Fudging the Numbers in 3ed - Forked from: Why do you keep playing 4e?

vagabundo · Jan 8, 2009

It was not fudging in 3e that was the problem, but fudging with an eye to game balance and challenge.

4e has a designed in buffer to allow more freedom to fudge. I find it more satisfying. In my late-era 3e games I was really not enjoying combats, anything over level 5 started to go south quickly and I fudged like a demon to keep things moving. But it was very demoralising, I felt I was putting in twice as much effort as I was getting back in fun.

4e changed all that, streamlined things that I found tiresome and allowed me to fudge things in a more satisfying manner. I could not go back to 3e without dragging tons from 4e back with me.

ProfessorCirno · Jan 8, 2009

The problem with the baseball analogy is that this isn't the big leagues, and fudging the dice isn't changing the entire damn game.

Now, I'm having a game hosted at my house, so I want some snacks. I move get the assorted nuts and whatnot ready, and liberally apply whatever I so desire into The Bowl. The game goes down, people have a great time. The next week comes along, and we're going to finish the game at my house, only - why, what's this? This box of assorted nuts states "FEEL FREE TO MIX THIS IN WITH OTHER NUTS OR EVEN CHIPS, BUT PROBABLY NOT CHOCOLATE AS THAT'S A BIT TOO MUCH." So now this new box of nuts is allowing me to do what I was already doing.

3.x never stated "YOU ARE NEVER ALLOWED TO FUDGE ANYTHING." Rule 0, at it's most basic level, was "It's a freaking game, and you're running it. Your call, chief." Now, if you feel uncomfortable mixing nuts together without explicit approval, then I can see why you'd love the new box, but it's not like the assorted nuts mixer is going to fly down to my house and punch me in the face when his box never stated I could mix his nuts. I don't see the issue with taking liberty with his...you know what? Maybe nuts was the wrong food to use.

S'mon · Jan 8, 2009

3e as written neither encouraged nor discouraged fudging. The heart of the system is the CR/XP system - a fair XP reward for a fair challenge. The numbers can be anything, as long as they are then assigned a fair CR.

Personally I do think the 3e MM is indeed a bit of a disaster, and my current 3e campaign doesn't use it - I use Frank Mentzer's Red Box Basic DM's Book for my MM instead, works much better.

S'mon · Jan 8, 2009

ExploderWizard said:
Thats a good analogy. Whats being forgotten is that the exacting nature of 3E rules meant that after the game your creature, critter, or whatever was subject to player audit.

My players would be ill advised to try that with me. :hmm:

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jan 8, 2009

S'mon said:
3e as written neither encouraged nor discouraged fudging. The heart of the system is the CR/XP system - a fair XP reward for a fair challenge. The numbers can be anything, as long as they are then assigned a fair CR.

Well, I guess this shows how differently we define our games. If that's the heart of 3E, it's the heart of 4E, too.

3E is insufficiently defined just with the concept of "a fair XP reward for a fair challenge".

S'mon · Jan 8, 2009

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Well, I guess this shows how differently we define our games. If that's the heart of 3E, it's the heart of 4E, too.

Yup. I believe 4e provides more mechanical support (as 1e-2e did, too) but it's the same principle.

Ginnel · Jan 8, 2009

ProfessorCirno said:
Now, I'm having a game hosted at my house, so I want some snacks. I move get the assorted nuts and whatnot ready, and liberally apply whatever I so desire into The Bowl. The game goes down, people have a great time. The next week comes along, and we're going to finish the game at my house, only - why, what's this? This box of assorted nuts states "FEEL FREE TO MIX THIS IN WITH OTHER NUTS OR EVEN CHIPS, BUT PROBABLY NOT CHOCOLATE AS THAT'S A BIT TOO MUCH." So now this new box of nuts is allowing me to do what I was already doing.
.

Now you're doing this all wrong nuts don't go with crisps (the proper name for chips) period. Chocolate with nuts however is definately allowed

*adds another 100hps to the nuts to make it a challenge*

And reasonable xp? ahahahahahahh no you get as much xp as I think you should get, due to a combination of factors, how quickly I want you to get to the next level, how hard the tasks you faced were, how much enjoyable roleplay you did, how much you enjoyed the game, how much I enjoyed the game, how many units of alcohol did I consume, how many of the consumed units of alcohol did I have to buy for myself....etc and indeed etc.

EDIT hmm my enworld got turned white after posting how strange

ProfessorCirno · Jan 8, 2009

Ginnel said:
Now you're doing this all wrong nuts don't go with crisps (the proper name for chips) period. Chocolate with nuts however is definately allowed

EDIT hmm my enworld got turned white after posting how strange

That's what happens when you add chocolate :3c

billd91 · Jan 8, 2009

ExploderWizard said:
Thats a good analogy. Whats being forgotten is that the exacting nature of 3E rules meant that after the game your creature, critter, or whatever was subject to player audit. The powers and abilities displayed by said critter better be in print SOMEWHERE. Otherwise every frikin creative thing that gets put in the game turns the entire party into Jack Burton

Where'd you get that!!!

The thing is: It's not really a good analogy at all because there's a fundamental aspect of RPGs that is being ignored. The rules change. It's not at the extreme flexible end of the rules/structure continuum. That would be Calvinball. But it's not as strict as baseball by any stretch of the imagination.

The exacting nature of 3e wasn't particularly exacting. It was the RAW but tables were quite free to deviate from them for their own purposes. The same is true for all editions of D&D.

el-remmen · Jan 8, 2009

billd91 said:
The thing is: It's not really a good analogy at all because there's a fundamental aspect of RPGs that is being ignored. The rules change. It's not at the extreme flexible end of the rules/structure continuum. That would be Calvinball. But it's not as strict as baseball by any stretch of the imagination.

I was coming to say this - yep, pretty damn bad analogy, if you ask me - esp. as someone who is as into baseball as rpgs

- but for the record there is a lot more fudging of rules in baseball than it is given credit for, remember much like an RPG, there is gamemaster (umpire) who is called on to make a ruling for every pitch and every play.

But that is beside the point, as Bill points out, RPGs are extremely flexible about the rules and can't really be compared to competitive sports - and the idea that 3.x encouraged or discouraged "changing the rules" more or less than any other edition is proven wrong by the # of threads in the House Rules forum alone!

If anything, I found the unified mechanic and the sub-systems of 3E perfect for modeling new rules and changes on - I created a whole system of 2E-like specialty priests for 3E using the turn mechanic to emulate a variety of priestly powers, for example.

I must admit, I once stressed about skill points and the like for monsters and NPCs, but the truth is it just doesn't matter. People are always too worried about making some mistake with broader consequences. . . So what? Mistakes are how we become better GMs. . .

Fudging the Numbers in 3ed - Forked from: Why do you keep playing 4e?

vagabundo

Adventurer

ProfessorCirno

Banned

S'mon

Legend

S'mon

Legend

Mustrum_Ridcully

Hero

S'mon

Legend

Ginnel

Explorer

ProfessorCirno

Banned

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

el-remmen

Moderator Emeritus

Similar Threads