On the other hand, if you've promised not to fudge the dice and someone calls you on it, "You can't prove it!" really isn't going to make them feel any better about it.
What I'm saying is what if you call your GM on it and they can prove (by reference to their prepared notes, showing you the die, etc.) that they did not do anything that would be considered a breach of the social contract?
Why would you even risk that happening? How would you feel if it did?
What I'm saying is what if you call your GM on it and they can prove (by reference to their prepared notes, showing you the die, etc.) that they did not do anything that would be considered a breach of the social contract?
I may disagree with you about some things, but that doesn't make me as densely stupid as all that. I'm not going to do something that randomly -- and, yes, I'd do it after the game.
That said, I really think you drastically underestimate how obvious bluffing is, once you've observed enough of it.
And what I'm saying is, why would you promise the players not to fudge the dice, but then turn around and do it anyway? Is there something magical about being DM that makes you unable to breach the social contract? But I don't have to ask how those DMs feel, because HWalsh has already made it clear -- it makes him feel all-powerful. (Also remember, for the third time, I'm addressing the DMs who say "I lie about doing it, and I always get away with it!")
Perhaps we could also assume the part where you attack me and throw around Stormwind like no one could possibly care more about one aspect of the game than another?
Can care more about some aspects? Yes, of course. Indeed, I assume many do.
But have to? No, not at all. Therefore, being interesting in other aspects does not mean that one is not also interested in tactics, and hence, doesn't care about fudging.(If you were just trying to repeat that interest in tactics correlates with attitudes about dice fudging, I'd have agreed completely -- I think everyone pretty much agreed on that pages ago. Dragging in the "other aspects" muddies the water and obscures that point, however.)
|
But have to? No, not at all.
In thejeff's defense, he didn't say anything about "have to". He said "can". Which makes your reaction to it surprising.
Apart from that, I still disagree about that it's so easy to find out fudging if it's done responsibly (meaning that it's not done all the time or in certain recurring situations, for example). But then I also don't intend to defend those GMs that openly admit to lie about it, because I consider that to be bad behavior no matter if you get away with it or not.
So just for the record, before I bow out of this discussion:
I normally don't fudge if defined as changing die results. Also if I give my word before a game that I won't fudge, I won't. But I prefer to play with people who aren't adamant about it, because you'll never know when there might arise a situation where fudging might be the fastest and most elegant solution to solve a problem especially when you didn't see that problem coming. And yeah, I'm open about it, so that you can decide if my game is for you or if it isn't before it starts.
|
|
Occasionally, a situation occurs where the DM was hoping for an epic combat or complex and challenging task......but the dice don't play the game....or they misjudged the parties abilities.
So then the DM has to make a call. Do they fudge things in order for the situation to work as they intended? Or they do theylet things slide, and ptemtially make a mediocre event instead of something truly memorable.
Fudging a combat is completely in the purview of what the DM is trying to achieve in a game. As such, judging them for it also needs to be based on the reasons behind it.
Are they fudging because the players tacti are awesome and they're sick of everything just getting smashed to pieces? Well that's not a good approach honestly. This is not an us vs them game.
Are they fudging because doing so makes the game a better experience for everyone at the table? Well then hats off to them for making a fun and enjoyable session.
Writing sessions and planning combats and DMing in general is not a perfect science. It is as much artform as hard maths. As such, DMs need a soft edge to their planning to cater for a huge number of variables that cannot always be planned for. That soft edge is fudging.
It involves trust in your DM though. And that's not something that comes easily in situations like PFS or pick up games at a games store etc.
I pretty much roll everything in the open for my players. What I don't do is tell them stats of the beasties they are fighting. Particularly HP, nor how many critters there are. I found the best way to fudge an encounter is actually just add or remove crittters as needed to make things more or less intense. Since I regularly run combats where reinforcements roll in at various times, it makes it much easier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who want the results of at least occasional fudging, but also the want the illusion of not having that safety net.
I know there are; possibly a majority, even. And as long as it's an open secret (i.e., the players know, deep down, that the DM may do it, and are OK with that) then suspension of disbelief will take care of the rest.
Even the advice in the GMG says "if you do decide to fudge rolls for the sake of the game, it’s best done in secret".
