| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does that also apply to murder, in your mind? It seems like a somewhat morally-dubious conclusion.I'm hearing a lot of "I absolutely do not want this to happen and if I find out I'm going to be mad."
Which sort of underlines the point that if you're going to do it, you ought to make sure nobody finds out.
Just like with lying, murder doesn't apply to players when interacting with the GM. After all, players are subhuman scum with no rights, while the GM is an all-knowing perfect god.
Really, if the GM murders a player they should thank him for the extra attention and effort the GM has gone to, and be grateful enough to spend their dying breaths helping with the cover up. Probably also apologize for getting blood on the knife or pay for the bullets, because that's extra work/expense for the GM.
Bad GMs tend to think they are better at "maintaining the illusion" than they actually are. It's pretty easy to calculate ACs. If that goblin is only wearing studding leather and detect magic turns up no magic items on the corpse, then the players can easily know that the 24 should have hit. Math is neat like that.We're going to need more extrapolation on 'reason'.
Your attack of 24 does not hit the goblin.
What if the GM had a very good reason to give that particular goblin a circumstance bonus to their AC (say, divine intervention) that will come to light significantly later in the campaign?
If you figured "24 didn't hit the goblin but there's no magic left after he died so the GM must have been cheating" in session 2 and raise a stink about it how are you going to feel when the reason for it is revealed in session 16? Will you just accept "there was a reason for it, it will come to light in time"?
Like i said, forum rhetoric that indicates people really are that intense about a no winners storytelling game aside.If I understand your logic: if I punch you in the face over a D&D game, it's OK bucause a game isn't serious, but if I punch you in the face to steal your wallet, that's not OK because your money is serious business?
Because what you're saying is: It's OK for me to lie to you, as long as I"m lying about a game and not about something serious.
This is exactly what im talking about. CLEARLY its the same thing as physical assault.
I know everyone who trots arguments like this out really THINKS they're making a great point but its really not. Adjusting die results on the fly, with or without prior informed consent is not anything even resembling physical assault. I suspect most of the people who do it have never actually been punched in the face.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone here actually believe their GM or do they sit there with their arms crossed and eye brow raised?
Seems like a lot of the discussion here is really centered around the mood and attitude of the players at the table.
When I GM, I roll in the open and don't fudge.
The other GM in our group also rolls in the open and doesn't fudge.Trust is very easy for my group, because we do not play with cheaters.
I do find it a bit odd how some people are insisting on two seemingly contradictory premises:
1: The GM should constantly lie to their players
2: The Players should absolutely trust their GM
In my experience, lying is not a good way to build trust.
If you can't be bothered to be honest about a game then why should I trust you on other things? And you can be friends with people you don't trust, you can have a fun game with people that you'd never want to be friends with.
Fudging is cheating, both carry the same bad baggage. It kinda like stealing and theft, or stealing and shop-lifting. That you have a different label or are only one aspect of the other doesn't change what they are.
"I'm a fudger, not a cheater"
"I'm a shop-lifter, not a thief"These aren't true since since the one is the subset of the other.
NOW if the rules are set that "fudging is okay by the GM" it means that the GM has the power to override the die result and when they "fudge" they are exercising that power. Which means they aren't fudging the result but fabricating their own result.
so since we can have a fun time with you telling us that you fudge at times, and only the chance of hurt feeling if you don't tell. Why are you so defensive of the need for keeping it secret? Or that we're calling you out for cheating. We've told you why we think it's cheating, and because we think that lying or tricking your players isn't a good idea we use the correct term. CHEATING.
If I knew this about you beforehand I probably wouldn't have you at my table anyway. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adjusting die results on the fly, with or without prior informed consent is not anything even resembling physical assault.
It is, however, lying. Which not everyone is OK with, no matter how you keep trying to pooh-pooh it as unimportant. You don't get to decide for other people that they should be thankful to you for it.
Bad GMs tend to think they are better at "maintaining the illusion" than they actually are. It's pretty easy to calculate ACs. If that goblin is only wearing studding leather and detect magic turns up no magic items on the corpse, then the players can easily know that the 24 should have hit. Math is neat like that.We're going to need more extrapolation on 'reason'.
Your attack of 24 does not hit the goblin.
I have to commend you on your grasp of the fundimentals of armour class, you do not detect magic and yet the goblin seems to avoid your attack with supernatural grace.
