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

[GlassJaw]

Forked from: Why do you keep playing 4e?

• Fudging monsters without having to fear the ton of math that had to go into good monsters ("Your fiendish minotaur barbarian/rogue is short a skill point!" Huh?)

I found this post very interesting because the first thing that struck me what stops you from doing this in 3ed?

Where is it written that you can't fudge "the math" in 3ed? Is the concept of fudging the math some kind of new revelation in 4ed? I understand that one of the core concepts in 3ed is that building monsters and NPC's follow the same rules as the PC's. But that creates a ton of work for the DM and at the end of the day, it isn't necessary at all.

For example, if you want to create a hill giant shaman, why can't you just max out his Concentration, give him a couple of spells that he can use at will (yes, I said "at will"), and leave the rest of "the math" exactly as it appears in the PHB?

The number of rounds that shaman will actually "exist" in the campaign can be measured in rounds. Therefore, the number of abilities, spells, or attacks, that he can actually bring to bear against the PC's in his lifetime is very small. How long does the average battle last? 4-7 rounds maybe? Then why is it necessary to figure out his entire spell list or how many ranks in Craft (basket weaving) he has?

It seems that many people view this concept as unique to 4ed. I just don't understand why.

(This post is derivative from a conversation I had with Wulf so I want to give him some credit as well).

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I can't speak overall, but I would say for myself it is because the math is more simple and more open to me, at least in how it is written (I am sure for some the opposite will be true). As such it is less the amount of powers, abilities, etc. that is the issue it is that making up a new ability holds a greater risk in 3e of being not proper for the encounter then in 4e.

 

[Dragon Snack]

I fudged the math on monsters/BBEGs all the time. I made up a cheat sheet for a few things and ran off of it if it was needed.

My players only picked up on it once (at least they only complained about it once) and I had 3 players who had been DMs. And my combats usually lasted for far more than 4-7 rounds...

There were enough feats available that I rarely had to make up an ability and sometimes I just ignored feats and abilities if it wasn't going to add to the encounter.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Where is it written that you can't fudge "the math" in 3ed? Is the concept of fudging the math some kind of new revelation in 4ed?

Reading the phrase you quoted, he's not saying math-fudging is unique to 4e. He's saying that it's a lot easier for him to fudge the math in 4e than it was in 3e.

For my part, I agree with him. Sure, in 3e you could just go ahead and give a fey monster craploads of hitpoints (just throwing out an example here, I never bothered to really master the 3e monster creation rules). But most people wouldn't do that, for fear that that there is some balancing mechanism behind it all. And that's fair to assume - the game designers are the professionals, and presumably they know their stuff. EDIT - I don't know if Filcher is concerned about balance or not, but it's why I think some DMs hesitate to fudge the math in 3e).

IMO it also feels like the DM stepping in, fudging the numbers to make a better story is much more strongly embraced by 4e. It's just the DIY feeling I vibe from the 4e DMG, MM, and PHB, which I never really got it from the 3e core books.

 

[BryonD]

Reading the phrase you quoted, he's not saying math-fudging is unique to 4e. He's saying that it's a lot easier for him to fudge the math in 4e than it was in 3e.

"A lot easier" is a key phrase for a large number of 4E issues.
Clearly it is a big winner on that front.

Glassjaw, you have to keep that in mind. (there are certainly exceptions, but...) The primary target audience of 4E is people who found the effort of fudging the 3E math, or numerous other tasks, insufficiently easy to do and still have fun doing it.

Honestly, I believe a lot of people who (with total honesty) state that their 4E experience provides everything that 3E provided are coming from this general area. It doesn't mean that 4E provides everything that 3E *could* provide, only that it provides everything that THEY were getting from 3E, with less baggage around. If you don't use the baggage and don't gain the value of the contents. If you liked the contents of the bags, then 4E is inadequate. If the bags were just clutter you kept tripping over then 4E offers everything you had, NOW WITH LESS TRIPPING!!! They weren't using the contents of the bags before, so no loss at all in not having them now.

A total difference in perspective and one key source of the whole "yes it is" "no it isn't" back and forth.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

You can arguably boil down an RPG's attitude toward an activity into four categories:

• Supported by the rules as written. The activity is actively part of the system and enabled (perhaps badly, depending on the system) by it. Practical and psychological support is provided.
• Encouraged by the designers. The activity is in the hands of the GM or players, but the designers think it's for the best. Psychological support is provided.
• Not mentioned by the designers. The activity either falls outside the purview of the game, didn't occur to the designers, or was omitted as a matter of taste. No support is provided.
• Discouraged by the designers. The activity goes against what the designers felt the game should be used, as expressed in the rules. Support is actively withdraw.