And the designers' admitted default personal preference is for a casual game full of gentlemen's agreements (witness not bothering to fix planar binding, simulacrum, and so on), so that's the context to take that in.
I don't know how many times I need to say this, but if the players are ultimately OK with fudging dice, or railroading, or whatever else, then that's fine; the DM can (and in some cases maybe even should) do those things. The correlary, though, is that for the minority of players who state, clearly and up front, that they don't want fudging, or railroading, or whatever -- either respect that wish, or ask them to find a different game.
Just don't two-facedly pretend to agree, and openly claim you're not going to fudge, and then do it anyway -- that's not just bad game etiquette, it's blatantly lying to others. I don't know why people are so resistant to this point, though, and go through convoluted mental gymnastics to convince themselves that this is somehow virtuous behavior.
Also if I give my word before a game that I won't fudge, I won't. But I prefer to play with people who aren't adamant about it, because you'll never know when there might arise a situation where fudging might be the fastest and most elegant solution to solve a problem especially when you didn't see that problem coming. And yeah, I'm open about it, so that you can decide if my game is for you or if it isn't before it starts.
I think your stance on all of this is extremely laudable.
Even the advice in the GMG says "if you do decide to fudge rolls for the sake of the game, it’s best done in secret".
I feel like the last time this topic flared up a few months ago the general consensus was something to the effect of-
"If a player feels strongly opposed the idea that a GM will fudge or otherwise manipulate circumstances in ways not strictly delineated by rule, it is the responsibility of that player to bring up that conversation before the game gets started."
Since if the GM just brings it up it's essentially "do you trust me to make judgement calls as to what will improve the game experience". It's incumbent on the players to set this boundary, not for the GM to figure out where it is.
Since if you ask me "are you going to fudge dice?" my honest answer would be something like "I certainly don't intend to, but I can't see the future and I also don't want to rule out any tool in the GM's toolbox whose use I feel might improve the experience for all of us. I honestly don't think it's a big deal when done sparingly." If the players agree on "hey, don't ever do this specific thing" then I'm not going to (but I'd like to figure out what other things I can still do.) If nobody says anything, I'm going to feel like it's not really a big deal to them either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"If a player feels strongly against the idea that a GM will fudge or otherwise manipulate circumstances, it is the responsibility of that player to bring up that conversation before the game gets started.
I don't have any problem with that (although I shake my head at some of the more extreme posters who aver that any player making such a request is totally out of line and should be either ignored blackballed from the hobby, that thankfully seems to be a minority viewpoint).
If they do make that request, though, then the DM needs to decide to (a) respect it and accede; (b) tell them it's non-negotiable and refuse; or (c) lie to them. I have no problem with either (a) or (b). It's (c), and all the absurd justifications for it, that sticks in my craw.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ dysartes Cheating to counteract clever play by the characters is the worst form of self gratification in a communal game.
If you're not having fun because as DM your monsters are constantly being destroyed.....time to not DM for a while.
That's what you do to change the dynamic. Not cheat.
Part of the expectation of being a GM is that your guys die. If you don't like that expectation, or it stops being fun, don't GM.
Where does the line between fudging dice rolls and, for example, not using the most effective option a monster has or sub-optimal tactics (like leaving the wizard in melee range) or not using that symbol spell behind the big bad that no-one but you knows about yet?
Because sometimes the fight goes against the players when it really shouldn't or you as GM miscalculate the difficulty.
Expecting to be able to land a couple of hits in what should be an even combat is "the worst form of self gratification in a communal game"?
Absolutely.
PCs rule! NPCs drool!
;P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Totally fine. I'd even be cool with a GM rolling open, seeing the 20, and saying 'guys, these guys are on fire, I'm going to ignore this one to give you a chance to comeback'.What would your opinion be if that was reversed - GM unable to roll above 10 all session, say, and was on their second or third sub-3 roll in a row, deciding that it hit? Again, assuming open rolling.
I'd be fine with the GM saying 'These guys are horrible. You guys want them to actually be a challenge?' in that case. Then it is up to the group in exactly the same way. I've had such sessions where the players were actually pitying the enemy, to the point of casting beneficial spells on them mid-combat.