This goblin is the strangest one you've ever fought, it is exceeding all expectations!
It's blades bites into you with surprising accuracy!
So as you can see, one expectation a player has may be misinformed- or rather the enemies are as clever as you; they want to win.
I suspect most of the people who do it have never actually been punched in the face.Once in middle school, once in basic training. I do my best to avoid it.
Having been knocked down with a punch and then kicked directly in the teeth in my life I can assure those without that experience that basically anything you can think of that isn't long term psychological abuse isn't really a comparable event. Especially gm dice manipulation.
Bad GMs tend to think they are better at "maintaining the illusion" than they actually are. It's pretty easy to calculate ACs. If that goblin is only wearing studding leather and detect magic turns up no magic items on the corpse, then the players can easily know that the 24 should have hit. Math is neat like that.We're going to need more extrapolation on 'reason'.
Your attack of 24 does not hit the goblin.
What if the GM had a very good reason to give that particular goblin a circumstance bonus to their AC (say, divine intervention) that will come to light significantly later in the campaign?
If you figured "24 didn't hit the goblin but there's no magic left after he died so the GM must have been cheating" in session 2 and raise a stink about it how are you going to feel when the reason for it is revealed in session 16? Will you just accept "there was a reason for it, it will come to light in time"?
That it was "DM... sorry divine intervention"? Yes, I would still be unhappy and would not accept that. Especially since the goblin presumably still dies in the end. For the same reason having Storm Trooper 76B mysteriously out duel Luke with a lightsaber and having George Lucas say the force let him, but then gets easily shot by Han would make me unhappy.
I suspect most of the people who do it have never actually been punched in the face.
Quite often in fact -- I used to be a fighter. And to this day I'd rather someone try to hit me than stand there and lie to my face.
If I knew this about you beforehand I probably wouldn't have you at my table anyway. :)
And if I know that someone is going to play magical story-time and that their story is greater than a player's actions then I don't play pathfinder with them, Though I'd maybe play magical story-time with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having been knocked down with a punch and then kicked directly in the teeth in my life I can assure those without that experience that basically anything you can think of that isn't long term psychological abuse isn't really a comparable event.And?
Ergo, cheating is okay. Because he got punched in the face one. QED.
Though I think the big question is what if someone got punched in the face for cheating?
Having been knocked down with a punch and then kicked directly in the teeth in my life I can assure those without that experience that basically anything you can think of that isn't long term psychological abuse isn't really a comparable event.And? So we've both been punched in the face?
and its a dumb comparison.
That it was "DM... sorry divine intervention"? Yes, I would still be unhappy and would not accept that. Especially since the goblin presumably still dies in the end. For the same reason having Storm Trooper 76B mysteriously out duel Luke with a lightsaber and having George Lucas say the force let him, but then gets easily shot by Han would make me unhappy.
What if I said "had you cast detect magic during the fight, that goblin would have lit up like a Christmas Tree, and that's all I'm saying."
Like sometimes there are specific, predetermined reasons for things (like the Goblin's actual AC was 25 for a plot-related reason), and players do not need to be told everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bad GMs tend to think they are better at "maintaining the illusion" than they actually are. It's pretty easy to calculate ACs. If that goblin is only wearing studding leather and detect magic turns up no magic items on the corpse, then the players can easily know that the 24 should have hit. Math is neat like that.We're going to need more extrapolation on 'reason'.
Your attack of 24 does not hit the goblin.
I have to commend you on your grasp of the fundimentals of armour class, you do not detect magic and yet the goblin seems to avoid your attack with supernatural grace.
This goblin is the strangest one you've ever fought, it is exceeding all expectations!
It's blades bites into you with surprising accuracy!
So as you can see, one expectation a player has may be misinformed- or rather the enemies are as clever as you; they want to win.
If it was True Strike the players would get a spellcraft check and it would have those damnable "visual effects". Furthermore, if they were under nondetection, it would still need a way to generate those bonuses. IF they came from items then even if they did not detect as magic, a ring or amulet would still be on the body and taken by players. Which should then eventually be detectable as magic and add up to an AC of 25. Maintaining the illusion is virtually impossible against players that actually know the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and its a dumb comparison.
Only because you think lying to people is apparently "good," but hitting them is always "bad." Not everyone agrees with your valuation.
