| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Due respect but insult or not insult isn't determined by the person who offers it or their intentions, but the person who receives it.
For example, if someone is insulted by you lying to them...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its also kind of funny that NOW we're concerned about context, despite stripping it all away regarding fudging vs cheating.So are we now not allowed to use a common garden implement?I think one should simply consider using other idioms for calling things as they are or cutting through irrelevant details. Something like "tell it like it is" or "if it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck" or "let's not mince words" is probably less evocative of horrific racism.
Like it costs you absolutely nothing to say "miser" instead of "niggard" right?
Context always matters. Its just the only context where fudging is not cheating is when the GM has told the players in advance and they've agreed to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Context always matters. Its just the only context where fudging is not cheating is when the GM has told the players in advance and they've agreed to it.
I would say precisely the reverse. Fudging is justifiably termed cheating in those places where the GM has stated clearly that they would not, but then do anyway.
It is absolutely not cheating in cases where the GM has told players that this might happen in advance, and it is in some undetermined state when it has not been discussed. When it's in that undetermined state, again, is not whether it is a violation of some contract or another, but whether it is beneficial or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Anzyr
The crux of this for me is what happens in that grey area where the GM hasn't stated a policy on fudging and the player has not had the foresight to ask.
In my view the default assumption in such cases is that fudging happens but it is rare and only used to improve the experience for the players. If the player doesn't accept that then it is encumbent on them to raise the issue at the table. It is not up to the GM to anticipate this as a possible issue. The GM already has enough to worry about.
I totally agree that if the GM agrees not to fudge and then does so anyway that is untrustworthy behaviour. Arguments rarely happen where issues are clear cut, it is in those grey areas where problems arise and I think this is one issue where the players need to raise the issue and put forward a compelling reason for no fudging because in my experience fudging makes games better when used sparingly.
Context always matters. Its just the only context where fudging is not cheating is when the GM has told the players in advance and they've agreed to it.I would say precisely the inverse. Fudging is justifiably cheating in those places where the GM has stated clearly that they would not, but then do anyway.
I do not disagree that that would be cheating, but because it is the vice versa is as well. The violation is one of trust.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one should simply consider using other idioms for calling things as they are or cutting through irrelevant details.
Was it Orwell who advised against using any idiom you didn't coin yourself?
Actually the swasticka was from multiple cultures, are their religions required to stop using it now?The actual origin of that phrase, 'dude' is Ancient Greece and has nothing whatsoever to do with racist references.Thats also a pretty racist reference dude.And you prove my point for me.If a spade is offended to be called a spade, the issue lies with the spade.Something can be a logical statement of fact and yet still be incendiary. This lesson is taught every week to Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Or Brennan on Bones. Or <insert character here who doesn't understand how to talk to people> on <X show/movie>.
The actual origin of the swastika was a buddhist symbol too, and pepe the frog was from a terrible web comic where he smoked a bunch of pot and sat on the couch and had no real political opinions.
Would you blame people for a visceral intense reaction when confronted by the symbol, even if it was in association with one of these other religions that they may not know about?
Some adventure specifically called for the monster to move from room to room with the noise of the battle. Others don't. If I am using the adventure as written, there is nothing telling how the other group should react. Join in the fight, go get reinforcement, tell the boss, barricade the room they are in now, a mixture of those. The possibilities are endless, but the author didn't suggest anything. So no matter what I do, someone can come and say, well that's not how they should have reacted. Any decision from that point is made up by the GM and could be called cheating by some.
And you didn't answer about the patrols. Do I add some in, or do I pretend that this supreme evil leader didn't think of setting up patrols to protect his lair?
Provided the NPCs are reacting appropriately with their INT/WIS and their rolls anyone who would accuse the GM of cheating would be incorrect in their accusation. The GM determining how NPCs react is not fudging, provided it is consistent with the NPCs actual means and abilities.
If there are not patrols then there are no patrols. This does not stop you from roleplaying individual NPCs to act appropriately with their INT/WIS.
So, you are ok with a group of adventurer spending the night in the dungeon unchallenged because someone forgot the random table... ok.
Also, if you want to have NPC acting within their INT/WIS, then why didn't the big bag wizard boss use his divining spells to find you before you got too high level and nuke the group out of existence? In most adventure path, the PCs start being on the radar of the big bad guy before level 10. Nothing stopping the tactic I often see players saying in the wizard vs fighter threads. Scry/teleport/nuke. Game over. That is completely reasonable and within the intelligence of the boss. He didn't get there by making muffins after all. so how come this doesn't happen all the time? Because those realistic senario, no matter how logical, are not the main reason of the game.