So they know what kind of game you run? Clear communication? Respecting your players play style?Should the players not need to respect your DMing style, if you're expected to respect their play style?
If you feel disrespected, feel free to say so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Wrath - Expecting to be able to land a couple of hits in what should be an even combat is "the worst form of self gratification in a communal game"?
I mean, I don't know about you, but even though I pilot the monsters, I expect the monsters to lose something like 100% of fights they're in. I'm like the general manager of the Washington Generals- if we win, something has gone wrong, I'm just trying to make it entertaining.
|
|
Dysartes - you've taken my statement and stretched it beyond my words and into your own realm of justification.
Read my statement again. Then see if you can find the part where I said monsters weren't landing hits.
My statement was about the players being very clever and great tactically. So the DM cheats to counteract that.
You've turned it into "waaaaagh I want my things to hit, waaaaaaghhhhh"
Some of you really need to learn how to talk to each other in a civilized manners it gives more weight to your arguments. Over exaggerated parabols do very little. Its not like this is the first time this type of thread has popped up.
That's precisely why some of us are sick of it.
If it upsets you. you could just avoid the thread.
Honestly I feel like the answer will vary greatly from group to group, And who are you to say one way is wrong and one way is not for everyone.
Theories are treacherous things.That's precisely why some of us are sick of it.If it upsets you. you could just avoid the thread.
Kaaaaaaay.
Liable to turn on you at a moments notice, and fall apart on you the next.
Your a strange one mister TOZ
You've no idea, my friend!
Oh snap broke out the mythic points. I'm out!
@ Wrath - Expecting to be able to land a couple of hits in what should be an even combat is "the worst form of self gratification in a communal game"?I mean, I don't know about you, but even though I pilot the monsters, I expect the monsters to lose something like 100% of fights they're in. I'm like the general manager of the Washington Generals- if we win, something has gone wrong, I'm just trying to make it entertaining.
I won't comment on any of the other shenanigans going on this thread, but I did want to +1 this and say that this is exactly who I am as a GM as well. If "my" bad guys win, something went horribly wrong, though, it has happened. Sometimes I roll the dice in front of the group (without rhyme or reason on a whim) and everyone sees that Nat 20, followed by a 19... :P
Well, a lot depends on the implied social contract, doesn't it? Some would say the GM _can't_ cheat.
Often -- but not always -- when I run a home game, my assumption is that some level of "cheating" on the GM's part is OK, AS LONG AS THE PLAYER DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT. They can suspect, of course, but the GM shouldn't cop to it it.
Conversely, if I'm GMing PFS, my default assumption is that no "cheating" is OK, and I will let the dice fall where they may.
Of course, this also varies by:
* The game I'm running. D&D 3.5 (and Pathfinder) have a bit more of a tactical component than many other RPGs, which can lend itself to a more adversarial relationship between the players and the GM.
* The people with whom I am playing. What do they prefer? What do they expect?
Ultimately, however, the only question that really matters is this: Is everyone having a good time? If so, don't sweat it. If not, then you should know enough about *why* in order to adjust accordingly.
Good luck.
I don't think that follows.
I mean, first of all I've never told anybody I'm going to reject any tool in the GM's toolbox. So it's not like "people I know read this on the internet" is a thing I actually care about.
But the point I'm making is that barring someone spending several actions scanning somebody via detect magic during combat there's no practical difference between "Heroism ran out" and "I lowered the number by 2 because I wanted to." Like seriously the only difference between those two is "under detect magic the number of magical auras is different." I mean, I *usually* have buffs on the bad guys that are planned to run out during the fight so these things don't run so long (the latter parts of combat are dull.)
I mean, honestly, have you ever seen anyone spend 3 standard actions in combat to read someone's magical aura completely?
No, but I've seen them permanency arcane sight instead.
Yeah...the three standard action thing -- and even the need for Arcane Sight -- is arguably just a design flaw in Detect Magic.
No, but I've seen them permanency arcane sight instead.Yeah...the three standard action thing -- and even the need for Arcane Sight -- is arguably just a design flaw in Detect Magic.
You could see the aura's fall off though.