So we might mess up, so what? Forked Thread: Fudging the Numbers in 3ed

el-remmen · Jan 9, 2009

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

In the thread I forked this from the discussion was regarding the ease or lack thereof of "winging it" or taking short cuts in preping monsters/NPCs in 3.xE.

In that thread there were comments like:

Ulrick said:
Still, with 3e, everytime I wanted to fudge the numbers, I was afraid of the "ripple" effect. For example, I want to change an NPCs Intelligence from 16 to 18. That +1 bonus "ripples" across skills, feats, certain powers, spells, etc. It takes time to adjust everything. Time I could be spent designing the adventure.

Amy Kou'ai said:
I basically feel like I don't understand the math enough to fudge in 3E.

nightwyrm said:
I find this to be my problem with monster modification/creation in 3.5. I don't have a good idea what stats or powers a CR X monster should have. The monster building process as given in the MM in 3.5 proceeds with monster type/class -> HD/level -> feats -> skills -> spells/special abilities -> items etc. CR is only assigned at the end by comparing your creation with other monsters in the MM, and if the resulting CR is not what you want, then you have to go back and make more modifications. This seems really backwards to me.

I replied at one point:

el-remmen said:
People are always too worried about making some mistake with broader consequences. . . So what? Mistakes are how we become better GMs. . .

And so that is what this thread discussion is meant to be about: Making mistakes.

I know for my own part I have made tons of mistakes as DM, both under and overestimating challenges, or forgetting some fidgety bit of ability a monster has that would have made a difference, etc. . . Where does this worry of completely derailing and unbalancing the game with one encounter come from? While I am not a die-fudger, if I noted an encounter going horribly wrong because of my mistake, then I would fix it on the fly - or if it did not threaten to kill all the PCs, then I would just make a note to be more careful next time.

As I said in my response, GMing mistakes are the key to becoming a better DM and DMs of all levels of experience make mistakes. It seems a shame to be so risk averse to let the short-comings of a ruleset box you in.

Since 3E came out in 2000 I never hesitated to start mucking around with the rules. Did I make some mistakes based on limited understanding of the ruleset? Sure! Did I make more changes as time went on? Of course! Heck, 3.5 can be seen as an attempt by WotC to correct some of their own "mistakes", as can Pathfinder and Monte's Books of Experimental Might.

There are still problematic houserules and creatures that I use, but if and when they threaten to derail things, well I'll fix them then and be a better GM for it, because I will have a new understanding of the ruleset. . .

So let's hear it for mistakes! Don't be afraid. Embrace your fallability!

It might also be that I am a flavor-first guy. . Flavor consistency is more important to me (MUCH MORE) than rule-consistency. . . Rules change and are never "complete" - on the other hand, I want to be able to feel like I am really playing in the Realms (for example) regardless of what edition of D&D I am playing.

Scribble · Jan 9, 2009

It's not so much a fear of making a mistake... It was that the mistake took the form of more headache's/work and caused further fudging in order to compensate.... A long string of new fudges to compensate for the first failed attempt.

Fifth Element · Jan 9, 2009

el-remmen said:
As I said in my response, GMing mistakes are the key to becoming a better DM...

I disagree. There are many keys to becoming a better DM. Making mistakes is probably one of them, but you're overstating their importance.

el-remmen said:
...and DMs of all levels of experience make mistakes.

This is true. And mistakes are great things to learn from, if you realize you made a mistake. If the ruleset isn't transparent, you can make a mistake without even realizing it. Can't learn from a mistake if you don't think it's a mistake.

Stoat · Jan 9, 2009

"Afraid" Isn't quite the right adjective.

I used to live in Raleigh, NC. In 2001, I moved to Augusta, Ga., about a five hour drive away. From 2001 until about two years ago, I made that drive about once every six weeks to two months to DM a long-running game with some buddies of mine.

The PC's went from about level 13 to about level 20 during that time, so I was running lots of mid-to-high level encounters.

When you don't game much, and just the act of getting the game together involves coordinating the schedules of five or six adults, a long drive after work on Friday, and the sacrifice of a whole weekend, it's pretty sucky to have a climatic encounter go south because the math is off somewhere.

el-remmen · Jan 9, 2009

Fifth Element said:
If the ruleset isn't transparent, you can make a mistake without even realizing it. Can't learn from a mistake if you don't think it's a mistake.