@ Anzyr
The crux of this for me is what happens in that grey area where the GM hasn't stated a policy on fudging and the player has not had the foresight to ask.
In my view the default assumption in such cases is that fudging happens but it is rare and only used to improve the experience for the players. If the player doesn't accept that then it is encumbent on them to raise the issue at the table. It is not up to the GM to anticipate this as a possible issue. The GM already has enough to worry about.
I totally agree that if the GM agrees not to fudge and then does so anyway that is untrustworthy behaviour. Arguments rarely happen where issues are clear cut, it is in those grey areas where problems arise and I think this is one issue where the players need to raise the issue and put forward a compelling reason for no fudging because in my experience fudging makes games better when used sparingly.
I can actually respect that. Though I would argue that the responsibility to determine what kind of game they will be playing is shared by the GM and players, including whether or not there will be fudging.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you are ok with a group of adventurer spending the night in the dungeon unchallenged because someone forgot the random table... ok.
Also, if you want to have NPC acting within their INT/WIS, then why didn't the big bag wizard boss use his divining spells to find you before you got too high level and nuke the group out of existence? In most adventure path, the PCs start being on the radar of the big bad guy before level 10. Nothing stopping the tactic I often see players saying in the wizard vs fighter threads. Scry/teleport/nuke. Game over. That is completely reasonable and within the intelligence of the boss. He didn't get there by making muffins after all. so how come this doesn't happen all the time? Because those realistic senario, no matter how logical, are not the main reason of the game.
1. If it would be appropriate yes. I do not run modules though so /disclaimer there.
2. My settings take these issues into account and it is easier than you would think. Many organizations have people in higher positions that can do X thing better than someone in a lower position (and maybe were promoted because of their skill at X), but it would a poor use of the superior's time to go handle X, when they are busy managing Y. And the big boss, might be better at both X and Y, by they need to worry about Z. This is true in real life and there is no reason it would not be true in games as well. Other reasons exist as well. The traditional "BBEG is sealed somewhere." would justify it as well.
I can actually respect that. Though I would argue that the responsibility to determine what kind of game they will be playing is shared by the GM and players, including whether or not there will be fudging.@ Anzyr
The crux of this for me is what happens in that grey area where the GM hasn't stated a policy on fudging and the player has not had the foresight to ask.
In my view the default assumption in such cases is that fudging happens but it is rare and only used to improve the experience for the players. If the player doesn't accept that then it is encumbent on them to raise the issue at the table. It is not up to the GM to anticipate this as a possible issue. The GM already has enough to worry about.
I totally agree that if the GM agrees not to fudge and then does so anyway that is untrustworthy behaviour. Arguments rarely happen where issues are clear cut, it is in those grey areas where problems arise and I think this is one issue where the players need to raise the issue and put forward a compelling reason for no fudging because in my experience fudging makes games better when used sparingly.
I can tell from your post history that you are a reasonable person.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not disagree that that would be cheating, but because it is the vice versa is as well. The violation is one of trust.Context always matters. Its just the only context where fudging is not cheating is when the GM has told the players in advance and they've agreed to it.I would say precisely the inverse. Fudging is justifiably cheating in those places where the GM has stated clearly that they would not, but then do anyway.
Before you can talk about a violation of trust, you need to ask 'trust to do what.' I think that when a player puts themselves into the hands of a GM, they are trusting that GM to do his or her best to give them a fun game. If this is the trust, then fudging dice is not violating that trust. Refusing to fudge dice might be a violation of that trust.
Also, there is usually no lie when fudging dice. If you say 'I rolled a 13, and 13+4 is 17, which hits' that would be a lie if the monster's AC is 18, but if you just roll (even in the open), look at the die, and say 'Merisiel's attack hits' that is not a lie, because you as GM determine if each attack hits or not, and you are simply stating your determination.
