DM advice: How do you NOT kill your party?

[Tony Vargas]

It's not the same thing. A player isn't aware of illusionism (otherwise it would be "participationism" or whatever) in the same way I'm aware I signed up for being tricked by a magician.

Not in /exactly/ the same way, but the analogy is close. In both cases, you know that you're not seeing everything that's going on to create the experience. In the case of the DM, the screen is right there. In the case of the magician, you don't have access to the stage, and are viewing everything from angles he's chosen.
(I got the impression 'participationalism' is more like "sure, I'll watch the magic act, but we need to know how all the tricks work.")

Even the DMG suggests not letting players know you fudge. I think that's bad advice because it's encouraging acting in an untruthful manner.

I don't actually disagree. Most players seeing you roll behind the screen should realize you may or may not be rolling to see what number comes up on the die - or you'd be rolling it in the open. But actually shining them on would be analogous to the magician who tries to convince you he has real magical powers.

While that may be true in some cases, we can't know that was exactly the case for Mearls. If I remember his comments correctly.

His comments didn't make huge amounts of sense taken at face value, I admit, yet they rang true for many of us who'd had that sort of experience back in the day.

A significant Gygaxism of the classic game was that the DM should know the rules /better/ than his players, and that he should maintain that gap, even as the players gained 'skill.' Today, that'd probably be considered part of illusionism.

I wouldn't say skipping apprentice levels is fixing the system in the same way that house ruling mechanics is fixing the system.

Levels are part of the mechanics, not using some of them is the same as opting out of any other mechanic - if it makes the game better for your purposes, that's a 'fix.' A pretty easy one, in this case.

I would also say it doesn't solve the problem of "inglorious" or "ridiculous" deaths. It just mitigates it.

It'd reduce the frequency of such delivered by the system, so less fudging after the fact - and between the two, that'd be 'solved,' as the problem wouldn't have occurred.
I agree it doesn't help if your strategy is to avoid them by avoiding all chance of death, up-front...

...though, in a way, it's not that different, it's still dealing with the issue mainly by avoiding it.

::shrug::

As for smart play, unlike "illusionism," it isn't based on being untruthful about how you're going about things.

Illusionism isn't based on being untruthful, just on not providing complete information - not 'showing them the strings.'

I think concerns about continuity typically arise from basing the plot or storyline on the PCs, especially on their backstories. As characters drop out, holes in the story start to appear as things go unresolved.... I just think there are ways to structure the game to avoid that.

I don't disagree, but you will exclude a whole range of play opportunities (stories, character concepts, &c) in choosing not to tie PCs into the story, just as you loose a swath of 'em for doing so.

Neither's an innately bad choice, in itself, they just each present different challenges & opportunities.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The problem with this idea is that we are letting pieces of plastic always have the final say. I fudge rolls as GM because sometimes the dice roll stupidly. The D20 in DnD is way too swingy. The irony is that DnD players are the ones who often shout the loudest against "fudging," but DnD is actually the only game I GM where I need to do some tweaking, in order to avoid dumb deaths. To be honest, 5e is not as bad as earlier editions, because characters seem more survivable. Anyway, my players are not going to want to fall down a pit trap and die before the end of the first session, so yeah, I'll fudge to avoid this.

And no, Saelorn, in my many years GMing, I've never had anyone walk away in disgust from my table, or become disenchanted with the hobby because of my "corrupt" ways.

Letting the dice fall where they may is not the same as letting the dice control your game. As the DM, you are in control of when dice get rolled and you may modify the odds of the roll as circumstances permit. So informing a player that they succeed at doing something without needing to roll isn't cheating, nor is denying a roll when there is zero chance of success. For everything else, there are probabilities and the DM can adjust those probabilities as the referee to fit the situation. Once the probabilities are determined and the dice are rolled a fair DM will abide by the results. If not then all the consideration of the situation and the modification of probabilities was for naught. One may as well put away the dice and determine events as you see fit if you are going to do that anyway. The only difference is that the one sided nature of your story telling will be apparent to the players.

 

[Arilyn]

Letting the dice fall where they may is not the same as letting the dice control your game. As the DM, you are in control of when dice get rolled and you may modify the odds of the roll as circumstances permit. So informing a player that they succeed at doing something without needing to roll isn't cheating, nor is denying a roll when there is zero chance of success. For everything else, there are probabilities and the DM can adjust those probabilities as the referee to fit the situation. Once the probabilities are determined and the dice are rolled a fair DM will abide by the results. If not then all the consideration of the situation and the modification of probabilities was for naught. One may as well put away the dice and determine events as you see fit if you are going to do that anyway. The only difference is that the one sided nature of your story telling will be apparent to the players.