("Forbidden by the designers" is the same as discouraged; the game police ain't exactly raiding your house if you go against authorial intent, hm?)

3e discourages fudging monster numbers. It's explicitly a departure from this practice, which was the norm in BECMI and AD&D. Monster hit dice are like levels in a character class (although not, for reasons that will forever remain unimaginable to me, EQUAL to levels a character class. Man, what?) and monsters advance in much the same way as PCs. NPCs with class levels advance EXACTLY like PCs.

4e supports by the RAW what would be "fudging" the monster numbers in 3e. It provides "classes" for the monsters (the roles), and those ARE equal on a level by level basis to characters, and they can be done either by hand or by a spreadsheet in SECONDS. And - boom - you're done with everything but powers. Right there. The monster powers are also a formalized version of what would be "fudging" in 3e: the table says damage should be "about this much" and you add an effect or two for spice.

This has both a practical effect (you can "fudge" WITHIN the rules and expect to keep things about how the designers intended it) and a psychological one (you are being encouraged by the designers).

(Also, 4e's numbers are a lot simpler/more intuitive, so fudging sans table is also made easier.)

Obviously, it is possible to fudge 3e creature and NPC creation. Arguably it's desirable - Spycraft, for example, hit upon this providing both better prep and better gameplay YEARS before 4e did. It's actually even possible to back-convert 4e's monster design system for this purpose.

It is not supported, however, and is discouraged. The editions stand on opposite sides where this issue is concerned.

 

[Betote]

I use to "semi-fudge" NPCs and monsters a lot. That's it, I figure out what the numbers should be on the fly and, if the critter survives for more than one session, I stat it up by the rules, but keeping the numbers I made out previously.

As a rule of thumb, the bonus "to something" of a critter is more or less its level +/- 5, its hit points are more or less its hit dice x (from 5 to 15, depending on role), he has 2-3 usable feats and maybe 3-4 usable spells.

The problem with 3.x is that I came up with those numbers through months of running games. It would be a lot better if it was stated or, at least, implied on the pages of the DMG. Mutants & Masterminds and the Pathfinder Beta both do a way better job at this.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Where is it written that you can't fudge "the math" in 3ed? Is the concept of fudging the math some kind of new revelation in 4ed? I understand that one of the core concepts in 3ed is that building monsters and NPC's follow the same rules as the PC's. But that creates a ton of work for the DM and at the end of the day, it isn't necessary at all.

Bingo. That's exactly the point.

Say someone teaches you a new game. Let's call it Baseball. And they say that the point of the game is that you hit a ball and then run around the bases, etc, etc.

And you say: "Isn't that kind of restrictive? Why can't I run anywhere I want? Why does it have to be around these bases? I have a much better chance to avoid being touched with the ball if I could move freely. And isn't it too easy to get out if all they have to do is tag me with the ball? Oh, well, the game is fun the way it is.

Then someone introduces you to another game called Football. They say that it's like Baseball, but you instead run anywhere you want down a field and they need to tackle you to the ground to stop you. You think, "That's great! I love this game much better than Baseball."

And someone asks you, "Why couldn't you just run wherever you want in Baseball?"

That's pretty much what you're asking. Why couldn't you do it? Because the rules of the game said you couldn't. Or rather, they said "You must run around the bases".

 

[Woas]

Heck yea. Sometimes, while DMing a game a player physically getting up from the table, going to the fridge and grabbing me a cold beer would do more damage to the BBEG than a succesful Power Attack from a Raging Barbarian with Bull Strength an a +3 Great Axe could in one round.

I fudged those numbers up like it was my job!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Bingo. That's exactly the point.

Say someone teaches you a new game. Let's call it Baseball. And they say that the point of the game is that you hit a ball and then run around the bases, etc, etc.

And you say: "Isn't that kind of restrictive? Why can't I run anywhere I want? Why does it have to be around these bases? I have a much better chance to avoid being touched with the ball if I could move freely. And isn't it too easy to get out if all they have to do is tag me with the ball? Oh, well, the game is fun the way it is.

Then someone introduces you to another game called Football. They say that it's like Baseball, but you instead run anywhere you want down a field and they need to tackle you to the ground to stop you. You think, "That's great! I love this game much better than Baseball."

And someone asks you, "Why couldn't you just run wherever you want in Baseball?"

That's pretty much what you're asking. Why couldn't you do it? Because the rules of the game said you couldn't. Or rather, they said "You must run around the bases".

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!!!