I would also say that unless your players have made their preferences clear, refusing to fudge dice is cheating. Rule 0 is the most fundamental rule, and any time it conflicts with another rule, rule 0 wins. Thus, any breaking of rule 0 is cheating, and refusing to fudge dice if you honestly believe that such fudging would add to your players' enjoyment would be a violation of rule 0, so cheating.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not disagree that that would be cheating, but because it is the vice versa is as well. The violation is one of trust.Context always matters. Its just the only context where fudging is not cheating is when the GM has told the players in advance and they've agreed to it.I would say precisely the inverse. Fudging is justifiably cheating in those places where the GM has stated clearly that they would not, but then do anyway.Before you can talk about a violation of trust, you need to ask 'trust to do what.' I think that when a player puts themselves into the hands of a GM, they are trusting that GM to do his or her best to give them a fun game. If this is the trust, then fudging dice is not violating that trust. Refusing to fudge dice might be a violation of that trust.
Also, there is usually no lie when fudging dice. If you say 'I rolled a 13, and 13+4 is 17, which hits' that would be a lie if the monster's AC is 18, but if you just roll (even in the open), look at the die, and say 'Merisiel's attack hits' that is not a lie, because you as GM determine if each attack hits or not, and you are simply stating your determination.
I would also say that unless your players have made their preferences clear, refusing to fudge dice is cheating. Rule 0 is the most fundamental rule, and any time it conflicts with another rule, rule 0 wins. Thus, any breaking of rule 0 is cheating, and refusing to fudge dice if you honestly believe that such fudging would add to your players' enjoyment would be a violation of rule 0, so cheating.
I think you need to reread the most important rule (MIR) then, because fudging is certainly changing the rules. The GM does not determine if each attack hits or not. That's not how the rules work. There are rules for hitting a target and it is not "The GM determines it." The MIR only allows you to do that if it the other players agree with it and since you are the one making the change it is your responsibility to ask the other players. If you change the rules without the other players agreeing to them, you are violating their trust. If you say "I am playing Pathfinder.", but then allow the GM rather than the dice to determine what hits, you are not actually playing Pathfinder and have betrayed the expectations of the players who expected to play Pathfinder. That being said, I agree the players should make that clear but if you do not tell them and get called out on it, you should change.
Oh no, not "it's not really Pathfinder" again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh no, not "it's not really Pathfinder" again.
Quick question. Which of these are Pathfinder rules:
A. The GM determines if an attack hits.
B. A mechanic that involves rolling a d20 adding hit bonuses and comparing the result to an AC value.
I thought so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, the argument of something being or not being Pathfinder falls flat coming from you, Anzyr, when you commonly tell us that since there are no rules for gods they cannot do anything. It isn't Pathfinder in your opinion or for you? Sure, I'll accept that. It isn't Pathfinder at all -- which comes up painfully frequently? No, thank you.
Sorry, the argument of something being or not being Pathfinder falls flat coming from you, Anzyr, when you commonly tell us that since there are no rules for gods they cannot do anything. It isn't Pathfinder in your opinion or for you? Sure, I'll accept that. It isn't Pathfinder at all -- which comes up painfully frequently? No, thank you.
No, it isn't Pathfinder because the rules do not match Pathfinder. My opinion or your opinion has nothing to do with it. My statements regarding Gods is correct if we are talking about Pathfinder. They have no stats and therefore by the rules are incapable of doing anything. Cthulhu can cast Mythic Wish. Because the rules say he can. Nethys cannot. Because the rules do not say can. Unless you would like to direct me to Wish (M) on his statblock.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I don't think there's literally anything I care less about than whether or not the d20 game I'm playing with the Pathfinder Core Rulebook sitting there on the table is or isn't Pathfinder.
You know, I don't think there's literally anything I care less about than whether or not the d20 game I'm playing with the Pathfinder Core Rulebook sitting there on the table is or isn't Pathfinder.
Your players probably will though. Especially if you told them you were playing Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I don't think there's literally anything I care less about than whether or not the d20 game I'm playing with the Pathfinder Core Rulebook sitting there on the table is or isn't Pathfinder.Your players probably will though. Especially if you told them you were playing Pathfinder.
They absolutely, 100%, do not care in any shape, way, or form whatsoever. I'm not sure I would bother running games for people who think there's one true way to play any particular game system. I've never met a real person who was like this, but the internet suggests they exist.
The point is to get together, indulge a heroic fantasy, and have a good time with friends.