In almost every other rpg, except DnD. The D20 is swingy, and if players are in a losing streak, which is just getting silly, like my earlier Kobold example then I'll fudge a little. It has never been apparent to my players, because it's rare. If I decide after a long night of gaming, that the archer, who hasn't been able to hit the broad side of a barn all night, finally gets a solid shot on the monster at the end of an epic battle, but doesn't quite kill it, I might state the critter's going down. This wraps up the fight in a more satisfying way, and leaves the archer player leaving the table on a high note, which has been eluding him all night.

Looking at the history of DnD, the game has gone from players dropping like flies, to a ruleset which allows for much greater player survivability. It's much harder to die from random bad luck in 5e, for example, than ADnD. I've never fudged in 13th Age, because there are mechanics in place that act as a buffer, yet 13th Age is dangerous and can be very deadly. There won't be any silly deaths, however. Since this is the direction these games have been going, I can assume it's what most players want.

The idea that once the dice come out, we have to always abide by them isn't always the best route. It's assumed that players will survive most routine battles, yet they aren't just narrated. There was absolutely no advantage to letting my players fall to the kobolds. Nobody did anything wrong, but a TPK would have had us halting the game to create a brand new group, which may not have been as interesting. My players would have felt understandably frustrated, and for what? An unbreakable rule about dice that once rolled, must rule? No, I'd rather fudge.

 

[the Jester]

If you are planning a major combat, (such as a boss fight) one that has potential to be extremely lethal, what steps do you follow to keep the party alive?

None.

What tactics do you use to prevent a party wipe without the party knowing you helped them out a little.

None.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not an easy DM. I've killed a few PC's in my day, and I'm good with that if it happens here. But this is a boss fight. I want them to win. But I also want it to be dramatic. I want them to survive by the skin of their teeth.

How do you guys create that illusion if you sense things are going very very badly for the party?

I don't. I let the drama come from the fact that a TPK is possible and I won't intervene to prevent it.

 

[TheSword]

There are other beneficial reasons for rolling behind the screen, other than fudging dice.

- it means players can’t calculate that a monsters stats are to work out what it needed to hit or miss. Thereby approximating its stats.

- the players can’t count sneak dice or fireball dice to work out what a creatures max level is.

- rolls that are secret, for instance against passive perception are easier to disguise because you’re rolling all dice behind the board rather than just secret ones.

- it’s simply easier than the DM having to reach forward over the board to roll and then get the dice back. I have a wyrmwood board that is quite tall and takes the width of the table if I want to roll in view I have to stand up and lean forward.

Every one of my players has had an individual conversation with me about fudging and has said “if it makes the game better do it, we trust you.”

There are a few tricks I try and do...

- If I roll a crit on an attack then I lift the board without touching the dice and show them the twenty. (I would never fake a crit because there are easier ways to make an encounter harder)

- Some particularly tense rolls I stand up roll out in the open. Crucial ‘sleep’ saving throws when a boss is poised to succeed etc.

- I regularly roll dice for no good reason then flick through pages to double check things.

In my opinion our games have improved since all our DMs started doing it.

 

[Lillika]

I'm not sure if I'm the one who started the whole "illusion-ism" train of thought. But just a few things about how I do this. I do it more from system mastery, I really study dnd hard and know what players are capable of and what my monsters are. I roll all my dice in the open and don't fudge dice or numbers. I have come up with clever (or at least in my mind clever) ways to keep the story going when others might just call it a party wipe, for example I was running an adventure where the party triggered some runes that dropped everyone to 0 hitpoints. Luckily for me they had just befriended (ok more like bullied a goblin who I had given a name and personality too earlier in the sessions) so instead of having them reroll characters and start again I thought it would be way more flavorful that the goblin took advantage of the situation (he was nearby) and stabilized the pc and tied them up and then the players were able to find their way out of that situation and now one of them has an irrational hatred toward all goblins and especially that npc because of the memorable experience.

About the use of minions, yes you do need to be careful about numbers, but players like to kill things, and numbers can give the "illusion" of danger, when actually lower lvl monsters have a less variable amount of damage done and taken to kill them. The illusion is sometimes me knowing better than my players how really dangerous or not dangerous an encounter is, not from me changing any numbers or abilities (although I am not against this in principle).