I'm not going to get into actual hot-button political topics, but it's amazing how often people violently disagree over whether the same action is right or wrong, moral or immoral, and why. It is useful, however, to realize that this actually does happen, and that your personal view on it is not universal.
That it was "DM... sorry divine intervention"? Yes, I would still be unhappy and would not accept that. Especially since the goblin presumably still dies in the end. For the same reason having Storm Trooper 76B mysteriously out duel Luke with a lightsaber and having George Lucas say the force let him, but then gets easily shot by Han would make me unhappy.What if I said "had you cast detect magic during the fight, that goblin would have lit up like a Christmas Tree, and that's all I'm saying."
Like sometimes there are specific, predetermined reasons for things (like the Goblin's actual AC was 25 for a plot-related reason), and players do not need to be told everything.
Detect Magic is always cast by players to examine loot. If you are making up bonuses, you will find it is actually surprisingly hard to make numbers match results especially when players actually know the rules. There are limited number of things that grant dodge bonuses for example, in limited numbers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like sometimes there are specific, predetermined reasons for things (like the Goblin's actual AC was 25 for a plot-related reason), and players do not need to be told everything.
There's a difference between something being unknown, and it being unknowable. In my experience, the first is very good for games, and the second... is usually not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about if the GM decides the PCs have had enough punishment and omits a deadly trap in the adventuring area the PCs are traveling through?
How about if the GM decides the PCs have been sailing through the challenges too easily and so adds a couple of henchmen to the climax fight?
How about if the GM decides, on the fly, to cut the BBEG's AC down by 2-3 points for the fight? Or his damage bonus?
Do those count as "cheating" or is the anti-fudging mania limited to reading the dice alone?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about if the GM decides the PCs have had enough punishment and omits a deadly trap in the adventuring area the PCs are traveling through?
How about if the GM decides the PCs have been sailing through the challenges too easily and so adds a couple of henchmen to the climax fight?
How about if the GM decides, on the fly, to cut the BBEG's AC down by 2-3 points for the fight? Or his damage bonus?
Do those count as "cheating" or is the anti-fudging mania limited to reading the dice alone?
Same answer.
Has the DM been honest and up-front about changing encounters mid-game as he or she sees fit? Have the players agreed to play under those conditions? If the answer to both questions is "yes," it's not cheating at all -- it's expected. If the answer to either one is "no," you're violating the social contract -- I don't care whether you call it "cheating," but it's not cool.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about if the GM decides the PCs have had enough punishment and omits a deadly trap in the adventuring area the PCs are traveling through?
How about if the GM decides the PCs have been sailing through the challenges too easily and so adds a couple of henchmen to the climax fight?
How about if the GM decides, on the fly, to cut the BBEG's AC down by 2-3 points for the fight? Or his damage bonus?
Do those count as "cheating" or is the anti-fudging mania limited to reading the dice alone?
Cheating, cheating and cheating.*
That was really easy.
*Unless of course they say "Hey I'm going to X..." in advance of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about if the GM decides the PCs have had enough punishment and omits a deadly trap in the adventuring area the PCs are traveling through?
How about if the GM decides the PCs have been sailing through the challenges too easily and so adds a couple of henchmen to the climax fight?
How about if the GM decides, on the fly, to cut the BBEG's AC down by 2-3 points for the fight? Or his damage bonus?
Do those count as "cheating" or is the anti-fudging mania limited to reading the dice alone?
If we go by the absolute view, not only is it cheating, but it is a reason to denounce the GM themselves as people without honor and not worthy of a LinkedIn endorsement or any form of personal reference.
If it was True Strike the players would get a spellcraft check and it would have those damnable "visual effects". Furthermore, if they were under nondetection, it would still need a way to generate those bonuses. IF they came from items then even if they did not detect as magic, a ring or amulet would still be on the body and taken by players. Which should then eventually be detectable as magic and add up to an AC of 25. Maintaining the illusion is virtually impossible against players that actually know the rules.
On attempting to descern the location of its power you find it near impossible to see due to the full cloak it wears.
You're pretty keen to find out what this Goorbleen is wearing now, which is difficult to do while it is in the process of stabbing you.
Detect Magic is always cast by players to examine loot. If you are making up bonuses, you will find it is actually surprisingly hard to make numbers match results especially when players actually know the rules. There are limited number of things that grant dodge bonuses for example, in limited numbers.
