Is pathfinder becoming unbalanced?


Advice

401 to 450 of 633 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

15 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I'm totally cool with the idea of people having fun in a game where the GM fudges things on the fly. Everybody's got their own tastes, and that's fine.

What I don't like is how often I see proponents of that style trying to frame it as a matter of trust, like people who don't like fudging must not trust their GMs. Seriously, find me a post where somebody defends their "pro-fudge" position without discussing trust. I'd love to see it, just for the novelty.

It's not a matter of trust. I mean, okay, I'm sure there's somebody out there whose anti-fudging stance is based on a lack of trust, but there's somebody out there for any given opinion. For myself, for others I've heard from, and (I would speculate) for a statistically significant population of gamers, it is not a matter of trust.

For me at least, it's a matter of shared storytelling. To reiterate: shared storytelling. If the story is fully determined ahead of time and I'm just going to watch, then the experience I'm getting is basically the same as if I were reading a book or watching a movie. And don't get me wrong, that can be a great experience. I like books and movies.

But books and movies tend to be of a much higher quality (in narrative and delivery) than most GMs' campaigns. So if it's the same experience either way, I'd rather read the content of the professional.

So why did I decide to spend my time with an RPG? Because I want a different kind of narrative experience than what a book or movie can provide. Specifically, one in which I get to take part.

What does it mean to take part in the story? Well, it certainly does NOT mean going through the book and scribbling out the main character's name and writing in "Jiggy". That doesn't make me part of the story; it's still the same book. The only way I'm actually part of the story is if the story progresses differently than it would have if I had made different decisions.

The only way I'm actually part of the story is if the story progresses differently than it would have if I had made different decisions.

The whole reason I'm playing an RPG instead of reading a book is so that I can do things to affect the story. So that I can make choices that have an impact on the narrative. So that I can succeed or fail based on my own actions instead of based on what the author decided ahead of time.

If I'm thinking "Oh man, if I'd brought X type of character, this would be so much easier!" or "Phew, glad I thought to bring Y item/spell/ability, or else this would be a lot harder!", then I'm having a good time. That's why I'm there.

But if the GM has already decided how many resources need to get burned off by this encounter and makes sure it happens, and it would be approximately the same even if I was playing a different character or used a different strategy or even if I wasn't there at all? Then you've just written "Jiggy" over the main character's name in a book.

It's not that I don't trust you or think you're being adversarial. It's that you're literally taking away the only thing that makes me want to play an RPG instead of watching a movie.

Until I can see that things would have been materially different if I weren't there or had made different choices, your game isn't where I want to spend my time. And that doesn't change even if I trust your good intentions completely.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Jiggy says it best.

I had an experience with a GM running an intro campaign at the local college. I noticed that every time a character was knocked down, he asked what their HP was, and miraculously the character was just unconscious.

I took advantage of this when we switched up characters to roll an elven cleric with a 6 Con. Because I knew the choice wouldn't matter, she wasn't going to die anyway.

THAT is the removal of player agency that comes from deciding things are going to go a certain way, regardless of the dice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, in your example of an into game the DM trying to keep the party alive so the player can stay in the game, and you are taking advantage of the DMs good nature to min-max your character.

Player agency is about choice and having the BBEG pass a save on round one or last an extra round does not remove it in any way. DMs balancing enemies on the fly mid encounter is last minute tinkering, not lying or deceiving anyone. Player agency does not require every single action you take gets the result you want - 5th ed rules shows that a game can be fun without auto success.

There seems to be a massive exaggeration over the impact of making an enemy Last longer or keeping a PC alive. Remember - the aim of having fun. Your decisions still affect the fight and its eventual outcome you are still in control. DMs should want the PCs to stay alive, killing the PCs is a failure in some respects but an unavoidable occasional necessity to maintain a sense of danger in challenge.

Not killing PCs in an intro game is not being a jerk. Taking advantage of it is!

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
The Sword wrote:
Not killing PCs in an intro game is not being a jerk. Taking advantage of it is!

The jerk part is he didn't tell me that his policy was 'no deaths' for the game. And when I learned about it, it greatly diminished my enjoyment of the game.

You can whine about me taking advantage of him, but I really wanted to see how far he would go to keep her alive.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

My view is, why play a game with combat rules (especially ones as heavy as Pathfinder) if you are going to ignore those rules?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
Player agency is about choice and having the BBEG pass a save on round one or last an extra round does not remove it in any way.

Yes it does, you are basically altering how the rules work because you want to push your narrative, and by doing so you invalidate the effects of the players actions and the rolls of the dice.

The Sword wrote:
Your decisions still affect the fight and its eventual outcome you are still in control.

Not when you are extending the encounters based on unwritten rules and handwaving more health to your monsters and bosses.

The Sword wrote:
killing the PCs is a failure in some respects

No it is not, it is an unavoidable risk.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Jiggy says it best.

I had an experience with a GM running an intro campaign at the local college. I noticed that every time a character was knocked down, he asked what their HP was, and miraculously the character was just unconscious.

I took advantage of this when we switched up characters to roll an elven cleric with a 6 Con. Because I knew the choice wouldn't matter, she wasn't going to die anyway.

THAT is the removal of player agency that comes from deciding things are going to go a certain way, regardless of the dice.

I think a game designed to introduce new players to RPG is different than either a long running campaign with same players, or joining a long-running campaign as a new player though.