Sorry, the argument of something being or not being Pathfinder falls flat coming from you, Anzyr, when you commonly tell us that since there are no rules for gods they cannot do anything. It isn't Pathfinder in your opinion or for you? Sure, I'll accept that. It isn't Pathfinder at all -- which comes up painfully frequently? No, thank you.No, it isn't Pathfinder because the rules do not match Pathfinder. My opinion or your opinion has nothing to do with it. My statements regarding Gods is correct if we are talking about Pathfinder. They have no stats and therefore by the rules are incapable of doing anything. Cthulhu can cast Mythic Wish. Because the rules say he can. Nethys cannot. Because the rules do not say can. Unless you would like to direct me to Wish (M) on his statblock.
Which all boils down to your opinion on the matter and nothing else. Given that the gods seem to be able to do things within the game and adventure paths, my opinion is that you are incorrect.
Your players probably will though. Especially if you told them you were playing Pathfinder.
Maybe yours would. Not everyone would worry about it. At what point does the game become "not Pathfinder?" One house rule? A wide-spread change like KirthFinder? Swapping out the to hit rules with THAC0?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I don't think there's literally anything I care less about than whether or not the d20 game I'm playing with the Pathfinder Core Rulebook sitting there on the table is or isn't Pathfinder.Your players probably will though. Especially if you told them you were playing Pathfinder.They absolutely, 100%, do not care in any shape, way, or form whatsoever. I'm not sure I would bother running games for people who think there's one true way to play any particular game system. I've never met a real person who was like this, but the internet suggests they exist.
The point is to get together, indulge a heroic fantasy, and have a good time with friends.
How would you know? You haven't asked them after all. Go on and tell them and get back to me. And your accusation of "one true way" is completely baseless. I and others who share my position have explained numerous times that other ways are fine so long as (and this is important) you tell the players and they agree to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would you know? You haven't asked them after all. Go on and tell them and get back to me. And your accustation of "one true way" is completely baseless. I and others who share my position have explained numerous times that other ways are fine so long as (and this is important) you tell the players and they agree to it.
People legitimately pay more attention to what sort of cookies I bring than what system I'm running. I get requests "oh, you should run Dungeons and Dragons again" (I run a lot of different systems) and I ask "what system?" since I usually alternate between Pathfinder and 13th Age but I can do a few others and nobody ever seems to express a preference one way or the other.
The one person I play with who knows Pathfinder really well (he's the guy who runs Pathfinder when I get to play; he buys APs sometimes) is honestly more invested in exploring the vast array of games out there that aren't this one since Pathfinder was his first TTRPG.
I mean, I don't care what game I'm playing when I get to play. Playing is great (it's way less stressful than GMing.)
Which all boils down to your opinion on the matter and nothing else. Given that the gods seem to be able to do things within the game and adventure paths, my opinion is that you are incorrect.
And they are limited to those things.
Maybe yours would. Not everyone would worry about it. At what point does the game become "not Pathfinder?" One house rule? A wide-spread change like KirthFinder? Swapping out the to hit rules with THAC0?
A game becomes "Not Pathfinder" when it is not following the Pathfinder rules. As noted, myself and those who share my opinion have repeatedly indicated that playing "Not Pathfinder" is fine so long as your players know that is what they are playing. Ultimately this discussion is very simple. The two positions boil down to:
1. Respect your players and be honest with them.
2. Lie to your players and deceive them.
I find it bizarre that anyone is defending the second choice. Note this is not Badwrongfun, because it does not attack play styles merely the act of lying to other players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I tell my players that I'm altering things, we still call it Pathfinder. We did it when we played D&D and used Rolemaster rules. We did it when we tried experimental rules with Battletech. We've done it on a number of systems.
At least with the people I've played with over the years and states, there isn't some grand expectation that The Game is some sort of untouchable construct that cannot be altered, changed, or modified or else you must call it by some other name.
In short, what you call it may matter to you. It doesn't matter to everyone.
As far as the lying and deceiving part, that is the idea that by fudging you are somehow cheating the player of an experience -- their death for example -- rather than changing the flow of the story towards something else. If it bothers you -- or you, or you -- THEN DON'T DO IT!!!!
Telling other people that they are dirty cheaters because they play different from you is the epitome of badwrongfun.
If I tell my players that I'm altering things, we still call it Pathfinder. We did it when we played D&D and used Rolemaster rules. We did it when we tried experimental rules with Battletech. We've done it on a number of systems.
At least with the people I've played with over the years and states, there isn't some grand expectation that The Game is some sort of untouchable construct that cannot be altered, changed, or modified or else you must call it by some other name.
In short, what you call it may matter to you. It doesn't matter to everyone.