Sure, but I can give profane bonuses, insight, and morale bonuses to a goblin to get it up to 25 pretty easily.
Like what if the reality of the situation was "the goblin was possessed per the spell "Possession" by something that wanted to spy on the PCs" the identity of that something to be revealed later. The spell says you keep your your mental abilities and your class abilities, and levels so something with a 30 charisma and a level of scaled fist monk will get +10 that will go away when the possession ends (say for point of this example the goblin is wearing no armor whatsoever), and say that particular goblin had a 20 Dex (16+4). Voila, 25 AC.
As the GM I have decided not to have something happen that the PCs will almost certainly not notice (like scrying) instead having something cluing them into something strange going on. Instead of having the antagonist who is relatively nearby just stomp the PCs, it (because it's a character controlled by the GM) just decided to possess the one goblin that sits in the back and watches, but the archer can't hit it for some reason. After the rest of the goblins are dispatched, the possessing entity just takes a standard action to return to their own body (which is by now somewhere far away on this plane, having been moved by its allies after casting the spell on the goblin) and it's just a regular goblin and you can hit it again.
Would I need to show you the page of my notes where I spell all of this out to explain why the archer could not hit the one strange goblin in the back with a 24? The goblin that all of a sudden started acting less strangely and more goblin-ey right before you killed it easily? Would you conclude that the only explanation for why you missed was "I cheated"? Would you take my word when I said "there's something going on there that you don't know about yet"?
Like if I made the possessed goblin's eyes glow, even though the spell doesn't say that, would that help?
Being a liar about a game is being a liar about a game. Some people don't want to be friends with people that will lie about something they could easily be honest about. Some don't care if their friends will lie about simple things.
So what being a liar about a game means to a person varies by that person, and there's no right or wrong in how a person decides to deal with that.
So what being a liar about a game means to a person varies by that person, and there's no right or wrong in how a person decides to deal with that.
Yes:
I'm not going to get into actual hot-button political topics, but it's amazing how often people violently disagree over whether the same action is right or wrong, moral or immoral, and why. It is useful, however, to realize that this actually does happen, and that your personal view on it is not universal.
Being a liar in a game of make believe can be a very good thing.
How about if the GM decides the PCs have had enough punishment and omits a deadly trap in the adventuring area the PCs are traveling through?
How about if the GM decides the PCs have been sailing through the challenges too easily and so adds a couple of henchmen to the climax fight?
How about if the GM decides, on the fly, to cut the BBEG's AC down by 2-3 points for the fight? Or his damage bonus?
My question is, that how on earth would the players even know any of this happened? Like even if I'm running a printed adventure (I never do this but others do), I could decide in advance to change or remove an encounter I don't like right? Do I need to spell out, explicitly that "I'm not running the adventure exactly as printed"? Is it different if I decided to remove or change that adventure two days ago instead of during the session? Do I have to tell people "there's not a trap anymore in room J7" at the start of the session? Do I need to tell them which one J7 is?
If I'm running something I designed myself, and wrote in my notes next to an encounter or obstacle how I would change it if the PCs were especially stealthy, especially unsubtle, need a break, or need more of a challenge does that make it okay?
Is what people really want "access to my notes"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a liar in a game of make believe can be a very good thing.
Sure. But being a liar about a game of make believe is what we're talking about.
My question is, that how on earth would the players even know any of this happened?
How would the audience even know if the theatre cut a scene from a premiere movie? Or spliced one in? Shoot, a lot of people even get mad at Director's Cut editions, when the adding/deleting is being done by the creator (I'm looking at Michael Mann and "Last of the Mohicans").
Would I need to show you the page of my notes where I spell all of this out to explain why the archer could not hit the one strange goblin in the back with a 24?
For that level of dues ex machina? I'm going to be blunt. YES.
I should note that the only time I have ever had a player complain about an enemy was that certain NPC could not be sneak attacked. After the fight was over I showed the player that the NPC in question had Veil of Undeath (3.5 campaign) on their spells known and had it being cast factored into the NPCs available spells. I was not asked to provide the sheet. I did it anyway. Because I have nothing to hide. This may surprise you, but people who have nothing to hide are generally pretty well trusted. I would even go so far as to say the best way to gain trust and keep it is to have nothing to hide.
For that level of dues ex machina? I'm going to be blunt. YES.