Not allowing a PC death is one particular kind of fudging, that's different then not allowing a PC's rolls to matter. Its no fun for anyone if you're dead, and you're not learning much from the experience either, so I'd be more inclined in the interest of gaming introduction to go that way as well. The amount of time it takes to roll up characters in PF can also be a challenge to a high death rate in an intro game.

In the last year I've brought my kids and spouse into gaming, as well as run a couple of weekend long one-shots for my nieces/nephews - none have ever gamed before. It is a different style of game than I ran for years in college with the same group of more experienced players.

There are so many human variables, player types, GM type, maturity, etc that affect experience at the table as well. If you had a PC death that resulted in IRL hurt feelings, as a GM you might avoid that going forward even at the detriment of in-game realism/tension. Add new outside players who have their own style and expectations (or run a game at a local hobby shop where you may deal with walk-ins on a weekly basis) it makes it a challenge as a GM to keep everyone happy.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
My view is, why play a game with combat rules (especially ones as heavy as Pathfinder) if you are going to ignore those rules?

This. If you're not going to play with the tactics/strategy the rules allow - why deal with their complexity? Get a dice-less or rules-lite (there are lots of both - some quite solid) game going and do the same thing with far more streamlined rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
See, I hate it when a GM fudges things for "his story"

I think its like wraithstrike said above - some times the GM just can't win. I've had boss or mini-boss encounters that the PCs have steam rolled, and then the players actually say things like "That was super easy." Or "those guys were terrible, so easy."

So the GM might try to stretch an encounter a bit in order to increase the difficulty so that the players feel like the encounters are a bit more difficult, and thus more fun.

Then players will complain that fudging happens.

Its really all a balancing act. With some players, you simply can't win.

I think this is the main reason GM's should always keep the ability to adjust/fudge on the fly in their kit-bag. There is enough variable in d20 that APL+x will not always come out right as you had planned or for that matter can swing from easy to death/TPK just based on who a roll was against.

IE: a max damage crit on one player may kill them, while leaving another at + HPs; those things start changing the complexity of the whole encounter in ways you couldn't have planned for. Same way a simple CR1 ghoul can paralyze 3 PCs for 5rounds each in 1 attack sequence if the dice come up right. I'd never go into an encounter assuming that would happen, but it could and I'd want to be able to adjust on the fly if I had other creatures planning to pop-out.

That's the thing though. Your plan should be the setup and that the players win. Not how the fight goes down. If players found a fight easy, are you sure they did not have fun? I felt the same way as a GM, then I talked to my players and thought it was awesome that the Cavalier charge crit the "boss" in one hit.

If you're going to fudge crits to not kill, why not just tell the players not to keep track of HP damage, that they can/you will just have their characters drop unconscious when it suits an makes sense for the story. If we're in a position that one ghoul would paralyze three of us and the dice gods deem it to be so, it's the story as it's supposed to be. We should have not gotten into that position or have done proper sacrifices to the dice gods. hopefully there's a 4th or more players to help us escape or buy time or something. but if not, that's life.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssyvan wrote:

Also, I was wondering, since you roll your dice along with modifiers in front of players do you ever have any issues with someone acting on that knowledge?

I ask because as a player I know I wouldn't be able to help but do that. Not maliciously mind you, but I'd worry that those things would start impacting my decisions and I couldn't help but feel guilty about that.

I've certainly wondered from time to time whether or not my GM has fudged a number here or there, so having them rolled out in the open would alleviate that.

Also, what caused you to start doing this?

What's the problem with them acting on that knowledge?

I mean, imagine you're somebody who routinely gets into life-threatening situations. People have swung weapons at you countless times. If someone manages to hit you, you can probably tell the difference between somebody who hit you mostly by virtue of being really good at what they're doing, versus somebody who's kinda sloppy but just happened to swing right where you were headed.

So if a player sees that I rolled a 20 to hit, I see no problem with them knowing whether the roll was a 4 with a +16 bonus or a 19 with a +1 bonus. I figure these fantasy heroes can tell the difference. They wouldn't describe it numerically, but they can tell who was good and who was lucky.

Not only is this not a problem, but it can actually enhance roleplay. Someone who takes a couple of hits purely because of lucky rolls gets the opportunity to roleplay their own sloppiness in defense (perhaps with jokes, perhaps with frustration, depending on the character). By contrast, if they see a 4 on the die and still get hit, they can roleplay that "OH CRAP" moment as they realize this guy is serious business (maybe panic, maybe "finally a worthy opponent", depending on the character).

But if all the player ever knows is that they got hit or that the total was a 20, you've actually taken away those roleplay opportunities.

In my experience, hiding mechanical information from the players actually hurts the narrative and the roleplaying, rather than protecting it. There can be exceptions, of course, but as a general trend, my games keep getting better and better as I hide less and less from the players.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

No, in your example of an into game the DM trying to keep the party alive so the player can stay in the game, and you are taking advantage of the DMs good nature to min-max your character.

Player agency is about choice and having the BBEG pass a save on round one or last an extra round does not remove it in any way. DMs balancing enemies on the fly mid encounter is last minute tinkering, not lying or deceiving anyone. Player agency does not require every single action you take gets the result you want - 5th ed rules shows that a game can be fun without auto success.

There seems to be a massive exaggeration over the impact of making an enemy Last longer or keeping a PC alive. Remember - the aim of having fun. Your decisions still affect the fight and its eventual outcome you are still in control. DMs should want the PCs to stay alive, killing the PCs is a failure in some respects but an unavoidable occasional necessity to maintain a sense of danger in challenge.

Not killing PCs in an intro game is not being a jerk. Taking advantage of it is!