Also I do like to run publish adventures as well has some made up things. I feel the published adventures keep me in line with what the expected difficulty is, I run some AL and home campaigns too and play about as much as I gm.

 

[Imaculata]

- it means players can’t calculate that a monsters stats are to work out what it needed to hit or miss. Thereby approximating its stats.

I have never understood why a monster's stats always need to be kept a secret.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The idea that once the dice come out, we have to always abide by them isn't always the best route. It's assumed that players will survive most routine battles, yet they aren't just narrated. There was absolutely no advantage to letting my players fall to the kobolds. Nobody did anything wrong, but a TPK would have had us halting the game to create a brand new group, which may not have been as interesting. My players would have felt understandably frustrated, and for what? An unbreakable rule about dice that once rolled, must rule? No, I'd rather fudge.

Abiding by the dice isn't required to have a good time by any means. Technically you can play games without them. It all depends on player expectations and what they want out of the experience. If the players are happy being the stars of their own drama series and don't care how that happens then everything is fine. If players are expecting a game that is theirs to either successfully conquer or to lose depending on a combination of their own decisions and the luck of the dice then they deserve to get that. Either way can produce a good time. Its the transparency and honesty that are important, not how the group agrees to play.

Concealing from the players what kind of game they are playing is the worst thing a GM can do. Some players might not care and for others it could completely spoil their fun. Everyone has the right to enjoy the game in whatever play style they wish but the group should be in agreement about what that actually means. Some players actually play because they like overcoming the challenges and fudging for them when the chips are down spoils their accomplishments and make victories meaningless. Do you think it is a good idea to fudge outcomes even if the majority of your players, if asked would say that they would hate that?

 

[Arilyn]

Abiding by the dice isn't required to have a good time by any means. Technically you can play games without them. It all depends on player expectations and what they want out of the experience. If the players are happy being the stars of their own drama series and don't care how that happens then everything is fine. If players are expecting a game that is theirs to either successfully conquer or to lose depending on a combination of their own decisions and the luck of the dice then they deserve to get that. Either way can produce a good time. Its the transparency and honesty that are important, not how the group agrees to play.

Concealing from the players what kind of game they are playing is the worst thing a GM can do. Some players might not care and for others it could completely spoil their fun. Everyone has the right to enjoy the game in whatever play style they wish but the group should be in agreement about what that actually means. Some players actually play because they like overcoming the challenges and fudging for them when the chips are down spoils their accomplishments and make victories meaningless. Do you think it is a good idea to fudge outcomes even if the majority of your players, if asked would say that they would hate that?

Of course. I never championed concealing what kind of game is run. If my players wanted all dice rolls to stand, I would absolutely do that. My table is heavily story oriented, however, and are content with the rare fudging that they don't know about at the time. I may not have made this clear enough in my earlier posts. My objection comes from players who claim nobody should "cheat", no matter what kind of game or players they have.

I was also just musing on how DnD has become less deadly, and noting that I fudge way less in 5e, and haven't yet in 13th Age. Fans must be happier with less character turnover. What is your feeling on this change? Do you prefer the more random deadly nature of earlier versions, or are you content with characters having a buffer against the deadly surprises? DnD has always claimed Swords and Sorcery as inspiration, but these days players have a little more leeway to behave like Conan. Does this make the game better, in your opinion? This is just me wondering, not trying to bolster any earlier arguments.

 

[iserith]

I was also just musing on how DnD has become less deadly, and noting that I fudge way less in 5e, and haven't yet in 13th Age. Fans must be happier with less character turnover. What is your feeling on this change?

I see it as an attempt at a solution to iteration time more than anything, that is, the time it takes a player with a dead character to get back into the primary mode of participation with the game. It takes a while to make a character, compared to earlier versions of the game. Which means that without setting up backup characters (as we do in my games), players can end up sitting out of the game if a character dies for some amount of time. Sturdier characters mitigates this issue.

Do you prefer the more random deadly nature of earlier versions, or are you content with characters having a buffer against the deadly surprises? DnD has always claimed Swords and Sorcery as inspiration, but these days players have a little more leeway to behave like Conan. Does this make the game better, in your opinion? This is just me wondering, not trying to bolster any earlier arguments.

I don't prefer the "random nature of earlier versions" because a lot of that was, in my experience, based on gotchas where the player had no real input into changing that particular outcome. But that was more the way that DMs ran the game than the game itself. Which is why my comments on fudging and other issues is a criticism of DM technique rather than the system itself.

I would have no issue with a game where character death was taken off the table. Just don't fudge to achieve that.