RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I wonder, then, how helpful it is for a bunch of self-identified GMs to come in and assert the propriety of the thing that's been used to hurt such players—often even going so far as to insinuate developmental deficiencies on the player's part—when an abused player comments on the negative experiences they've had with fudging.I'd say in response that it's entirely justified when contrasted with the vehemence and vitriol hurled at conscientious DM's who fudge on occasion (and only in service of player enjoyment/story), as opposed to those rolling dice just so the players hear a noise and then saying whatever strikes their fancy. Equating one group with the other, which is done far too often here, long ago got old. It's ancient, now.
The problem is, in some ways, with those who think their anecdotal experience, either good or bad, epitomizes the issue. That's an unadulterated crock, and deep down we all know it.
Fudging is just another tool in a DM's toolbox—one he or she has a fundamental right to use if deemed necessary. Using it appropriately means the job is done better and more efficiently. Relying on it inappropriately results in sloppy or even incompetent workmanship.
When your response to a stranger's pain is to assert your own fundamental rights, it's time for some introspection.
I know I've run into this situation as a GM:
Players ask what is allowed in my setting/houserules, and I try and come up with a filter that best establishes the mood and powerlevel I want to give. Everyone plays ball except *that guy* who is obsessed about some particular concept or idea. I try and tell him no, but he tries to "compromise" with me, which mostly involves pointing out how great is backstory is, why it's not that broken, and why I absolutely must let him play it. I try to put my foot down, and tell him this isn't going to work and he needs to play by the same rules as every other PC. Then, next week, he shows up with that PC built in violation of all or most of the rules I put down.
Now, the guy's a friend, the group is established, there's plenty of other reasons to keep him around, but he's got a stubborn streak, and it's currently on fire. I tried to be assertive, I tried to do it above board. But, he's trying to escalate things into a position where I would need to be aggressive or harsh conversation needs to happen. So I have a choice on whether to escalate.
And sometimes the choice I make is that he can use the character, but I then engineer situations so that his wacky build (that he wasn't supposed to choose in the first place) can't be used effectively. (Throughout various methods, usually scenario-design, but sometimes including fudged rolls.) Eventually, he'll get bored and reroll. Is it passive-aggressive? Yes. But sometimes (rarely) that's the path a GM has to chart to keep the social clique lubricated and moving forward.
I did this earlier this month to a player. I'm sure he'd tell the story very differently too. But this is how the story unfolds from my side of the GM screen. I'm not saying that's the OP's GM's story, but it's something to think about.
|
Pathfinder games where the GM is fudging feel pretty bland to me. Why put out your best efforts if the GM is just going to preserve your enemies until he’s satisfied the encounter has gone on long enough? How is it brave to enter combat when you know the GM will blunt any really bad luck you have?
The point is that players shouldn't know that you're fudging.
Pathfinder games where the GM is fudging feel pretty bland to me. Why put out your best efforts if the GM is just going to preserve your enemies until he’s satisfied the encounter has gone on long enough? How is it brave to enter combat when you know the GM will blunt any really bad luck you have?The point is that players shouldn't know that you're fudging.
For some players that would be correct.
The point is that players shouldn't know that you're fudging.Everything always comes out in the wash eventually.
So true.
Our GM cheated for about 8 months and many battles just seemed...not quite right. I'm not sure what exactly tipped us off. Too many saving throws being made by monsters, battles always ending right when you think you can't take another hit. GM's dice getting cold when the players are getting beat up too much. Maybe it was all of those things and more...it just felt off.
We brought in a few more players and the table got a bit crowded. And with the new seating arrangement I could see from my seat that the GM was cheating. This confirmed all of the players nagging suspicions that the fix was in. Like Hama he thought he was never going to get caught. Well he got caught.
Our GM's shield toppled down and dice since have since been rolled openly and honestly. Obviously some dice rolls are designed to be done in secret (like stealth checks) for a reason so those can be rolled away from prying eyes. But for combat watching the dice tumble with the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat on the line really amps up the game. It greatly improved our game. We relish our victories much more.
There are still ways GM’s can alter events for good or ill if they are so inclined. If for instance the players and destroying an encounter you hoped would provide a bit more of a challenge you might bring in a second wave, increase the hit points the goblins, or promote a goblin on the fly to champion and give the him a few more levels.
I think these are all better options because at least the dice are respected.
-MD
Muad'Dib, had you made a previous arrangement that the DM was not to fudge die rolls?
No Jaelithe, it never crossed our minds. In all my years of gaming prior it was never was an issue. Up till then none of us had or used GM screens.
Everyone playing had strong objections so the GM acquiesced.
We did not lambast him or denigrate him for it. He did not know but had some trouble balancing encounters and often throw too much at us. he was just trying to keep us alive so we could have more fun.
But he was empathic enough to know how cheating cheapened the legacy of his game. He's always has and always will great storyteller and has since gone on to greater heights as a GM.