My decisions aren't affecting the fight on the first round now if I'm the wizard that you auto-succeeded my sleep/dominate/other SoL spell

because you wanted this fight to last another round/you wanted me to use two spells this fight. You're passive aggressively saying "There's a houserule that you don't cast SoL on the first round" but instead of outright telling this to your players so they can make use and do something useful, you're providing a false-choice to them. You're telling them that of course they can cast SoL on the first turn, but not telling them that it'll be a waste of a turn and have no chance of success.

And it's not the individual fight that matters. It's what hidden message is being conveyed. To me, you're saying, "sit and watch while I tell a story" and for me, that's not fun, especially if that's not what I was intending on doing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It can also be risky to fudge things when a fight isn't purely based around how much HP the enemies have.

If your boss fails a save against a permanent save-or-suck like Blindness/Deafness, he's not kind of blind, he's blind, and will be blind for the duration of the fight. Players are going to call shenanigans if bosses arbitrarily shrug off conditions or seem to magically make their saves every time something that would make the fight quick and easy hits them.

If you play with people who play a LOT, also, there will be people familiar enough with the bestiary to know you're forcing the encounter to go longer for one reason or another, and from what I've seen that erodes trust in your judgement as GM. On one occasion I had a dragon the party was fighting continue to fight a couple rounds after it should have died so that the party's paladin, who had been having a really bad night, finally got to use the dragon-bane axe he'd found at random earlier and had been hoping to fight a dragon with.

One of my more experienced players, however, talked to me in private afterwards; they'd known the dragon should not have been standing that long because their own GMing experience gave them a baseline familiarity with a lot of the monsters' abilities without having to check the bestiary, and pointed out that by handing the final blow to the paladin I had stolen the kill the party's rogue had earned fair and square, and failed to account for what I was going to do if the paladin's terrible luck meant he flubbed the final blow and the dragon's turn came up again.

Pathfinder's a very rules-heavy game, and a lot of players are expecting to play the game by those rules. The rules the GM is playing by should be something the players know, or else they have no way to realistically expect what might happen when they do something. If the GM decided arbitrarily that bluff does not work the way it works in the rulebook, AND IS NOT UP-FRONT ABOUT THIS WITH THE PLAYERS BEFOREHAND, someone that is playing Bluff as it is meant to be played might be in for a very nasty surprise they had no way to avoid.

I also don't feel like core-only helps very much, because it only exacerbates the gaps between many classes. Nearly all of the Wizard and Druid's nice things are in the Core Rulebook while Core-Only Monks can't access ANY of their nice things, and most of the stuff people like doing as fighters and rogues are not in the core rulebook. And the class disparities aren't even on purely martial/caster lines. Core-Only, I don't think there's really ANYTHING the Fighter can do the Ranger can't do better besides wear heavy armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
My view is, why play a game with combat rules (especially ones as heavy as Pathfinder) if you are going to ignore those rules?
This. If you're not going to play with the tactics/strategy the rules allow - why deal with their complexity? Get a dice-less or rules-lite (there are lots of both - some quite solid) game going and do the same thing with far more streamlined rules.

Is it really that black and white in your games though? For the GM or for the players or both?

I ask because its never been my experience that an RPG is literally run that lock-step for either the GM or the players. I've never seen it be a matter of either ignore the rules or you can't try something with your PC that isn't clearly allowed in the rule book. Every RPG I've played had some level of grey area between the two extremes, and that allows the group to have fun together; where the game ran on the grey-scale changed over time as it is in the 2 campaigns I'm playing right now. Its that freedom to use the rules as a guide that makes RPG different for me than any other game.

It seems Paizo never intended one extreme or the other.

The Most Important Rule:

The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
GM 1990 wrote:
Is it really that black and white in your games though? For the GM or for the players or both?

Nope. But I expect there to be a dialogue about what the players are comfortable with that makes the expectations clear, just as the rule you quoted suggests.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
...just as the rule you quoted suggests.

It's remarkable how often I've seen people cite a passage that explicitly says any deviations from the rules should be discussed with everyone, and digest nothing but "doesn't say I can't fudge".

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For the record, I'm cool with both the 'adjust the rules and/or fudge to fit the story' and the 'rules are rules' playstyles.

I just think a GM should be clear and honest with their players which of those they're doing. Honesty and communication, folks. Honesty and communication.

Heck, my own playstyle isn't exactly RAW over all. I change the rules quite a bit...mostly with my written House Rules document, but I occasionally change a rule on the fly as well. But when I do so, I'm always very clear with my players that that's what I'm doing, and usually do so before the roll is made.


Jiggy wrote:
Ssyvan wrote:

Also, I was wondering, since you roll your dice along with modifiers in front of players do you ever have any issues with someone acting on that knowledge?

I ask because as a player I know I wouldn't be able to help but do that. Not maliciously mind you, but I'd worry that those things would start impacting my decisions and I couldn't help but feel guilty about that.

I've certainly wondered from time to time whether or not my GM has fudged a number here or there, so having them rolled out in the open would alleviate that.

Also, what caused you to start doing this?

What's the problem with them acting on that knowledge?

I mean, imagine you're somebody who routinely gets into life-threatening situations. People have swung weapons at you countless times. If someone manages to hit you, you can probably tell the difference between somebody who hit you mostly by virtue of being really good at what they're doing, versus somebody who's kinda sloppy but just happened to swing right where you were headed.

So if a player sees that I rolled a 20 to hit, I see no problem with them knowing whether the roll was a 4 with a +16 bonus or a 19 with a +1 bonus. I figure these fantasy heroes can tell the difference. They wouldn't describe it numerically, but they can tell who was good and who was lucky.

