It was a bloodbath and rightfully so.
My example aside, story deaths can really add a lot to the game as long as your group is mature about it and are a great plot device. But if the death is just "a dire weasel crit you at level 3 and your dead cause you rolled low on HP" that feels very unsatisfying as both a DM and a player.

[born_of_fire]

i can think of two recent tpk's that seriously derailed our game and are a big part of why i prefer a subtle, well-handled dm save to a tpk for the sake of "realism".

***DANGER!!! SPOILERS AHEAD AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE A SPOILER TAG***

the first was in rise of the runelords at the giant steps. the entire party was decimated except my character, who did the smart thing and fled the scene while the baddies were busy squishing everyone else. a salvageable situation if i had gotten back to ft. rannick or turtleback ferry to find some new party members but i managed to come across a vargoul, get bitten, fail my save and transform into bat-eared flying head before i could. >.< the connection to all the contacts we made, all the information we collected since as far back as sandpoint, all the peasants we aided, everything we invested in restoring ft. rannick, all the npc's and monsters we pissed off were lost with my death.
in this case, we did assemble a suitable party and kept on that particular adventure path but there was a serious blow to continuity; weeks' worth of game sessions passed before the new group was in a position to advance the story again.

in the second case, we were playing through the crystal castle where the gist of the ap is that the world is going to end with everything in existence turned into crystal unless the party stops the evil outsiders behind the plot. we died. horribly. so the world should have ended, golarion should have been crystallized and taken over by demons but then how would we continue playing? every new game from that point on was in some sort of alternate realm that didn't get crystallized?
we discussed the idea that some other high level party of adventurers came along and finished the job for us after we softened things up with our faces. the problem is that this assumes parties of half a dozen high level adventurers are common, that said party had access to all the same information we did, that they were mere moments behind us--the crystallization process is on a timer--and that our party was ignorant of another party hot on our trail (why wouldn't we just team up?), all of which seems very unfeasible.
in the end, we completely abandoned the ap, rolled level 1 characters and started a different ap entirely. to this day, we basically pretend that whole ap never happened.

***END OF SPOILERS***

that's a lot of storytelling for me to explain my position but our group really seems to prefer continuity to "realism" especially when the "realism" ends up in a situation where each player has to write up their dead character's sibling come to investigate their disappearance or avenge their death or where the dm has to recreate affiliations, make npc's peeved at our new party for no reason other than we are the party, invent connections to past events that feel forced etc.

slavishly obeying the dice and allowing tpk's is just trading one sort of dm fudging for another sort of dm fudging when the grand scheme of the ap is considered. furthermore, i don't recall anyone ever using any sort of resurrection spell in our game so that likely has a fair bit to do with my dm's style. it's too expensive as well as rather punitive--losing a level when on slow progression is painful as hell.