How many have you actually asked?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least with the people I've played with over the years and states, there isn't some grand expectation that The Game is some sort of untouchable construct that cannot be altered, changed, or modified or else you must call it by some other name.
Generally, in my experience, the opinion at most tables I've been is that the game is a something that demands to be altered, changed, or modified at the drop of a hat.
I mean, obviously the designers couldn't have thought of everything, so clearly when the rules are ridiculous in this specific situation, we'll do their job for them by fixing the rules so that they make more sense and/or work better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many have you actually asked?If I tell my players that I'm altering things, we still call it Pathfinder. We did it when we played D&D and used Rolemaster rules. We did it when we tried experimental rules with Battletech. We've done it on a number of systems.
At least with the people I've played with over the years and states, there isn't some grand expectation that The Game is some sort of untouchable construct that cannot be altered, changed, or modified or else you must call it by some other name.
In short, what you call it may matter to you. It doesn't matter to everyone.
Over the last 38ish years? Dozens. Most replied with "Are we gaming? What are we changing? Cool." I can count on one hand with fingers missing the number who either balked or disagreed.
|
Allot of good arguments to be had here. Interesting to see howany people fall on both sides.
I find it interesting, however, that everyone assumes that the GM is always on the side of the player experience. When there's an even bigger issue at play: is the GM fudging rolls because he is attempting to better the experience of players, or is he fudging it to have his own way?
I submit that it's the GM's game and he can do what he wants with it. But I never agree with the GM vs Players mindset, as it only focuses on the GM's enjoyment and is abusing the players time by simply playing god. It's all situational, though, but in my experience DM's range from all sides and players should always keep an open line of communication so they know who they're dealing with. If players are fine with DM vs player punishment, expect fudging. If they're not, find another DM.
In any of these cases, I wouldn't call fudging cheating, I think people that gripe about their DM not using values as rolled are typically not in the game they think they signed up for, but want to blame the DM. All tabletop is a shared experience and should be treated as such. If you've got problems, voice them, and if you don't get what you think you need, have the decency to consider your own actions and find for yourself what works for you in a different group.
I had a recent experience with a Shadowrun DM who was basically telling a story and if the players tried anything that deviated from it he used obviously ridiculous values to negate his unwanted outcomes. His dice pools were obviously made up and he lied about the rolls we could actually see on the table, turning failures into successes for himself. Player choice didn't matter. Not fun for the rest of the players at the table. So we had a talk and we went our separate ways. Simple as that.
The only way to cheat is to steal the group experience away from the group and DM for only yourself.
Just an opinion among many.
As far as the lying and deceiving part, that is the idea that by fudging you are somehow cheating the player of an experience -- their death for example -- rather than changing the flow of the story towards something else. If it bothers you -- or you, or you -- THEN DON'T DO IT!!!!
The issue is not about whether or not it bothers me (the GM) the issue is squarely about whether or not it bothers the (say it with me) *Players*. And you do not know, because you have not asked them.
Allot of good arguments to be had here. Interesting to see howany people fall on both sides.
I find it interesting, however, that everyone assumes that the GM is always on the side of the player experience. When there's an even bigger issue at play: is the GM fudging rolls because he is attempting to better the experience of players, or is he fudging it to have his own way?
I submit that it's the GM's game and he can do what he wants with it. But I never agree with the GM vs Players mindset, as it only focuses on the GM's enjoyment and is abusing the players time by simply playing god. It's all situational, though, but in my experience DM's range from all sides and players should always keep an open line of communication so they know who they're dealing with. If players are fine with DM vs player punishment, expect fudging. If they're not, find another DM.
In any of these cases, I wouldn't call fudging cheating, I think people that gripe about their DM not using values as rolled are typically not in the game they think they signed up for, but want to blame the DM. All tabletop is a shared experience and should be treated as such. If you've got problems, voice them, and if you don't get what you think you need, have the decency to consider your own actions and find for yourself what works for you in a different group.
I had a recent experience with a Shadowrun DM who was basically telling a story and if the players tried anything that deviated from it he used obviously ridiculous values to negate his unwanted outcomes. His dice pools were obviously made up and he lied about the rolls we could actually see on the table, turning failures into successes for himself. Player choice didn't matter. Not fun for the rest of the players at the table. So we had a talk and we went our separate ways. Simple as that.
The only way to cheat is to steal the group experience away from the group and DM for only yourself.