-MD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the consensus here is that whether or not fudging is cheating is up to the players to decide?
For me, the takeaway is that players and GMs should discuss how they feel about the subject, just like they talk openly about all other aspects of the game. Some GMs might think that they know what is best and don't need to respect the wishes of their players, but I think most aren't like that.
But you keep using the word "cheating" as if fudging is cheating, when that has not been established.
At our weekly game table fudging is cheating and that has been established at our table. If you sit at our table you will not see a GM's screen. Call it a house rule if you must but it is a rule.
Look, I don't play at conventions, game stores, meet ups or the like so my chances of coming across a gamers who cheat are slim to none. My small world of gaming is one day a week as the same table for more years than many of you are old.
In my mind fudging is just a nice dressed up word for cheating. I just call it what it is.
-MD
From the players handbook.
Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this “fudging” rather than cheating.
So yes it is totally your right to alter dice however you wish. You are the GM, it's your world and your game. And the book states further that you are the law in your world, and you shouldn’t feel bound by the dice.
Paizo might prefer it call it "fudging" but that's just putting a tuxedo on a turd.
Players and GM's should just be clear about it to avoid familiar situations like the OP.
-MD
And Jaelithe I totally get what you are saying. And with great respect let's just agree to disagree.
We both are people of refined taste and are certainly the most attractive people at our tables so we should not be fighting.
-MD
As a Gm I have often dealt with this issue and if you are fighting boss or mini boss in my game who is meant to be rough. He is never going to fall asleep to a witch slumber hex unless he is almost dead. I might roll a 1 but he will pass anyways. Normal encounters I don't care if all the creatures fall asleep, no big deal.Did you tell this to players before they made characters?
If I made a witch, assuming that the GM was going to play by the normal rules, and I got this instead, I'd feal cheated. If the GM told be about it upfront, I'd consider if I really wanted to play a witch. But if I then made a slumber witch, I wouldn't complain about it, because I knew about it from the start.
===
I pride myself on not fudging. I like to think that I'm really good at guesttimating the danger level the PCs can cope with. If the party scrapes through a major fight just barely, without me scaling back or forth anything, I feel a GM triumph.
But SoD can get in the way of that, true. There are several general strategies available;
- discourage SoD powers. Can feel needlessly restrictive, especially for non-major fights. And really, any high-level martial PC's attack routine against a lesser monster is also a one-shot kill attack.
- understand the SoD powers of the PCs and make sure encounters can cope with them. Don't have a solo BBEG against a slumber witch; give him a sidekick to wake him with a kick. If the PCs manage to maneuver the sidekick so they can slumber the BBEG without the sidekick waking him up, that's fine: that's not a one-hit kill anymore, that's a checkmate after several moves. That's good.
- use Intrusions. Openly admit to the players that you're fudging a die roll because it's just Too Soon. The Witch's player feels a bit of success because you admitted that he made a powerful move. Also, he gets some sort of reward - I'm thinking a Hero Point is appropriate. But the encounter goes on. Because the witch got a...
I know this thread went to hell and back since this post, but I wanted to say that, provided it's made plain to the players from the get-go, Intrusions are a fantastic idea for more narrative-driven groups. It gives players the power to award the GM latitude in exchange for some boon. In essence, the party can help shape the story. I'd totally play a game like that.
Making the BBEG an elf also solves the Slumber problem. Any elf. But this is a subject for another thread.
Sometimes I fudge dice because I have one die, my group calls it ol' critty, that HATES pc's. When using for my pc's the die just doesn't want to roll over an 8, but when ol' critty is rolling for that mook fighter it loves to go into the crit threat range, particularly natural 20. So when I gm with ol' critty I have to tone back the rolls a bit so the npc's aren't outshining the players or getting to hog the critical hit deck.
I fudge occasionally for both sides, but in less of a "I change the die roll" way and more of a "Well I rolled like 3 d20's here, let me rearrange some". If the dude is having the shittiest luck and he would otherwise be a cool fight, I'll sometimes swap around some dice.
His save vs insta-death that he rolled a 2 on is swapped out for the attack roll he rolled an 11 on. Guy fails to do any damage to the party that round, but he stays up to strut his stuff in the next round (...or not. Sometimes the dice just don't want to cooperate).
I don't do this too very often though, mostly on boss/mini-boss encounters that are just getting wrecked because of horrible luck.
On the PC side, I mostly only fudge to avoid a TPK or what I see as an unfair or particularly ignoble death the PC doesn't deserve.
If you do something stupid...well let the dice fall where they may. I won't fudge one way or another.
But if you did everything right and the only thing you screwed up was pissing off the dice gods ("Yeah, this guy can only see me on a 20, and only then if I roll below a 3." and then both things happen, messing up the stealth mission hardcore), I might swap around the dice similarly to above ("Well he doesn't see you, but that Fort save he made vs your poisoned blade on the Sneak Attack passed").