Not only is this not a problem, but it can actually enhance roleplay. Someone who takes a couple of hits purely because of lucky rolls gets the opportunity to roleplay their own sloppiness in defense (perhaps with jokes, perhaps with frustration, depending on the character). By contrast, if they see a 4 on the die and still get hit, they can roleplay that "OH CRAP" moment as they realize this guy is serious business (maybe panic, maybe "finally a worthy opponent", depending on the character).

But if all the player ever knows is that they got hit or that the total was a 20, you've actually taken away those roleplay opportunities.

In my experience, hiding mechanical information...

Ah, that is really interesting!

This goes back to what you're saying about a player's decisions impacting the game, but with a slightly different flavor. For me, being given the chance of a desirable outcome for a variety of actions why wouldn't I always choose the action that's most likely to give me a desirable outcome?

I like that your groups finds that an enhancement (I think a couple of players in my group would actually enjoy this as well). But, for me personally that would turn each round into a math problem; robbing me of decisions as I solved for the best outcomes. Statistics is making the decision not me (as I would see it).

Does that make sense?

Seeing how I haven't actually done this I could be overlooking an aspect entirely. But I do find it interesting that in your experience I'm hiding opportunity, but in my experience I'm granting it. Either way, I'm certain to think about this more. =p


TriOmegaZero wrote:
GM 1990 wrote:
Is it really that black and white in your games though? For the GM or for the players or both?
Nope. But I expect there to be a dialogue about what the players are comfortable with that makes the expectations clear, just as the rule you quoted suggests.

I don't disagree at all, but I wouldn't be interested in playing with a group that during that discussion said they wanted a game in either of the 2 extremes. I want a level of consistency, but don't expect perfection from the GM or my players and understand things will change over time.

If you're running a game with family and friends, there is already a large amount of familiarity with the personalities you're going to be playing with. But even then getting an idea about the game's over-arching theme during a session 0 is a nice way to help everyone pick skills/classes, etc that'll fit what the GM's thinking the setting will be.

I've only played in a couple "walk-on" sessions in all these years, and I won't lie - they were not ever as much fun as playing with family and friends. I suspect some of the bad experiences people have had gaming are most often the result of walk-on gaming (whether you're joining a new group or someone new joins yours) where there are different expectations between the participants and less empathy/patience/dialogue than you'd receive from family and friends.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
GM 1990 wrote:
I don't disagree at all, but I wouldn't be interested in playing with a group that during that discussion said they wanted a game in either of the 2 extremes. I want a level of consistency, but don't expect perfection from the GM or my players and understand things will change over time.

Nor do I. Especially considering the explosion of other subsystems and specific rules that I can't keep track of. A group should be clear about where their comfort levels are, and these lines can change from game to game. (And probably should!)

Group dynamics are almost always going to be improved when the people know each other well. That's a given. But it's hard to foster that in public play, and that's what most of us are doing here. We're not playing the game, but we're talking about it, and we don't have that closeness that our home groups do. So talking about needing to trust the GM is kind of far afield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
GM 1990 wrote:
I don't disagree at all, but I wouldn't be interested in playing with a group that during that discussion said they wanted a game in either of the 2 extremes. I want a level of consistency, but don't expect perfection from the GM or my players and understand things will change over time.

Nor do I. Especially considering the explosion of other subsystems and specific rules that I can't keep track of. A group should be clear about where their comfort levels are, and these lines can change from game to game. (And probably should!)

Group dynamics are almost always going to be improved when the people know each other well. That's a given. But it's hard to foster that in public play, and that's what most of us are doing here. We're not playing the game, but we're talking about it, and we don't have that closeness that our home groups do. So talking about needing to trust the GM is kind of far afield.

I can see that. probably not a week goes by that I read something on the boards and am thankful I have a family game going and not rolling the dice at the LGS (literally and figuratively).

I wonder what the break out would be. Stable Group Homebrew / Stable Group PF APs / Pickup group PFS.

material expansion is tough on a GM.
2E "complete x/y/z" were getting published towards the end of college, I decided to just flat ban them all after a while. We had a core-group that had been together a couple years but started picking up some walk-on's from time to time and they were bringing crazy stuff to the table that I had no background with nor could I afford to buy that many books just to keep up with it.

PRD and technology helps a little with that now, but I imagine it still creates big headaches for pickup gaming - probably why PFS has their rules clearly established.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
...just as the rule you quoted suggests.
It's remarkable how often I've seen people cite a passage that explicitly says any deviations from the rules should be discussed with everyone, and digest nothing but "doesn't say I can't fudge".

I would like to point out that "the talking it out with your group" was aimed at house rules, that alter, add, or remove rules, to the base game is what i believe they are referring to in this section and the section i quoted earlier about fudging clearly says it is up to the GM whether he wants to fudge the rolls and keep it a secret from the players.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

And the most important rule makes it clear that you should discuss the application of fudging as well.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
And the most important rule makes it clear that you should discuss the application of fudging as well.

I would disagree with that interpretation of the rules but not necessarily the idea. While i don't think fudging is an issue needing to be discussed with my group, i realize it would be for others.

Core Rulebook pg 403 wrote:


Rolling Dice: Some GMs prefer to roll all of their dice in front of the players, letting the results fall where they may. Others prefer to make all rolls behind a screen, hiding the results from the PCs so that, if they need to, they can fudge the dice results to make the game do what they want. Neither way is the “correct” way; choose whichever you wish, or even mix and match as feels right for you.