Just an opinion among many.
Well reasoned but there's one thing I would clarify. It is as I have said a shared responsibility to make sure the game is one everyone enjoys. If your Shadowrun GM would have told you their style from the start, you would have opted out. So your GM cheated you of the experience you expected. You would agree with that yes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is not about whether or not it bothers me (the GM) the issue is squarely about whether or not it bothers the (say it with me) *Players*. And you do not know, because you have not asked them.
As far as the lying and deceiving part, that is the idea that by fudging you are somehow cheating the player of an experience -- their death for example -- rather than changing the flow of the story towards something else. If it bothers you -- or you, or you -- THEN DON'T DO IT!!!!
Say it with me, Anzyr, and read what I wrote -- I ask my players. I give documentation BEFORE the game starts on any changes. As an aside, how do you know what I or anyone else has asked anyone? I know I've said repeatedly in this thread and dozens of others that communication is key. That Session Zero is vital. My players aren't upset about fudging. About house rules. About the concept that gods don't have stats.
Again, if it bothers you, don't do it or use them. Trying to make your experience universal is bound to fail.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which all boils down to your opinion on the matter and nothing else. Given that the gods seem to be able to do things within the game and adventure paths, my opinion is that you are incorrect.And they are limited to those things.
Maybe yours would. Not everyone would worry about it. At what point does the game become "not Pathfinder?" One house rule? A wide-spread change like KirthFinder? Swapping out the to hit rules with THAC0?A game becomes "Not Pathfinder" when it is not following the Pathfinder rules. As noted, myself and those who share my opinion have repeatedly indicated that playing "Not Pathfinder" is fine so long as your players know that is what they are playing.
Sorry guy, the gods are not limited in anyway. Now maybe I missed the sourcebook, but I don't think there is a stat array for any of the gods.
If I am mistaken please reference me to it.
You are actually avoiding the question. When does it become Not Pathfinder?
I have been running games since 2E in the mid 80s. I have been Fudging rolls the whole time. I don't ask my players if it is ok, never have. It is a part of the game. So much so that it is mentioned in the rule books.
I have never had a single player show displeasure at the fact that I had fudged anything in a game.
Which all boils down to your opinion on the matter and nothing else. Given that the gods seem to be able to do things within the game and adventure paths, my opinion is that you are incorrect.And they are limited to those things.
Maybe yours would. Not everyone would worry about it. At what point does the game become "not Pathfinder?" One house rule? A wide-spread change like KirthFinder? Swapping out the to hit rules with THAC0?A game becomes "Not Pathfinder" when it is not following the Pathfinder rules. As noted, myself and those who share my opinion have repeatedly indicated that playing "Not Pathfinder" is fine so long as your players know that is what they are playing.Sorry guy, the gods are not limited in anyway. Now maybe I missed the sourcebook, but I don't think there is a stat array for any of the gods.
If I am mistaken please reference me to it.
You are actually avoiding the question. When does it become Not Pathfinder?
I have been running games since 2E in the mid 80s. I have been Fudging rolls the whole time. I don't ask my players if it is ok, never have. It is a part of the game.* So much so that it is mentioned in the rule books.
I have never had a single player show displeasure at the fact that I had fudged anything in a game.
*Citation needed.
Actually do not bother, I will tell you plainly, fudging in fact is not part of the rules (unless the players agree to it under MIR) and I challenge you to support your assertion or concede the point.
And I did answer the question. A game is Not Pathfinder when it deviates from the Pathfinder rules. It's that simple.
The issue is not about whether or not it bothers me (the GM) the issue is squarely about whether or not it bothers the (say it with me) *Players*. And you do not know, because you have not asked them.
As far as the lying and deceiving part, that is the idea that by fudging you are somehow cheating the player of an experience -- their death for example -- rather than changing the flow of the story towards something else. If it bothers you -- or you, or you -- THEN DON'T DO IT!!!!
Say it with me, Anzyr, and read what I wrote -- I ask my players. I give documentation BEFORE the game starts on any changes. As an aside, how do you know what I or anyone else has asked anyone? I know I've said repeatedly in this thread and dozens of others that communication is key. That Session Zero is vital. My players aren't upset about fudging. About house rules. About the concept that gods don't have stats.
Again, if it bothers you, don't do it or use them. Trying to make your experience universal is bound to fail.
