| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If by "robbing players of agency" you mean "rob them of random chance" then I suppose that's correct.
Player agency comes into their actions and decisions mattering to the outcome of whatever is going on. That still happens, even if the result is not left up to random chance. For me, its because OF player's decisions that I decide to fudge things a bit in their favor.
This is really a <boggle> moment for me, because I do not understand the vehemence in this response. Like, at all.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me clarify one thing real quick that I think everyone on the "anti-fudging" side agrees with:
Fudging is fine as you as long you inform your players you will be doing it and they agree to it. It is not badwrongfun to do so.
However, what I think is badwrongfun (because it is objectively so) is fudging without informing your players you will be doing so and without their consent. It absolutely does take agency away from the players, will quickly be caught by experienced players, will break your players trust in you as a GM, and absolutely is not fun.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that puzzles me is this idea that fudging dice rolls is the only way to ensure a different outcome in an encounter.
There are plenty of things you can do to make encounters easier or harder mid-fight that has nothing to do with dice.
Changing their tactics does wonders.
If your BBEG is getting stomped, have him escape (or try to). There's nothing wrong with your boss using the class features and items you gave him to GTFO, heal up, and come back ready to choke a motherf#~$er to death next time. Dimension Door away to another room, heal up, buff, sumon some monsters, whatever. Disintegrate a hole into the next room and run as fast as your little wizardy legs can carry you.
Yeah, this only works with casters for the most part, but warrior based bosses aren't really meant to be super challenging a lot of the time anyway.
Likewise, if your encounter is beating the hell out of the PCs, and you don't want someone (or more than one) to die, have them get stupid, reckless, use less than optimal tactics. I'd dare to say that has MORE of an effect than changing the outcome of some die rolls anyway.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I'm so glad you let the character we spent months developing a story over die to a statistical anomaly in a nameless random encounter so I can spend the next 4 hours playing WoW while the group wastes time and resources getting me back." ~Said no player ever.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I'm so glad you let the character we spent months developing a story over die to a statistical anomaly in a nameless random encounter so I can spend the next 4 hours playing WoW while the group wastes time and resources getting me back." ~Said no player ever.
Characters die. It's a part of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I'm so glad you let the character we spent months developing a story over die to a statistical anomaly in a nameless random encounter so I can spend the next 4 hours playing WoW while the group wastes time and resources getting me back." ~Said no player ever.
I'd rather my character die if the dice fall against me, then live because the story says I should. Course, I have back-up characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually what I said had nothing to do with the story. It had every thing to do with allowing random mathematics dictate the next several hours of doing nothing.
Because a GM still has to introduce your new character. And unless you're running the game where everyone has a "Pc glow" that's not exactly the easiest process.
I don't run games like that.
Death is boring, I'm actually working on a system that makes it harder to die yet still makes the game harder.
Oddly enough the solution came out of Dragon Age but that's a topic for elsewhere.
Embracing the RNG isn't my style. If characters die it should be because of choices they made for good or ill, not because the dice said so. The dice are there to represent luck for good or ill. The numbers on your sheet are their to represent your cahracters command over that chaos, to turn luck into skill.
In a sense that system is beautiful as it means the lowliest of people still have a 5% chance against the greatest of foes at least some of the time.
And I'm certainly not against killing characters or letting characters die due to bad rolls. But I also go out of my way to make it at least interesting.
For example. Book 2 of council of thieves.
In the book it explicitly states that if anyone dies in the play the mayor will shell out a raise dead for them.
Low and behold someone died when they ended up slicing their own arm off to a series of bad rolls.
Because the players had an out that actually gave the players and me something to do I rolled with it and it turned the game more fun by dint of letting the players interact more with npc's. I in turn got to show more of the dysfunction that was the relationship between the mayor and the church of Asmodeus.
A statement like "I'd rather the GM follow rules by the letter than let my character live." Expressly states a disinterest in playing a characters story out and your stance to stand by the rules rather than by your tablemates.
Thing, is, I'm okay with that. I just won't waste my time on you. I've got other players to make happy. The next time a group of hill giants roll 4 crits on a row on you I won't dare make the mistake of leaving you only a handful into the negatives so your broken butt can be dragged out. That would be dishonest. We'll play your way when it comes to you. I'm a decent GM, I can do that.