One goblin is possessed by one sorcerer/monk using a single 5th level spell and this goblin takes no actions whatsoever while possessed is an unheard of level of deus ex machina in your games?
I mean, if I may be blunt if I say "a 24 doesn't hit" and I go on to explain "there is a reason why, you will find out later", and when pressed say "his AC was 25, briefly", and a player keeps pushing and demands to see my notes to prove I'm not cheating, I'm going to politely ask that player to not come back.
People are right, you can go for DECADES lying to people with them never knowing. But the thing is, that often, the longer you are lying to them the stronger reaction if they ever find out. And the biggest point here is WHAT benefit is there to lying about this? What is the need to trick people to believe something that isn't true?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For that level of dues ex machina? I'm going to be blunt. YES.One goblin is possessed by one sorcerer/monk using a single 5th level spell and this goblin takes no actions whatsoever while possessed is an unheard of level of deus ex machina in your games?
If that is a common thing no. If all the other goblins are normal and it's just this one, again YES. And hey if you have the sheet for it, what's the problem? If you don't want to show it after the fight, then yes I am going to judge you to be untrustworthy, because well given the circumstances... you are.
I find the amount of effort some people are putting into an argument that amounts to "People should trust me unconditionally, even when all evidence points to me lying to them." incredibly sad. It's an incredibly narcissistic and unhealthy way to look at things.
If that is a common thing no. If all the other goblins are normal and it's just this one, again YES. And hey if you have the sheet for it, what's the problem?
Do you make a habit to ask to see the character sheets for primary antagonists when they make early cameos in the campaign to set the stage for the eventual showdown later?
Like can you see why that's kind of crossing a line?
If I want a recurring issue in the campaign to be "the antagonist can possess people, and uses this to do a variety of things" there's got to be a first time that happens, right? Do I need to explain exactly what's going on the first time it happens?
If that is a common thing no. If all the other goblins are normal and it's just this one, again YES. And hey if you have the sheet for it, what's the problem?Do you make a habit to ask to see the character sheets for primary antagonists when they make early cameos in the campaign to set the stage for the eventual showdown later?
Like can you see why that's kind of crossing a line?
Not really no. Because if that Sorcerer/Monk just buffed the goblins AC instead of you know casting spells that could have ended the PCs then and there, I'm going to be very disappointed the GMs abilities. As I should be.
Not really no. Because if that Sorcerer/Monk just buffed the goblins AC instead of you know casting spells that could have ended the PCs then and there, I'm going to be very disappointed the GMs abilities. As I should be.
So rather than have a primary antagonist make an early cameo where they first learn about the PCs, I should just not have that happen at all unless I want that character to just end the PCs before they're ready?
Like what if this particular sorcerer-monk had taken certain vows that prohibit him from directly attacking anybody who was clearly far weaker than he, and he takes those vows seriously? Do you need the character sheet, the character bio, and all the notes I have about personality and tactics?
The point is that there may be lots of stuff you don't know in the first or second session, and that maybe it will all make sense in the end, and maybe it won't, but you shouldn't necessarily conclude that the GM is trying to pull one over on you or engaging in any sort of malfeasance. Feel free to express frustration that "I wish I had a better idea what was going on" and I'll respond to that, but if you accuse me of cheating when I am, as point of fact, not, that's crossing a line. I do not play with people who do that sort of thing and I do not wish to.
5th level spell = 9th level wizard at least and now a 10th level character to have a monk level to get that AC bonus, AND it seems also have pre-cast buffs before we fought the goblins.
typically Goblins are fought when, lv 2, maybe 3 at the latest.
So if a level 10 BBEG is watching the fight of a lv3 party then something is wrong with the story. The BBEG shouldn't care what a lv3 party is doing and if he did because of some prophecy or something and he thinks it's this party then he should be using more lethal force or capturing them or something.
Plus, isn't there a sense motive check to tell if someone is possessed or dominated?
And if he's just wanting to spy on the party it would be much easier to use a bird or animal of some kind rather than someone actually fighting the party.
Being a liar in a game of make believe can be a very good thing.Sure. But being a liar about a game of make believe is what we're talking about.
But when does the game begin ?
When everyone is around the gaming table, and the opening credits are rolling ?When one is casually sprawled in the sofa, talking with his mate about the game which will begin in a couple of hours ?