The rules clearly state that fudging rolls in secret is well within the spirit of the game and that it is up to the GM to decided if they want to do it or not.

The most Important Rule wrote:


The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

We are not changing any rules by fudging dice so, in no ways does this section mean you should talk to your players about dice fudging.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssyvan wrote:

Ah, that is really interesting!

This goes back to what you're saying about a player's decisions impacting the game, but with a slightly different flavor. For me, being given the chance of a desirable outcome for a variety of actions why wouldn't I always choose the action that's most likely to give me a desirable outcome?

Well, what would your character do?

Is your character a highly pragmatic wizard (with the INT to match) who carries a deliberately-diversified assortment of spells that target different saves so you're ready for anything? It's good roleplaying for this character to notice (for example) a high will save and switch to a different tactic, but you can't do that good roleplaying if you don't have information.

Conversely, is your character someone who fights according to a personal code of honor? It's good roleplaying for this character to choose to use a less-than-perfect tactic with full knowledge of the sacrifice he's having to make. If you don't have that information, you can't (meaningfully) make that choice; you're just sort of... doing stuff.

Some characters (not players, characters) would be trying to use the best tactic to stay alive and protect the people they love. Other characters would knowingly choose an inferior tactic for various reasons. These (and other) differences are what separates one character from another, and that is the foundation of "roleplay". If the players don't have enough information to be able to make those differing situations, then they can't really roleplay.

Quote:
But, for me personally that would turn each round into a math problem; robbing me of decisions as I solved for the best outcomes. Statistics is making the decision not me (as I would see it).

In addition to the above, there's also the fact that a decision without information isn't actually a decision. It's a guess. You fear you wouldn't get to make the decision yourself if you know the "right" answer? Well, if you don't have any meaningful information, you're already not making a decision yourself. You're just sort of going through the motions.

Also, how often are your different options really so similar that the only variable is the chance of success? Because that's the only way that "statistics makes the decision for you". If you've got three spells of the same level and casting time that all deal the same damage, but one targets Fort, one Reflex, and one Will; then yeah, knowing the enemy save bonuses turns it into a matter of statistics.

But how often is that the case? It's more likely that the Fort spell debuffs an enemy or two, taking the heat off your allies a bit; and the Reflex spell will deal damage, but won't slow down the onslaught in the meantime and hits a large area that risks some VIPs; and the Will spell will make him very vulnerable to your allies' attacks. With all those factors to consider, does knowing the enemy's save bonus really "solve" the situation and leave you with no choices to make?

(As a side note, this sort of relates back to "balance" in game design. If a game's different options do different things, then you have to make meaningful choices. But if lots of options are trying to do the same thing, then there will just be one or two "best" options with no real choice. Alternatively, if the options do different things, but there's a vast gulf in the usefulness of those things, then choice is again taken away. Pathfinder has issues with this.)


Shadowlords wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
...just as the rule you quoted suggests.
It's remarkable how often I've seen people cite a passage that explicitly says any deviations from the rules should be discussed with everyone, and digest nothing but "doesn't say I can't fudge".
I would like to point out that "the talking it out with your group" was aimed at house rules, that alter, add, or remove rules, to the base game is what i believe they are referring to in this section and the section i quoted earlier about fudging clearly says it is up to the GM whether he wants to fudge the rolls and keep it a secret from the players.

Whether its fudging rolls, modifying encounters on the fly, or following a strict RAW, I think when dealing with human nature, even talking it over won't ensure someone doesn't eventually feel unhappy. Its certainly better than walking in blind, and if I was GMing a public game, I'd have a handout of "how I GM", which is what I did in college to allow walk-on's to assimilate as quick as possible.

But even then, at some point if someone's upset it doesn't even matter if its written down, the tendency isn't to accept that we misunderstood something or didn't explain it well. Human nature is to point the finger at the other guy and what they did/didn't do. Especially if you game with strangers. At least if you have misunderstanding with friends you're probably going to be able to talk it over between games and come to a amicable solution because there is much more invested in the relationship. But if you feel like a player or GM cheated/mislead you in a pickup game or as a relative outsider, its might be enough for you to just leave the game (as some have shared those experiences).

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Shadowlords wrote:
The rules clearly state that fudging rolls in secret is well within the spirit of the game and that it is up to the GM to decided if they want to do it or not.

No, the rules very clearly state that these are preferences of different GMs and NOT actually a rule. It's GM advice. (Perfectly valid advice, but not for everyone. There are players on this forum who will walk the moment they realize the GM fudged to save their character.)

Edit: Artificial 20 has the right of it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's try to stop this discussion going in circles by making an utterly clear, absolute statement.

If you do something your players would not like if you told them, and only get away with it by not doing so, you are a bad GM.

Objectively, whether or not you agree.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Artificial 20 wrote:

Let's try to stop this discussion going in circles by making an utterly clear, absolute statement.

If you do something your players would not like if you told them, and only get away with it by not doing so, you are a bad GM.

Objectively, whether or not you agree.

Yep. That's pretty much what I'm saying.

I'd add the corollary that since you probably can't read minds, you should err on the side of telling people things that they might theoretically not like, just to be sure.


Jiggy wrote:
Ssyvan wrote:

Ah, that is really interesting!

This goes back to what you're saying about a player's decisions impacting the game, but with a slightly different flavor. For me, being given the chance of a desirable outcome for a variety of actions why wouldn't I always choose the action that's most likely to give me a desirable outcome?

Well, what would your character do?