On the same token, don't you dare b+#*+ and moan when Kevin, age 17, who handed me a 60 page story on his Oracle detailing everything from his illicit love affair with Leanna to his mentorship under Thor the Red Warrior, only gets half his face burned off and is left a bleeding mess when he rolls a 1 on his reflex save during the surprise round of a dragon ambush.
And if you'd rather not play at that table that's your prerogative.
I just want a characters death to match the player's investment. Not the whims of poorly manufactured plastic bits bought at 4$ a dozen.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how everyone who is vehemently opposed to GMs fudging rolls convieniently ignore that the rules actually give the GM explicit permission to do it.
That said, I Like to roll out in the open and haven't fudged a roll in a long time. I don't consider it cheating, but rather, lazy GMing. That's throught the filter of my own experience and likely because I mostly would do it when I had been pressed for time and didn't have an encounter well prepared so it may have been poorly balanced for the party. In those cases I had no remorse for changing whatever needed to change in order to make it a fun and memorable battle rather than either a deathtrap or a cakewalk for the party.
Niether one of: "Sorry guys I didn't have enough free time to properly balance this I guess you all died" or "Well I guess we finished everything I had for this session in an hour and a half because I made the fights too easy, see you guys in a couple weeks" seem like appropriate endings to a session.
On the subject of fudging (not cheating, it's a different thing) is there anyone in this thread who thinks that players should be allowed to fudge rolls? I've always seen it as solely a GM choice, and it's pretty important to my enjoyment as a player that I don't know what happens behind the screen.
As for essential conceits of RPGs, how about the idea that all the world's problems can be solved by defeating a BBEG in his evil lair? Omigod, how I wish it was that simple! :P
You know I think I've realized the root of my problem here.
I don't think deaht is part of the game. I think death is optional.
I think it should be "Failure is a part of the game."
Because failure doesn't end the game Failure doesn't rob a player of agency.
Death without follow up is just boring
On the subject of fudging (not cheating, it's a different thing) is there anyone in this thread who thinks that players should be allowed to fudge rolls? I've always seen it as solely a GM choice, and it's pretty important to my enjoyment as a player that I don't know what happens behind the screen.
There are systems that expressly give fudging as a reward or game mechanic.
Eberron is a whole campaign setting that gives fudging to characters.
I just want a characters death to match the player's investment. Not the whims of poorly manufactured plastic bit bought at 4$ a dozen.
Well, of course they're poorly manufactured at that price! :P
(Seriously, you know where to get dice that cheap? I won't tell.)
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
DMs fudge, players cheat. There is a world of difference, they are not equivalent, because the role of players and DMs is different in the game.
Players shouldn't cheat under any circumstances. But the DM is the world-arbiter and also has foreknowledge of stuff that might or might not happen. I don't fudge a lot but it does happen and, when I do it, I do it in the interests of entertaining the players. Fudging isn't cheating, it is a play-style element. And those are all down to personal taste.
On the subject of fudging (not cheating, it's a different thing) is there anyone in this thread who thinks that players should be allowed to fudge rolls? I've always seen it as solely a GM choice, and it's pretty important to my enjoyment as a player that I don't know what happens behind the screen.
There are systems that expressly give fudging as a reward or game mechanic.
Eberron is a whole campaign setting that gives fudging to characters.
What's weird about D&D 5E (Yes, I play it, feel free to throw rotten tomatoes at me, but you'll have to join the line at the back, and it's pretty long) is that the advantage/disadvantage mechanic has changed the entire fudging vs cheating dynamic at my table.
Yes, Aubrey, that was as much to you as TarkXT. /wink
GMs fudge the game when they write the adventure. Giving the BBEG 200 hp instead of 150 or 250 has exactly the same effect as adding or subtracting 50hp during combat, and compensates for both the imperfect CR system and random die rolls. It shouldn't be necessary, but this is not chess and it's not going to be perfectly balanced.
In an ideal sandbox game, no 'cheating' is necessary, but it might make for a short-lived and frankly random campaign. But derailing an AP or other long-term campaign where people have invested time and energy, fudging a roll to provide a clue, kill/save an [N]PC or whatever is just sensible.