Perhaps even talking about the game, and the way we intend to play it, months in advance, should serve the game.
Hence, if I'm talking to a friend, months ahead of the actual RPG session, and I'm saying that I'm an hardcore DM who doesn't fudge dice, while I'm in fact prepared to fudge when I deem it necessary - for my player's enjoyment - I am a terrible liar, whose lie will serve our purpose of having a goood time in a totally make believe world of dragon elves and dungeon princesses.
Of course, my mate may not be entirely confident I'm telling the truth - because he knows me too well - but decides to pretend he believes me anyway, to humor me. And because he trusts I'm lying in good faith to serve the game.
In that case, my friend and me are terrible liars, I suppose.
But how will we be punished for our sins ;-) ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I want a recurring issue in the campaign to be "the antagonist can possess people, and uses this to do a variety of things" there's got to be a first time that happens, right? Do I need to explain exactly what's going on the first time it happens?
No, that's awesome -- provided there is an explanation, that it was planned, and you're going to stick with it. Those are the best kinds of campaigns.
But if you actually just jacked the AC to 25 on the spot so that the fight wouldn't be too easy (which is what the thread is about), and now you're trying to cover by saying, "Uh, maybe he was possessed!" -- well, that's incredibly lame.
Reference what I said above about unknown vs. unknowable.
5th level spell = 9th level wizard at least and now a 10th level character to have a monk level to get that AC bonus, AND it seems also have pre-cast buffs before we fought the goblins.
typically Goblins are fought when, lv 2, maybe 3 at the latest.So if a level 10 BBEG is watching the fight of a lv3 party then something is wrong with the story. The BBEG shouldn't care what a lv3 party is doing and if he did because of some prophecy or something and he thinks it's this party then he should be using more lethal force or capturing them or something.
Plus, isn't there a sense motive check to tell if someone is possessed or dominated?
And if he's just wanting to spy on the party it would be much easier to use a bird or animal of some kind rather than someone actually fighting the party.
Suppose this particular goblin village was built on a rare confluence of ley lines that the antagonist wanted to make use of in order to complete part of an occult ritual that will do something to accomplish his ultimate goal (the PCs in the end will want to stop this ritual from being completed, but the BBEG's got to make a lot of stops.) So, rather than just waltz into the village and kill all the goblins (remember, vows of not killing people who are weaker than he), he decided to possess one goblin because nobody thinks a goblin in a goblin village is weird even if that goblin is acting strangely, and complete this part of the ritual. Suppose the PCs show up right after that part of the ritual was completed (or maybe they interrupt it and he has to come back), and the antagonist doesn't actually care about these goblins at all, but decides to stay and watch because he's amused by watching these people slaughter each other.
This is not, the best plot development, but it's not exactly a truly bizarre one. Having not run this in reality, I'm not sure if there's a sense motive check to tell if someone is possessed (I would make sure I knew the rule before I did this.) If I tell people to make a sense motive check because the one goblin is acting strangely, does that excuse this scene?
Not really no. Because if that Sorcerer/Monk just buffed the goblins AC instead of you know casting spells that could have ended the PCs then and there, I'm going to be very disappointed the GMs abilities. As I should be.So rather than have a primary antagonist make an early cameo where they first learn about the PCs, I should just not have that happen at all unless I want that character to just end the PCs before they're ready?
Like what if this particular sorcerer-monk had taken certain vows that prohibit him from directly attacking anybody who was clearly far weaker than he, and he takes those vows seriously? Do you need the character sheet, the character bio, and all the notes I have about personality and tactics?
The point is that there may be lots of stuff you don't know in the first or second session, and that maybe it will all make sense in the end, and maybe it won't, but you shouldn't necessarily conclude that the GM is trying to pull one over on you or engaging in any sort of malfeasance. Feel free to express frustration that "I wish I had a better idea what was going on" and I'll respond to that, but if you accuse me of cheating when I am, as point of fact, not, that's crossing a line. I do not play with people who do that sort of thing and I do not wish to.
Here's what I'm getting out of this:
"You should treat an increasingly unlikely scenario that I keep adding unlikely things to as completely trustworthy, because I should be trusted blindly because reasons."
I'm going to treat sketchy situations as they should be treated; with appropriate levels of skepticism.