Is your character a highly pragmatic wizard (with the INT to match) who carries a deliberately-diversified assortment of spells that target different saves so you're ready for anything? It's good roleplaying for this character to notice (for example) a high will save and switch to a different tactic, but you can't do that good roleplaying if you don't have information.

Conversely, is your character someone who fights according to a personal code of honor? It's good roleplaying for this character to choose to use a less-than-perfect tactic with full knowledge of the sacrifice he's having to make. If you don't have that information, you can't (meaningfully) make that choice; you're just sort of... doing stuff.

Some characters (not players, characters) would be trying to use the best tactic to stay alive and protect the people they love. Other characters would knowingly choose an inferior tactic for various reasons. These (and other) differences are what separates one character from another, and that is the foundation of "roleplay". If the players don't have enough information to be able to make those differing situations, then they can't really roleplay.

Quote:
But, for me personally that would turn each round into a math problem; robbing me of decisions as I solved for the best outcomes. Statistics is making the decision not me (as I would see it).
In addition to the above, there's also the fact that a decision without information isn't actually a decision. It's a guess. You fear you wouldn't get to make the decision yourself if you know the "right" answer? Well, if you don't have any...

Hm, I should've been a bit more clear. There is still information that I give the players, like number of attacks that creature just made. Chances to determine what spells are cast, they know when their spells fail, how much damage they take from a given attack, and so on. So they are getting meaningful information which they can certainly use to make decisions, not just shots in the dark.

I try not to give out actual modifiers, but have thought quite a bit of thought about that in the case of saving throw modifiers. The reason is that anything a players roll to hit, the DC (or AC) can be inferred based on what does and doesn't hit. It isn't exactly fair to the casters, where the enemy rolls to hit the player's DC, leaving that information in the dark for the players.

Seeing how we haven't run a session that way I can't exactly answer you questions. I can run it past my players next session and see if they'd be up for it, and if not our current game it is certainly something we can try down the line. There's a good chance I'm over thinking it and these may be imagined issues after all!

Anyways, thanks for your replies, they've been helpful.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
In my experience, hiding mechanical information from the players actually hurts the narrative and the roleplaying, rather than protecting it. There can be exceptions, of course, but as a general trend, my games keep getting better and better as I hide less and less from the players.

Beautifully, beautifully put. And this exactly matches my experience as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lets use a burger example.

GM A: I'm makin burgers. Here ya go. *Burger has all sorts of things in it that you may or may not like*

GM B: I'm making cheeseburgers and they'll have pickles, ketchup, onions, bacon and tomato on it. Is there anything you didn't want on it? Lemme know now so I don't make it with that. Lemme see if anybody else wants that too so I don't make burgers people don't like.

I know which barbecue I wanna go to.

Similarly, I would like to know if modifiers are gonna matter that much. It'll change how I play this game. If I have a DM thats gonna fudge and say "Sure you can sneak attack that." or yeah you saved against that Will Save with your +3 bonus on a high roll at level 10-13, I'm going to make completely different character design choices.

Since the game has a bunch of unfortunate built in preconceptions I might play a Rogue in a game where the DM is going to fudge a lot since I don't need to be mechanically sufficient. Magical Story Hour is fun if you know what you're getting into. If we're going to "win/progress through the story from start to finish" anyways, I'll focus on roleplaying.

Otherwise if my choices are actually going to matter in this game, I'll play something decent like an Unchained Eldritch Scoundrel or Alchemist.

In the end it only changes how much time I spend building my character. Personally I prefer games that are upfront about the rolls and modifiers since I get tired of "GM May I?" situations.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
In my experience, hiding mechanical information from the players actually hurts the narrative and the roleplaying, rather than protecting it. There can be exceptions, of course, but as a general trend, my games keep getting better and better as I hide less and less from the players.
Beautifully, beautifully put. And this exactly matches my experience as well.

It's funny because this is exactly the opposite of what I'd expect. Anyways, you've both got me curious. =p


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I've often posted before about the guy I played with whose character's prized possession was his flaming sword. The first time the group encountered a troll, he said, "I drop my sword and draw my dagger."
Everyone at the table stared blankly at him.
I said, "You ALWAYS use your sword! You yell 'flame on!' every time we meet a monster! And now all of the sudden you don't want to?"
Player (proudly): "Well, my character wouldn't know that fire hurts trolls! I'm not metagaming!"
Me: (headdesk)

There definitely comes a point at which the efforts of the "metagame police" are self-defeating. In this instance, the poor player was so traumatized by previous DMs that he resorted to blatant metagaming in order to avoid the appearance of metagaming.

I'd rather let the players know stuff, and have us all know that we all know it, and then let the game proceed based on how the character would act.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hah! That's a bit of an extreme! As I mentioned, I'm running Wrath of the Rigteous, and seeing how we're in the third book my players are already very familiar with demon basics. They know about how their DR works, that they can summon in friends, they can teleport, their resistances, and that they don't need to sleep.

They've also learned quite a bit about recurring monsters and usually get pretty detailed in taking notes, not too dissimilar to Van Richten's Guides if anyone remembers those.

If a crunchy number spills out during the game I certainly don't penalize someone for meta gaming with that knowledge. Though I have pointed out that acting on certain knowledge would be meta gaming in the past, but I leave the decision of whether or not to do that up to the players. I don't mind when they act on it as each player has their own tastes.

Also I do share stat blocks with players after the fact, especially if they're curious. I rather enjoy the discussion that brings, and sometimes they'll notice things I don't so I learn from them!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssyvan wrote:
I leave the decision of whether or not to do that up to the players.