Your post was not there when I posted that. Odd. But if you are telling players then I'm not sure what you are even arguing. I feel you have dramatically missed the point of this thread and have been effectively titling at windmills. I know people do not ask because if they did then they have no reason to take offense at anything I have said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I don't think there's literally anything I care less about than whether or not the d20 game I'm playing with the Pathfinder Core Rulebook sitting there on the table is or isn't Pathfinder.Your players probably will though. Especially if you told them you were playing Pathfinder.
Welcome to your game of Pathfinder™, here we strive to have fun and roll dice*.
Okay just make your level 1 character and let's start playing!
You're in the desert. Make a perception check. 6
You don't notice something move under you and the ground opens up. Make a reflex save. 14, oh so close, you're entangled and prone.
Does a 13 hit your flatfooted, entangled, prone self? You are bitten by something. Does a 21 beat your CMD? You're grappled. Roll initiative. 4
Okay, it goes first so you're still flat footed. It's now going to swallow whole. 21. Still beats your CMD, that's your flat footed, prone, entangled CMD right? Yep okay you're swallowed whole. Now it burrows 20f underground.
Okay what about your friends, yeah sure you can make an intelligence check, 19. That was a Dust Digger, better keep an eye out for more of them!
Okay folks, that was a fun Pathfinder™ game. Hope to see you all next week. Oh and make sure you bring another character sheet okay? Great see you then.
That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
I do not have to provide proof of a negative. You have to provide evidence that there is a rule that allows what you say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your post was not there when I posted that. Odd. But if you are telling players then I'm not sure what you are even arguing. I feel you have dramatically missed the point of this thread and have been effectively titling at windmills. I know people do not ask because if they did then they have no reason to take offense at anything I have said.The issue is not about whether or not it bothers me (the GM) the issue is squarely about whether or not it bothers the (say it with me) *Players*. And you do not know, because you have not asked them.
As far as the lying and deceiving part, that is the idea that by fudging you are somehow cheating the player of an experience -- their death for example -- rather than changing the flow of the story towards something else. If it bothers you -- or you, or you -- THEN DON'T DO IT!!!!
Say it with me, Anzyr, and read what I wrote -- I ask my players. I give documentation BEFORE the game starts on any changes. As an aside, how do you know what I or anyone else has asked anyone? I know I've said repeatedly in this thread and dozens of others that communication is key. That Session Zero is vital. My players aren't upset about fudging. About house rules. About the concept that gods don't have stats.
Again, if it bothers you, don't do it or use them. Trying to make your experience universal is bound to fail.
We keep circling back on this. You do not understand because either you are incapable of understanding why people take offense at being called a cheater, or you are unwilling to accept that people take offense at being called names, or you don't want to admit people have feelings.
Whichever it is, this conversation is going nowhere. You seem to want to attack people -- here and elsewhere -- and then say "but it's all a fact!" as if that absolves you.
It is just like saying "No offense, but you are ugly." The no offense part doesn't make it less of an insult.
You know, I don't think there's literally anything I care less about than whether or not the d20 game I'm playing with the Pathfinder Core Rulebook sitting there on the table is or isn't Pathfinder.Your players probably will though. Especially if you told them you were playing Pathfinder.Welcome to your game of Pathfinder™, here we strive to have fun and roll dice*.
Okay just make your level 1 character and let's start playing!
You're in the desert. Make a perception check. 6
You don't notice something move under you and the ground opens up. Make a reflex save. 14, oh so close, you're entangled and prone.
Does a 13 hit your flatfooted, entangled, prone self? You are bitten by something. Does a 21 beat your CMD? You're grappled. Roll initiative. 4
Okay, it goes first so you're still flat footed. It's now going to swallow whole. 21. Still beats your CMD, that's your flat footed, prone, entangled CMD right? Yep okay you're swallowed whole. Now it burrows 20f underground.
Okay what about your friends, yeah sure you can make an intelligence check, 19. That was a Dust Digger, better keep an eye out for more of them!
Okay folks, that was a fun Pathfinder™ game. Hope to see you all next week. Oh and make sure you bring another character sheet okay? Great see you then.
I hear people love the Dark Souls. Who doesn't love a challenge.
That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
The moment you alter the base rules in any way it's not Pathfinder. It's Pathfinder with House Rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well reasoned but there's...Allot of good arguments to be had here. Interesting to see howany people fall on both sides.
