Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Fudging for fun and profit.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="aboyd" data-source="post: 5111290" data-attributes="member: 44797"><p>Same. I've had DMs that feel <em>very</em> cheaty -- a player takes a trip build and suddenly every enemy has 4 legs, or a player creates a pyromaniac and suddenly every enemy has fire resistance, etc. Back in my Seattle days, I had a DM that would throw down 20 enemies onto the battle mat and then just pull a bunch right off the mat mid-battle if it was too much for the PCs.</p><p></p><p>No matter what we did -- smart or stupid, planning or spontaneous -- every fight would be very hard but not hard enough to kill us. At a certain point you realize that it doesn't matter what you do; these fights are destined for a specific outcome. So, no need to invest time or energy into a plan that might make things go better. In fact, after a while you start to realize that you might even be *protected* from death, so you act stupid just to crash up against the railroad and see how forced it will be.</p><p></p><p>I myself have never done that as a DM. I run a sandbox and let the dice fall where they may, <em>almost</em> always. In fact, my players would suggest that I am probably too impartial, as I've allowed them to be TPK'd repeatedly. However, they would be TPK'd probably a little more if it wasn't for the little fudging I <em>have</em> done.</p><p></p><p>I had to create a golem to guard a treasure. I couldn't predict if the players were going to storm the ruined keep or if they would send the rogue in to scout -- so I needed a creature that would be a match for all of them, but not so tough that it would insta-kill the rogue if he encountered it solo. I also needed the golem to have the see-invisibility property, which a lot of the weaker ones don't have, and a lot of the tougher ones were too tough. I finally found one that was <em>almost</em> perfect, in the Tome of Horrors. However, I calculated that <em>if</em> the golem were to hit for max-damage, it would put the rogue at -1, at which point the rogue would be beaten to death. <em>Anything</em> other than max damage was fine. So I resolved right then & there that since the golem was otherwise perfect for my game, if I managed to roll max damage, I was re-rolling. Any outcome was fine except one -- I did not feel that certain death with not even a chance to react was "fun" for the players. If the golem hit hard and the rogue lived but was dumb enough to try to solo it anyway, then by all means let's kill the rogue. But killing him out of the blue simply because the monster wasn't a perfect match for all the constraints I had? Nah.</p><p></p><p>Of course, just as fate would have it, the rogue scouted ahead invisibly, the golem saw him, and walloped him for max damage -- 4 or 5 d6s, with a 6 rolled for every one. Damn it. So I secretly re-rolled and the game went on.</p><p></p><p>I could have picked a different gaming system that wouldn't have required a re-roll, if I were willing to spend weeks or months investigating such a solution. I could have made a custom monster if I were willing to invest time in that, too. I could have simply said beforehand that the monster would do a set 10 points of damage because that's what I wanted to dictate and then proceeded to railroad the hell out of the game because I'd become some power-tripping evil DM. However, the solution I used took 5 seconds and still left my game with a huge realm of possible outcomes. I was happy, and to this day the players still talk about that insane golem fight, so it appears I provided a good time to them, too.</p><p></p><p>That is the "mental place" that I hope the DMs I play with can find. I want a DM that leaves things alone, and lets the outcome be the outcome... with rare exceptions for miserably lame crap. Tinker too much and I can see it, which sucks. Tinker not at all and the statistics (at least for D&D) will eventually dictate that something ridiculous, stupid, and annoying happens. In such (hopefully extremely infrequent) cases, I'd rather a secret change than simply discarding or overhauling the entire system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="aboyd, post: 5111290, member: 44797"] Same. I've had DMs that feel [i]very[/i] cheaty -- a player takes a trip build and suddenly every enemy has 4 legs, or a player creates a pyromaniac and suddenly every enemy has fire resistance, etc. Back in my Seattle days, I had a DM that would throw down 20 enemies onto the battle mat and then just pull a bunch right off the mat mid-battle if it was too much for the PCs. No matter what we did -- smart or stupid, planning or spontaneous -- every fight would be very hard but not hard enough to kill us. At a certain point you realize that it doesn't matter what you do; these fights are destined for a specific outcome. So, no need to invest time or energy into a plan that might make things go better. In fact, after a while you start to realize that you might even be *protected* from death, so you act stupid just to crash up against the railroad and see how forced it will be. I myself have never done that as a DM. I run a sandbox and let the dice fall where they may, [i]almost[/i] always. In fact, my players would suggest that I am probably too impartial, as I've allowed them to be TPK'd repeatedly. However, they would be TPK'd probably a little more if it wasn't for the little fudging I [i]have[/i] done. I had to create a golem to guard a treasure. I couldn't predict if the players were going to storm the ruined keep or if they would send the rogue in to scout -- so I needed a creature that would be a match for all of them, but not so tough that it would insta-kill the rogue if he encountered it solo. I also needed the golem to have the see-invisibility property, which a lot of the weaker ones don't have, and a lot of the tougher ones were too tough. I finally found one that was [i]almost[/i] perfect, in the Tome of Horrors. However, I calculated that [i]if[/i] the golem were to hit for max-damage, it would put the rogue at -1, at which point the rogue would be beaten to death. [i]Anything[/i] other than max damage was fine. So I resolved right then & there that since the golem was otherwise perfect for my game, if I managed to roll max damage, I was re-rolling. Any outcome was fine except one -- I did not feel that certain death with not even a chance to react was "fun" for the players. If the golem hit hard and the rogue lived but was dumb enough to try to solo it anyway, then by all means let's kill the rogue. But killing him out of the blue simply because the monster wasn't a perfect match for all the constraints I had? Nah. Of course, just as fate would have it, the rogue scouted ahead invisibly, the golem saw him, and walloped him for max damage -- 4 or 5 d6s, with a 6 rolled for every one. Damn it. So I secretly re-rolled and the game went on. I could have picked a different gaming system that wouldn't have required a re-roll, if I were willing to spend weeks or months investigating such a solution. I could have made a custom monster if I were willing to invest time in that, too. I could have simply said beforehand that the monster would do a set 10 points of damage because that's what I wanted to dictate and then proceeded to railroad the hell out of the game because I'd become some power-tripping evil DM. However, the solution I used took 5 seconds and still left my game with a huge realm of possible outcomes. I was happy, and to this day the players still talk about that insane golem fight, so it appears I provided a good time to them, too. That is the "mental place" that I hope the DMs I play with can find. I want a DM that leaves things alone, and lets the outcome be the outcome... with rare exceptions for miserably lame crap. Tinker too much and I can see it, which sucks. Tinker not at all and the statistics (at least for D&D) will eventually dictate that something ridiculous, stupid, and annoying happens. In such (hopefully extremely infrequent) cases, I'd rather a secret change than simply discarding or overhauling the entire system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Fudging for fun and profit.
Top