(snip) I find that, the more I DM, the more I enjoy it when I do exactly that.


Since one of the first things my children all did was read the Bestiary (and my MM, MM2, Fiend Folio, Dieties&Demigods) I've had to remind them more than once the -first- time they've fought a creature to at least consider if they'd know about its special ability/attacks. Sometimes their good about it, others they realize they probably acted almost entirely on out of character knowledge.

One thing I do a lot though is re-skin and tweak via the Advanced Creature template. IE in our one-shot last weekend I took the Octopus "statblocks" added some poison to each grab, and described it as a 10'tall tree-stump with a gapping maw on top with 2 thorny vines that grappled and pulled things to its mouth. Things like that can not only help keep player/PC knowledge from slipping together, but also provides that sense of unknown and wonder that we all experience the first time our GM describes something that we -know- we've never even read about.

To a degree it comes down to how serious you want to be at the table too. I do like to stay IC if we can and avoid meta-gaming, but I also realize (and kids help sooooo much with this) - it is a game that I'm doing to have fun so try not to take it too serious.

@Kirth's story about "anti-meta gaming" makes me laugh. Its actually one of the issues I worry about as a player in my son's campaign - what would my druid "know"...and what do I know as a GM. Hard to tell sometimes when you're crossing that line, but no point in playing "honest stupid" either.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

GM 1990 wrote:
One thing I do a lot though is re-skin and tweak via the Advanced Creature template. IE in our one-shot last weekend I took the Octopus "statblocks" added some poison to each grab, and described it as a 10'tall tree-stump with a gapping maw on top with 2 thorny vines that grappled and pulled things to its mouth. Things like that can not only help keep player/PC knowledge from slipping together, but also provides that sense of unknown and wonder that we all experience the first time our GM describes something that we -know- we've never even read about.

One thing I'm really liking about 5E (as a GM) is how easy it is to pull monster stats out my ass. It doesn't take long to get a feel for the normal ranges of AC, saves, attacks, etc; so if you want to build a new monster, you can just pick something and have pretty good odds of it being close enough.

I literally make up all the stats/abilities for every single monster/NPC in both my campaigns. Haven't had a problem yet.

Although, my reason for doing this is not because of trying to prevent metagaming. Rather, it's because I don't have the MM, and even if I did, I'm often posting from work, where I couldn't reference a statblock anyway. :/

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jiggy says it best.

I'm jiggy with Jiggy.

I liked that post also.

If the store is dull, unimaginable, and bland. It isn't a fun game. Games can be that way if all fights end in less than a round.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jiggy says it best.

I'm jiggy with Jiggy.

I liked that post also.

If the store is dull, unimaginable, and bland. It isn't a fun game. Games can be that way if all fights end in less than a round.

Or if they all end right after at least one PC goes down.

Or if they all end once you've spent enough resources.
Or if they all end only after the GM has gotten to showcase the monster's cool ability.
Or if they all end after three rounds of damage-dealing regardless of what other effects are in play.

And so forth. One-round wins are not the only thing that can get monotonous, and far too many GMs' awareness of that monotony seems to end at "always over in one round".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When was it EVER balanced?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
What do you mean by a blanket statement? I'm somewhat confused by your meaning here.

A generic, nonspecific statement that mentions things might be a little different from the strictest RAW but not listing specific examples. A blanket statement is a pretty well defined vernacular.

Jiggy wrote:
Seriously, find me a post where somebody defends their "pro-fudge" position without discussing trust. I'd love to see it, just for the novelty.

Me. I never said anything about trust, just that I'm not the GM for everyone.

Also I'm glad you don't like railroading, but for your typical moderate stance on many issues framing fudging things as railroading only is the same as someone trying to position their stance on C/MD into a rollplaying vs roleplaying argument.

Fact is, I play a lot of narrative games where the fudging is literally the expectation in the system and while I prefer more crunch it doesn't mean I don't use every tool I have as a GM to create a collaborative story line with meaningful choices. I never railroad, and leave a rule of three major story paths along with working out what happens with time delays in game along with what happens in the background when the players change the course of events. I could run the same custom game multiple times and each one being a different journey with the same plot (and probably a unique conclusion too) because of the choices that I make on the fly based on the players.

The author's opinion in Burning Wheel where he says ideally there would be no dice and it's a collaborative story about fantasy adventures... but if he was going to roll dice this is how he would do it. And it's a great game with some serious crunch - including a social "combat" system as deep as the fighting combat systems. I like having the story and the game aspects both a lot.

It's not about trust, but when I break RAW to avoid another 1-2 rounds of combat when the players already clearly won or have the villain escape by changing his spell list to what he needed at the moment they are decisions that drive the story further - and it still doesn't stop the players from pursuing him or dispelling that spell or anything else. I even gave an example earlier of allowing an AoO when there should have been none to let the party take that last few HP off an enemy.

I severely dislike John Wick's DMing advice but he still has some great games that are beloved (largest TTRPG kickstarter in history beloved) and always has people trying to get into his games where a villain where he throws the rules out a window and the players don't mean anything. And yeah, some players think I take away agency while I've had others say they like my games more than any other. It's all about personal opinion and what you find fun.

Artificial 20 wrote:

Let's try to stop this discussion going in circles by making an utterly clear, absolute statement.

If you do something your players would not like if you told them, and only get away with it by not doing so, you are a bad GM.

Objectively, whether or not you agree.

Objectively false. John Wick is not for everybody, but has a large audience.