Again, only in extraordinary circumstances, usually when the PC is doing something cool and cinematic and just misses it by thiiiiiis much, or the whole party's about to be wiped because everyone rolled a 1 vs Paralysis from a mummy (though this is more of a job for "narrative fudging" like the mummy trussing you up to deal with later or whatever), or things like that.
A wholesale "Yeah nope lol that's never going to work ever" though, as in the OP? Yeah no.
The point is that players shouldn't know that you're fudging.
As the first post in this very thread illustrates, when a GM is not up front and honest about fudging die rolls, players often either learn or suspect that she is. Most players do not like being deceived.
That is why I suggest GMs tell their players under what circumstances (if any) they fudge die rolls. Alternately, use a more honest system that accomplishes what you want to accomplish, such as giving hero points to PCs or boss villains.
Witch hexes can really try your patience as a GM when your AP (that you do not have time to modify extensively) puts four in five serious fights as single opponent fights. Just sayin'.
To the OP on the subject of the witch hexes being saved against 2/3rds of the time instead of 1/3rd like they think they should... I'm also currently playing a witch, the difference is that my DM rolls openly so it's very easy for me to tell he's not fudging his rolls. But still far more of my hexes do NOT stick than do. I would say the enemies I try to hex resist 2/3rds or even 3/4ths of the time. So your DM could very well not be fudging, just rolling well or you're dealing with high will saving creatures. Or elves. Frikken elves.
But really even with only 1/4th of the hexes taking effect, every single player in my party is familiar the coup de grace now, from frequent use. It may feel frustraing when fight after fight things shrug off your witchery, but believe me, when the 20 ft tall troll that just tore your rogue in half on a surprise round goes nighty-night at the feet of the barbarian that thought he was its next target, it's worth it.
Witch hexes can really try your patience as a GM when your AP (that you do not have time to modify extensively) puts four in five serious fights as single opponent fights. Just sayin'.
What exactly constitutes "modify extensively"? My understanding of the process is:
Option 1:
Step 1: Browse Bestiary/NPC codex for an elf, half-elf, construct, dragon, undead, ooze, plant, or vermin of the same CR.
Step 2: Finished.
Option 2:
Step 1: Create an item that grants immunity to sleep (and additional effects at higher levels).
Step 2: Give enemy that item (taking something else out of the loot if necessary.
Really shouldn't take more than 15 minutes.
Pathfinder games where the GM is fudging feel pretty bland to me. Why put out your best efforts if the GM is just going to preserve your enemies until he’s satisfied the encounter has gone on long enough? How is it brave to enter combat when you know the GM will blunt any really bad luck you have?The point is that players shouldn't know that you're fudging.
If you fudge the dice rolls more often than very rarely, the players will figure it out unless they are fairly mathematically challenged.
Most of the previous pages of argument started when one of the GM's said he did it all the time. Later that moved back to just when it helped the story. Later still it became rarely when absolutely necessary to not wreck the story.
I had a problem with the first, was iffy on the second, and have little problem with the third (even if it isn't my preferred way to play).
As I stated earlier, I occasionally have fudged a roll. It is not at all common. Much less than once a game session. Usually only when either:
1) I messed up judging capabilities and the monster is way too tough for the party.
2) I did not adjust a printed encounter and the published intelligent monster did not take elementary precautions.
3) I can't see any way the PC could have failed at what ever task.
Even then I usually don't just ignore the dice results. I give a floating bonus/penalty.
Witch hexes can really try your patience as a GM when your AP (that you do not have time to modify extensively) puts four in five serious fights as single opponent fights. Just sayin'.What exactly constitutes "modify extensively"? My understanding of the process is:
Option 1:
Step 1: Browse Bestiary/NPC codex for an elf, half-elf, construct, dragon, undead, ooze, plant, or vermin of the same CR.
Step 2: Finished.Option 2:
Step 1: Create an item that grants immunity to sleep (and additional effects at higher levels).
Step 2: Give enemy that item (taking something else out of the loot if necessary.Really shouldn't take more than 15 minutes.
The hex in question is hex of misfortune. It virtually shuts down everything the creature does. I find it marginally less terrible than slumber. At least with slumber, I could do what you suggest. And with every creature getting hit with it as soon as init starts (the witch had a +9 init or so), having to roll the first two rounds against a ramped-up save DC, then having the witch cackle every round if either save failed, and every encounter (almost) being a single-creature fight, yes, I do mean I would have to rewrite the AP extensively, primarily through replacing the single monster fights with fights against several creatures.
I used to fudge rolls; then I played a witch who had a hard to make save for hexes and enchantments, and went three sessions without having one single mook miss a save. It was singly the most frustrating game I ever played. I since don't have the heart to do that to my players, even if it feels like a good idea. Man I remember how useless I felt, it got to the point where I was like "what am I doing even playing this game?". The build was so solid too, save or suck, then a good capstone spell to put them down.
I also play an assassin who thus far has not had a person fail on the death attack, I am suspicious to say the least.