And don't try fudging in a tournament game; it's probably illegal. Dunno about PFS, but I can believe it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A statement like "I'd rather the GM follow rules by the letter than let my character live." Expressly states a disinterest in playing a characters story out and your stance to stand by the rules rather than by your tablemates.
Ah, yes, I am "disinterested" in my character and his story because when his story has reached its end (because when you die, you have no more story, unless someone resurrects you) I am satisfied with that.
Of course.
And I'm a bad person for not finding it good GMing to play favorites. "Oh, but Kevin put so much work into writing a novella instead of a character, I can't POSSIBLY let him die!"
People die. Sometimes people die when their stories aren't complete. Sometimes people die despite the fact that they had a long, storied history before the story even starts.
A good backstory (or a long backstory, since you made no mention of its quality) should not give a character immunity to death. All sorts of media would be awfully boring were that the case.
A statement like "I'd rather the GM follow rules by the letter than let my character live." Expressly states a disinterest in playing a characters story out and your stance to stand by the rules rather than by your tablemates.
Ah, yes, I am "disinterested" in my character and his story because when his story has reached its end (because when you die, you have no more story, unless someone resurrects you) I am satisfied with that.
Of course.
And I'm a bad person for not finding it good GMing to play favorites. "Oh, but Kevin put so much work into writing a novella instead of a character, I can't POSSIBLY let him die!"
People die. Sometimes people die when their stories aren't complete. Sometimes people die despite the fact that they had a long, storied history before the story even starts.
A good backstory (or a long backstory, since you made no mention of its quality) should not give a character immunity to death. All sorts of media would be awfully boring were that the case.
It's not playing favorites to play to others idea of fun.
I can choose to make both of you happy some of the time or one of you happy all the time. You prefer the objectiveness of statistics, Kevin prefers his heroic fantasy.
I prefer a game entertaining for everyone at the table.
GMs fudge the game when they write the adventure. Giving the BBEG 200 hp instead of 150 or 250 has exactly the same effect as adding or subtracting 50hp during combat, and compensates for both the imperfect CR system and random die rolls. It shouldn't be necessary, but this is not chess and it's not going to be perfectly balanced.
In an ideal sandbox game, no 'cheating' is necessary, but it might make for a short-lived and frankly random campaign. But derailing an AP or other long-term campaign where people have invested time and energy, fudging a roll to provide a clue, kill/save an [N]PC or whatever is just sensible.
Even in the ideal sandbox game, plot builds up around characters. Contacts and relationships and things they have planned or care about. At least that's what people tell me. I've never really understood sandbox games.
And even there GMs build encounters and leak information about them so the players know whether they should pursue this adventure or not.
The people who don't care about character death and always have a backup ready to go are playing a very different game than I am.
In sandbox games, world building is based on PC action rather than static plot development. You end up laying the train tracks 10 feet in front of the engine at full speed, but the plot's reactive, which I like, whichever side of the GM screen I'm sitting on.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Getting the crap beaten out of you by 4 Hill Giants" and "Being burnt to a crisp by a dragon" are the two scenarios specifically mentioned.
Neither of those is mundane enough to qualify as "hit by a car".
And there seems to be a bit of an expectations gap here. See, I don't automatically consider my character the, or even a "main character".
Major side characters can often look like main characters until they get the shit beaten out of them by 4 giants, or burnt to a crisp in a dragon attack.
Sometimes you never know who has "plot armor" until they reach the end of the story.
If your character dies, well, guess he wasn't a main character.
In sandbox games, world building is based on PC action rather than static plot development. You end up laying the train tracks 10 feet in front of the engine at full speed, but the plot's reactive, which I like, whichever side of the GM screen I'm sitting on.GMs fudge the game when they write the adventure. Giving the BBEG 200 hp instead of 150 or 250 has exactly the same effect as adding or subtracting 50hp during combat, and compensates for both the imperfect CR system and random die rolls. It shouldn't be necessary, but this is not chess and it's not going to be perfectly balanced.
In an ideal sandbox game, no 'cheating' is necessary, but it might make for a short-lived and frankly random campaign. But derailing an AP or other long-term campaign where people have invested time and energy, fudging a roll to provide a clue, kill/save an [N]PC or whatever is just sensible.