I'd rather play video games than sit through another tired Lord of the rings clone with "realism" and a complete absence of agency. In fact, I think I'd rather stop gaming.

Maybe I've just been unlucky.


Artificial 20 wrote:

Let's try to stop this discussion going in circles by making an utterly clear, absolute statement.

If you do something your players would not like if you told them, and only get away with it by not doing so, you are a bad GM.

Objectively, whether or not you agree.

I wouldn't say that is really accurate. I would say that if you do it knowing they would leave, if they found out, then you are dishonest and manipulative. That is because you are tricking the person into a playstyle they really do not like. Of course that speaks more to you as a person than a GM.

In that case you should say something like "Hey look, I do fudge things, and I know you don't like it. You can stay if you wish, but I figured it would be better to be honest, than for you to leave on bad terms".

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Jiggy wrote:
far too many GMs' awareness of that monotony seems to end at "always over in one round".

If you are a GM and you can't pick up that your players are bored or frustrated in your game, they will find a better GM.

If you do pick up that your players are bored or frustrated, and you don't address it, you are doing it (GMing) wrong. You need to fix that or hand over the GM duties to someone who can.

Liberty's Edge

hiiamtom wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
What do you mean by a blanket statement? I'm somewhat confused by your meaning here.
A generic, nonspecific statement that mentions things might be a little different from the strictest RAW but not listing specific examples. A blanket statement is a pretty well defined vernacular.

Well sure. I meant a blanket statement about what. Thank you for clarifying.

That might or might not be enough, it sorta depends on how you phrase it. It's probably sufficient.


hiiamtom wrote:
Artificial 20 wrote:

Let's try to stop this discussion going in circles by making an utterly clear, absolute statement.

If you do something your players would not like if you told them, and only get away with it by not doing so, you are a bad GM.

Objectively, whether or not you agree.

Objectively false. John Wick is not for everybody, but has a large audience.

Objectively true.

Anyone who is okay with something is per force someone who is okay with that thing. There can be millions of people who like that thing. This has no bearing on a statement about people who don't like that thing.

If you do things without regard for your players' values, only caring for your own, you are a bad GM. This is universal fact, you will never have a say in the matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Luckily GMing has an autocorrect function. If you DM badly your players leave or ask someone else to GM. It sounds like some posters have the same autocorrect "I would walk the second I found out someone fudged a roll" solves the problem very neatly, to the betterment of all.

Fudging should not be required most of the time, it is for those moments when fate, unforeseen circumstances or just bad luck mean an unsatisfactory outcome will result. A good DM makes the judgement call, reflects on it after the game to learn from the experience and then moves on.

Being a good DM requires quick and effective decision making. Keeping an internal consistently will help with speed, but sometimes you need to follow your gut. DMs need the freedom to make decisions without being enslaved to a rule system that in their opinion doesn't fit the circumstances. The player may not agree, but the player probably had a vested interest - whereas the DM does not. There is far too much nuance in a complicated game like Pathfinder to justify some of the blanket statements written earlier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Artificial 20,

Your statement pre-supposes that the player is in a position to make a decision about whether something is okay or not. While in fact a player only sees the information presented to them, while the DM has foreknowledge of what is to come and potentially inputs from multiple players not just one.

I go back to the fact that players have vested interests in the results of a characters actions - acquisition of power, wealth, survivability. A DM has no vested interest in their actions. They have literally nothing to gain as they can already add anything they like into an encounter. They get their enjoyment from the success of the PCs.

Both my players and myself find 1 round fights unsatisfying. These short durations result from either luck or an error of judgement. Either a player is too powerful or the challenge of the encounter was mediocre. They both amount to the same thing. A major encounter that doesn't give the party chance to shine is unsatisfying, an encounter that doesn't give the enemy chance to act is unsatisfying, an encounter that requires no effort is unsatisfying.

These are my opinions. I am glad my party shows they agree when they take their turns to DM. Treat others as you would have them treat you.

I stand by my point that in an encounter with dozens of saves and multiple dice rolls, fudging one of these does not remove agency - particularly at the start. This is not the same as preventing a tactic or power from ever working, or nerfing it completely. Claiming that is the position of DMs like me that are advocating the occasional fudge is completely misrepresenting our position. To be honest it sounds a little spoilt to my ears.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
That might or might not be enough, it sorta depends on how you phrase it. It's probably sufficient.

I mean, I talk to players but they don't get 100% say in my rulings for a setting. For example, I'm gearing up for a dangerous horror themed game. I look at rules that deal with lingering injuries and massive damage, and I bring it to my players to gauge interest. Same with firearms or some other rule I know some people really don't like. If a player does some math and thinks they have caught me in something, I'll ask them to talk about it after a session and talk it out. I ask for all grievances to be brought up between games.

What I don't go to them with is rules for fear, rules for madness, etc. Things baked into that type of game. I also will never explicitly spell out "I am fudging things sometimes."

As for players quitting, I've had a player quit for NPCs lifting them up and dropping them in front of a tankard for a drinking contest because I "took away their agency." I've had a player quit because I asked them to make a series of 8 fortitude saves when they were wading through stuff and I didn't want them to know how many saves they actually needed to make or what DC they had to make because "they were guaranteed to fail." I've had players just never show up again only to text later saying they found a different group. I know that my GM style has lost players... but I also know people like me GMing games too. I don't try to please everyone all the time just myself and the group I've landed in suits. I doubt I would be able to do something like GM PFS.

401 to 450 of 633 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is pathfinder becoming unbalanced? All Messageboards