Like what if this particular sorcerer-monk had taken certain vows that prohibit him from directly attacking anybody who was clearly far weaker than he, and he takes those vows seriously? Do you need the character sheet, the character bio, and all the notes I have about personality and tactics?
Then he tells his henchmen that don't have that vow to do it since he isn't directly attacking them. Or set them off on a quest to die to some monster they can't handle. Or have the party/someone in the world realize this vow and send some low commoners to charge into his base now since he refuses to attack them.
Like for a now lv 11 character to care about a party that is clearly far weaker than, like lv3-4, the question is why? If they are special enough that a lv11 character cares about them to watch then they should probably know that. It's a highly contrived scenario where the heroes don't know they are special but the BBEG does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hence, if I'm talking to a friend, months ahead of the actual RPG session, and I'm saying that I'm an hardcore DM who doesn't fudge dice, while I'm in fact prepared to fudge when I deem it necessary - for my player's enjoyment - I am a terrible liar, whose lie will serve our purpose of having a goood time in a totally make believe world of dragon elves and dungeon princesses.
WHY would you lie about that? Because you think you're oh-so-clever if you can get away with it? Because you're a congenital liar (and judging from other threads this might be the case)? It serves absolutely no purpose at all.
Just say, "I'm going to fudge rolls, OK?" and it's done. You run zero risk of offending your so-called "mate," and he doesn't have to pretend to believe you.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a liar in a game of make believe can be a very good thing.Sure. But being a liar about a game of make believe is what we're talking about.But when does the game begin ?
When everyone is around the gaming table, and the opening credits are rolling ?
When one is casually sprawled in the sofa, talking with his mate about the game which will begin in a couple of hours ?Perhaps even talking about the game, and the way we intend to play it, months in advance, should serve the game.
Hence, if I'm talking to a friend, months ahead of the actual RPG session, and I'm saying that I'm an hardcore DM who doesn't fudge dice, while I'm in fact prepared to fudge when I deem it necessary - for my player's enjoyment - I am a terrible liar, whose lie will serve our purpose of having a good time in a totally make believe world of dragon elves and dungeon princesses.
Of course, my mate may not be entirely confident I'm telling the truth - because he knows me too well - but decides to pretend he believes me anyway, to humor me. And because he trusts I'm lying in good faith to serve the game.
In that case, my friend and me are terrible liars, I suppose.
But how will we be punished for our sins ;-) ?
The real question is, what benefit are you getting from being a liar?
Then he tells his henchmen that don't have that vow to do it since he isn't directly attacking them. Or set them off on a quest to die to some monster they can't handle. Or have the party/someone in the world realize this vow and send some low commoners to charge into his base now since he refuses to attack them.
Like for a now lv 11 character to care about a party that is clearly far weaker than, like lv3-4, the question is why? If they are special enough that a lv11 character cares about them to watch then they should probably know that. It's a highly contrived scenario where the heroes don't know they are special but the BBEG does.
Well, he doesn't have to have any henchmen nearby, he only needed to be within say 200 feet when he cast the spell at first, his henchpeople could have spent the last five hours riding away with the body in a cart in order to keep it safe and are nowhere nearby. If he completed his ritual, and he's just sticking around to watch some goblins get killed, then he has no reason to send people to hurt the PCs or even help the goblins. He may just be watching to see if the PCs appear to have any ideas about the ritual or what he was up to, or if they were just adventurers killing goblins for other reasons (if they knew what he was up to and they were interested in stopping him from completing the ritual, they would be in a hurry to bypass the goblins, even though they're already too late, he reasons.)
The point might be less to give the BBEG a reason to care about the PCs (just a reason to "have some idea who they are") and more just a teaser for "something odd is going on" that hopefully there will other hints about when they examine the ritual site after the goblins are dealt with (which they will hopefully pay attention to and then go research).
It's just a coincidence that the PCs and the BBEG happened to show up at the same place at about the same time, but it's not like "convenient coincidences" have no place in a game world whose physics are primarily narrative.
As for the "I have sworn an oath not to kill low level characters" thing, I imagine the BBEG is invested in not having this get out, but that's after all why he's got people.
It's a highly contrived scenario where the heroes don't know they are special but the BBEG does.
Says you.
It's a recurring theme in many fantasy series ; e.g in the Belgariad, by David Eddings ; or in The Wheel of Time, if I remember correctly.Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a TV Trope named after it.