Even in the ideal sandbox game, plot builds up around characters. Contacts and relationships and things they have planned or care about. At least that's what people tell me. I've never really understood sandbox games.
And even there GMs build encounters and leak information about them so the players know whether they should pursue this adventure or not.
Yeah, I get that. I think there's a broad range though. A lot of space in between sandbox and railroad. People draw the line in very different places in that space.
I certainly won't argue with you there! :)
"Getting the crap beaten out of you by 4 Hill Giants" and "Being burnt to a crisp by a dragon" are the two scenarios specifically mentioned.
Neither of those is mundane enough to qualify as "hit by a car".
And there seems to be a bit of an expectations gap here. See, I don't automatically consider my character the, or even a "main character".
Major side characters can often look like main characters until they get the s!%+ beaten out of them by 4 giants, or burnt to a crisp in a dragon attack.
Sometimes you never know who has "plot armor" until they reach the end of the story.
If your character dies, well, guess he wasn't a main character.
This is also citing an expectations gap between two players.
And plot armor has its limits. Note my entire theme here is not about whether or not a character is immune to death nor is it about immunity to consequences. It's about being immune to meaningless waste.
If you make a dumb decision and you die than that death had meaning. It taught you, the player, that the decision you made was dumb.
But what lesson, what meaning is there if you make all the right decisions but the dice simply decide the time has come adn the TPK occurs? That characters die? That your effort was wasted as the universe itself is a chaotic mess?
That's fine if we're playing Call of Cthulu or Paranoia where that is, in fact, the point. But I'm playing Pathfinder where I can choose to ignore that nonsense and play a norse viking turned space pirate by dint of stumbling upon some ruin near the silver mount and a willingness to plunder the stars.
Or you can run a horror game where the players are mere pawns in a cosmic game too large for their mere mortal eyes and character death is common and effort is meaningless in the face of the squiggling old ones.
The game can accomodate both, at the same table even.
I don't fudge the dice to make encounters harder. I don't need to. I've got unlimited resources and better tactical sense than everyone at the table most of the time. I also don't fudge to make fights easier. Because victory is a reward for effort.
It's one thing if the players end up with a lucky streak and end up face rolling my encounters because of good rolls. That doesn't end the game. It makes me grumble a bit and swear vengeance. If players end up rolling badly and refuse to back out when the rolls turn against them that's another thing. That's choosing to end the game for yourself.
It's another thing, however, if a particularly easy, random, or throw away encounters face roll the group because I rolled twelve attacks and all but one was a crit threat. That's not fun. That's artificial difficulty. That's not a punishment for bad optimization, or bad tactics, or poor roleplaying. That's just senselessness.
You can embrace that if you so choose. I have chosen not to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you can play Call of Cthulhu with a very low death rate, because to quote an old GM of mine "Death wouldn't be any fun. That's much too easy."
I am interested in this person's ideas and want to subscribe to his newsletter.
4e/5e's 'decide after you reduce someone to 0 hit points if you're going to just KO them' rule can be a helpful thing to look at for tables like yours, TarkXT.
4e/5e's 'decide after you reduce someone to 0 hit points if you're going to just KO them' rule can be a helpful thing to look at for tables like yours, TarkXT.
I've actually been trying to find a 5ed game. Will probably run one when I have meaningful employment and get my den turned into a gaming room.
I can only hope that the OGL for them is actually worth looking at as I'd love to freelance for that as well.
Getting back to the original topic of the thread:
1) The PCs are "destined" to defeat the great evil/horde/god-head, etc. It's never that NPC farmer or henchman who you happen to be protecting or escorting around.
2) Nobody is ever in it "just for the money" anymore. They may start out Han Solo's smuggler, but almost always get dragged into the rebellion. (One of the things about 1st edition/OSRIC style games is that intro usually started with players being "hired" to investigate and defeat whatever it was - no grand backstory.) Kingmaker may have been the exception to that premise on the Pathfinder AP's, but I suspect that's the sandbox quality to it.
And I'm a bad person for not finding it good GMing to play favorites. "Oh, but Kevin put so much work into writing a novella instead of a character, I can't POSSIBLY let him die!"
You very much might be, depending on what you communicated and agreed to beforehand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