I find it interesting, however, that everyone assumes that the GM is always on the side of the player experience. When there's an even bigger issue at play: is the GM fudging rolls because he is attempting to better the experience of players, or is he fudging it to have his own way?
I submit that it's the GM's game and he can do what he wants with it. But I never agree with the GM vs Players mindset, as it only focuses on the GM's enjoyment and is abusing the players time by simply playing god. It's all situational, though, but in my experience DM's range from all sides and players should always keep an open line of communication so they know who they're dealing with. If players are fine with DM vs player punishment, expect fudging. If they're not, find another DM.
In any of these cases, I wouldn't call fudging cheating, I think people that gripe about their DM not using values as rolled are typically not in the game they think they signed up for, but want to blame the DM. All tabletop is a shared experience and should be treated as such. If you've got problems, voice them, and if you don't get what you think you need, have the decency to consider your own actions and find for yourself what works for you in a different group.
I had a recent experience with a Shadowrun DM who was basically telling a story and if the players tried anything that deviated from it he used obviously ridiculous values to negate his unwanted outcomes. His dice pools were obviously made up and he lied about the rolls we could actually see on the table, turning failures into successes for himself. Player choice didn't matter. Not fun for the rest of the players at the table. So we had a talk and we went our separate ways. Simple as that.
The only way to cheat is to steal the group experience away from the group and DM for only yourself.
Just an opinion among many.
Yes I agree, and I believe part of the point I was trying to make.
It's a two-way street. Not every player is meant to jive with every DM and vice versa. I feel that a frequent failing is forgetting that there are millions of players and GM's out there, and people for that matter. Not everyone is meant to get along well with everyone ever. Don't get frustrated by people you can't stand and find a group that jives with what you want. Yeah, it's work, but it beats being pissed over a game.
You know, I don't think there's literally anything I care less about than whether or not the d20 game I'm playing with the Pathfinder Core Rulebook sitting there on the table is or isn't Pathfinder.Your players probably will though. Especially if you told them you were playing Pathfinder.Welcome to your game of Pathfinder™, here we strive to have fun and roll dice*.
Okay just make your level 1 character and let's start playing!
You're in the desert. Make a perception check. 6
You don't notice something move under you and the ground opens up. Make a reflex save. 14, oh so close, you're entangled and prone.
Does a 13 hit your flatfooted, entangled, prone self? You are bitten by something. Does a 21 beat your CMD? You're grappled. Roll initiative. 4
Okay, it goes first so you're still flat footed. It's now going to swallow whole. 21. Still beats your CMD, that's your flat footed, prone, entangled CMD right? Yep okay you're swallowed whole. Now it burrows 20f underground.
Okay what about your friends, yeah sure you can make an intelligence check, 19. That was a Dust Digger, better keep an eye out for more of them!
Okay folks, that was a fun Pathfinder™ game. Hope to see you all next week. Oh and make sure you bring another character sheet okay? Great see you then.
Sorry dude, going to have to revoke your GMing rights, you forgot to turn in your notarized consent to concealed gm dice rolls forms to the PFS.
*stuff that still seems to be completely missing the actual point*
Just to confirm, you do realize that if you tell the players in advance it's not cheating and therefore you would not be a cheater right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not have to provide proof of a negative. You have to provide evidence that there is a rule that allows what you say.That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
Actually, I don't. See, this isn't a court of law, this isn't debate class. The staff of Paizo has repeatedly explained why the gods don't have stats. That doesn't mean they are powerless. If you use it as an excuse to have them not do anything, then that is all you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The moment you alter the base rules in any way it's not Pathfinder. It's Pathfinder with House Rules.That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
Which is still Pathfinder. Yay! We agree.
Actually, I don't. See, this isn't a court of law, this isn't debate class. The staff of Paizo has repeatedly explained why the gods don't have stats. That doesn't mean they are powerless. If you use it as an excuse to have them not do anything, then that is all you.I do not have to provide proof of a negative. You have to provide evidence that there is a rule that allows what you say.That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
This is an argument actually. If you want to make a good argument there are rules to that. Not being in debate class does not absolve you of making bad arguments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*stuff that still seems to be completely missing the actual point*Just to confirm, you do realize that if you tell the players in advance it's not cheating and therefore you would not be a cheater right?
I'm not a cheater. I'm a GM. Fudging has been a part of the game for quite some time now. If it makes you feel bad and think that you are cheater, then that is something you have to deal with. Me? My players understand that fudging is part of the game and crops up now and then.