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

[Lord Xtheth]

Creatures in my games ALWAYS got make-overs. every single one of them. Be it as little as changing the weapons, to swapping out feats. I did what needed to be done in order to make my games fun. I did this when I was very familiar with 3.5

Now that 4E is out and new I hesitate to fudge numbers. It isn't quite as easy as "Ability X + an additional X HPs makes for a +1 CR" which I found extremely easy to cope with. Now there is actual math involved. How do I know that 100 HPs is worth 50 more XPs? what if +2 to AC will unbalance the combat and lead to a full team wipe?

I actually think it's HARDER to fudge numbers in 4E, but that may change as I get familiar with the game.

 

[Ulrick]

I haven't done much fudging with numbers in 4e...yet.

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.

 

[Filcher]

Re: Fudging

No worries. I did fudge in 3.5, ALL the time. To a point, my monsters died when it was most "dramatic," and whooped arse when they needed to, but never so much so that the players caught on. I basically cheated non-stop.

But it wasn't true to the spirit of the game. A good 3.5 game can account for every skill point, grapple bonus and save. I know this because I have friends that can pull it off. They have spreadsheets accounting for all this minutia that doesn't, IMHO, contribute materially to the game.

My players never knew the difference, but I did.

My players had a great time playing our 5+ year 3.5 campaign, but I've always known that I'm a 5h!tty 3.5 DM. Doesn't matter how much fun they have, my math is complete bull5h!t.

Now, I still cheat. But it is in the spirit of the system. I can't explain it any better, but I feel less guilty fudging monsters in 4E.

 

[Desdichado]

I fudge in 3.5 all the time, I never feel guilty about it, and I have no idea what this "spirit of the game" is of which you speak. And the idea that my game sessions are subject to PC audit? Huh?



In fact, that's one of the things I love best about 3.5: the system is a robust enough collection of tools that I can fudge as much or as little as I want to, and nobody can ever really know if I'm good at it.

 

[Filcher]

I fudge in 3.5 all the time, I never feel guilty about it, and I have no idea what this "spirit of the game" is of which you speak. And the idea that my game sessions are subject to PC audit? Huh?



In fact, that's one of the things I love best about 3.5: the system is a robust enough collection of tools that I can fudge as much or as little as I want to, and nobody can ever really know if I'm good at it.

Sounds to me like you're playing 4E.

*loves on Hobo*

Seriously, though, your robust was my obscure. But I'm glad it works for you.

 

[Desdichado]

Actually, right now I'm playing Call of Cthulhu.

But seriously; I really don't get this "implied authorial intent" as being a significant difference between the two editions. For one thing, I don't see the implications in 3e that players can audit NPCs and monsters or anything like that, and for another, I don't really care what the authorial intent is anyway, even if I could see it.

If a given rule is too obscure or arcane to be of use to me, I promptly forgot that it existed and never looked back twice. Not that that happened very often.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually, right now I'm playing Call of Cthulhu.

But seriously; I really don't get this "implied authorial intent" as being a significant difference between the two editions. For one thing, I don't see the implications in 3e that players can audit NPCs and monsters or anything like that, and for another, I don't really care what the authorial intent is anyway, even if I could see it.

Fine. I do. It's stupid, but well, people say the game is dumbed down, and maybe it's true. It's so dumb that even a stupid guy like me can fudge things.

But, on a more serious note:
I care about game balance. But I have little idea on how it is supposed to be achieved in 3E. The formulas that exist are complex, and there are certain "random" factors that the rules don't come out to explain. Of course, the truth is that all this is male cow excrement. Sure, there are formulas, but they do they really get you "balanced" monsters that guarantee certain CRs or anything? Absolutely not. But it took me quite some while to figure this out and convince myself of that. So long that I already switched to running Iron Heroes and used Villain Classes for my NPCs and even monsters! Basically, my monster design already arrived in 4E-land. But of course, the villain classes were also more "eyeballed" by Mike then, because they were reverse engineered and it was an imperfect solution.

Well, 4E does give me a very simple formula that works and says "the rest is up to you, but you can't really screw up much now".

 

[Ginnel]

Hmm in 3.5 my monster designing went hmmm what do I want some sort of githyanki sorceress big bad gal who is a magic and fighting fancy pants.

Did I make up a sorceror fighter combo?

Heck no I went hmm 250 hit points so she can survive for a bit, looked at a few spells hmm I want a kind of fireball but smaller ooh and chain lighting but lets give it that many damage instead and ooh how about a whirlwind attack with her silvered great sword for an attack on everyone around her.

then I looked at a dragons saves for a reasonable challenge and looked at the partys to hit bonus to see how much AC she should have.

did she have skills, feats and a full spell list no, did she create a reasonably interesting and challenging fight with her two minions yup

 

[FireLance]

For me it's probably psychological. I have a somewhat lawful streak, so when playing 3e, I will want to stat out the monsters down to the last feat and skill point, even if it never makes any difference in the game and the players never find out.

It's kind of like how I will wait at a pedestrian crossing until it signals me to walk, even if I'm on a deserted street late at night and no cars are around.

Would it be more convenient for me to just cross? Certainly.
Am I going to put myself or other road users in any danger? Most likely not.
So why don't I just cross? Because the habit of obeying the rules is too deeply ingrained in me.

So a ruleset that pretty much gives me permission to fudge is quite liberating for me. But that's just me.

 

[Ginnel]

It's kind of like how I will wait at a pedestrian crossing until it signals me to walk, even if I'm on a deserted street late at night and no cars are around.

Would it be more convenient for me to just cross? Certainly.
Am I going to put myself or other road users in any danger? Most likely not.
So why don't I just cross? Because the habit of obeying the rules is too deeply ingrained in me.

That would explain it even more I cross wherever and whenever I wish as long as I think its safe, this includes at crossings when the green man isn't up yet but the red light is for the cars.