Huh? I don't understand this. How can you not know that something is wonky and not going right? If you don't notice then it ain't a mistake. . .

I mean, you might say - "Heck, Weeble-Wobbles sure are tougher monsters than I thought, but I ran them as written! I didn't do anything wrong!"

In that case the mistake you are making is assuming that the rules as written are also mistake free.

el-remmen · Jan 9, 2009

Stoat said:
When you don't game much, and just the act of getting the game together involves coordinating the schedules of five or six adults, a long drive after work on Friday, and the sacrifice of a whole weekend, it's pretty sucky to have a climatic encounter go south because the math is off somewhere.

Again, can't you fix it on the fly? What kind of serious math mistake would have to be made to make an entire encounter "go south"?

Storminator · Jan 9, 2009

el-remmen said:
Huh? I don't understand this. How can you not know that something is wonky and not going right? If you don't notice then it ain't a mistake. . .

No, the problem is when you've made a mistake, and it has an effect, but you can't trace from the effect back to the cause.

Simplistic example:
Mistake: your rate of magic item gain too high, and you give your PCs items they want.
Effect: encounters at CR level are too easy
Conclusion: CR levels are off (I read it at ENWorld!)
Solution: Higher level encounters
Effect: advancement too rapid, no time to enjoy levels
Conclusion: PCs too strong
Solution: optimized monsters
Effect: TPK

Multiple changes thruout the system, and never did figure out the cause.

PS

Storminator · Jan 9, 2009

el-remmen said:
Again, can't you fix it on the fly? What kind of serious math mistake would have to be made to make an entire encounter "go south"?

Save DCs of a 3.0 Red Wizard with a Quickened Haste?

PS

el-remmen · Jan 9, 2009

Storminator said:
No, the problem is when you've made a mistake, and it has an effect, but you can't trace from the effect back to the cause.

Simplistic example:
Mistake: your rate of magic item gain too high, and you give your PCs items they want.
Effect: encounters at CR level are too easy
Conclusion: CR levels are off (I read it at ENWorld!)
Solution: Higher level encounters
Effect: advancement too rapid, no time to enjoy levels
Conclusion: PCs too strong
Solution: optimized monsters
Effect: TPK

Multiple changes thruout the system, and never did figure out the cause.

PS

Right, and then the campaign eventually ends (as all must do) and when you sit down to plan out the next one you think, "Hmmm, well the way I handled advancement/magical item distribution/encounter design, whatever. . . last time seems like a mistake - I wonder what other ways there are to handle the issue?"

And then you either come up w/ something yourself, talk to your friends and/or fellow GMs, or come to ENworld or some other site and see what other people are doing. . . As long as fun is being had, its all good. . .

Stoat · Jan 9, 2009

el-remmen said:
Again, can't you fix it on the fly? What kind of serious math mistake would have to be made to make an entire encounter "go south"?

Well, I usually cooked up my monsters from the books rather than trying to wing 'em . . .

IME, things that make an encounter "go south" in 3.X include (a) Armor Class absurdly easy or absurdly difficult for PC's to hit, (b) DC's for special abilities are absurdly easy or absurdly difficult for PC's to hit, and (c) Saving throw bonuses make it absurdly easy or absurdly difficult for monsters to save against PC spells. You can't really fix these on the fly without the players noticing (Hey, why did Kent save on a 15? I rolled a 19, and I'm dead!) and I don't like the player's noticing when I fudge the game.

Now I played 3.X from the day it was released until the day 4E was released, and I enjoyed it and I'd still play it. I had plenty of 3.X encounters go south even though I built them using the guidelines in the books. The ones I could, I fixed on the fly. The ones I couldn't, I chalked up to lessons learned and moved on. I am not a hat3r.

Late in the edition, somebody pointed me to an article by Monte Cook about how to improvise in 3E. It was full of advice like, "Assume that a monster's Attack Bonus is equal to X% of the party's level +Y" and "Figure that a monter's AC is party level +Z." It was very helpful and showed the underlying assumptions of the game in a way that I hadn't seen them before. 4E put that advice in the DMG, and I'm happy about that.