Game vs. Story

[Campbell]

Yes, it is resolved. The DM says, "You missed." That's a resolved action. The player then retcons the action by applying a Hero Point and hits. How is that difficult to understand.

Once the DM has adjudicated the result of any action, that action is resolved. Anything which changes that adjudication AFTER THE FACT, is fudging in one form or other.

If we're talking about Action Points in D&D this point is moot. With Action Points, per Unearthed Arcana, you are allowed to add your d6 after you've rolled, but before you know the result of the die roll. So action points, according to your definition of fudging at least, are not fudging.

 

[Korak]

I'm playing a game, not telling a story.

I create what I hope is an interesting and challenging environment for the players to explore. They create characters and decide what motivates those characters; then they try to achieve whatever objectives they create for themselves, and I adjudicate what happens as impartially as possible. Story is the result, but I don't plan it; it's created interactively.

This is far and away my preferred style of RPG'ing. I am not currently involved in such a campaign, it is a fair bit closer to the storyline side of the spectrum, but I wanted to throw my 2 bits in for PapersAndPaychecks' notion. For me, that is the best formula for fun.

 

[Psion]

If the dice “say” that a PC dies in a random mook encounter before the big climax with the BBEG:

Story tellers will fudge to keep the PC alive till a more “appropriate” moment for the story plan. They are telling a story first, playing a game second.

I design the adventure so that lethalities only have a chance to occur in climactic encounters. I don't decide who dies, but I do design the session so when it might happen, it's appropriate to the pacing and feel of the "story".

So yeah, put me down with the mouse.

 

[Campbell]

I design the adventure so that lethalities only have a chance to occur in climactic encounters. I don't decide who dies, but I do design the session so when it might happen, it's appropriate to the pacing and feel of the "story".

So yeah, put me down with the mouse.

I wholly endorse this statement.

 

[DonTadow]

I myself just do away with the random encounter. That way, every time the pcs pick up the dice for combat, its just as important as the last and not just some random "wolf" fight.

 

[Glyfair]

I myself just do away with the random encounter. That way, every time the pcs pick up the dice for combat, its just as important as the last and not just some random "wolf" fight.

I do think, even in a heavy storytelling game, a "random wolf fight" has it's place. It gives a feel for an area. Are wolf encounters becoming more common? We must be moving away from civilization, or maybe the wolves are more daring because their hunting grounds are unproductive. I wonder what's up.

While out of fashion, I think the random encounter does have a very good role in a storytelling game. Sure, the random encounter can be tailored to the party. A first level party should probably have a stone giant encounter by seeing them from a distance, giving them a chance to avoid them or try to interact with them. An meat-eating dinosaur encounter might them finding a recent kill and trying to avoid it.

Personally, I prefer the style used in the classic Runequest products. A majority of the encounters had a specific example (often with a generic example). A hunting party encounter would have a specific hunting party with possible story hooks built in, and a generic variation.

 

[DonTadow]

I do think, even in a heavy storytelling game, a "random wolf fight" has it's place. It gives a feel for an area. Are wolf encounters becoming more common? We must be moving away from civilization, or maybe the wolves are more daring because their hunting grounds are unproductive. I wonder what's up.

While out of fashion, I think the random encounter does have a very good role in a storytelling game. Sure, the random encounter can be tailored to the party. A first level party should probably have a stone giant encounter by seeing them from a distance, giving them a chance to avoid them or try to interact with them. An meat-eating dinosaur encounter might them finding a recent kill and trying to avoid it.

Personally, I prefer the style used in the classic Runequest products. A majority of the encounters had a specific example (often with a generic example). A hunting party encounter would have a specific hunting party with possible story hooks built in, and a generic variation.

True, but you can tell the story of the area without wasting 35 minutes of the players time. If somethings in the area, its in the area. Survival checks (done well) will still thep cs clear of wolves in a forest, however, if they fail there is a set forest encounter that will happen. No wierd or crazy chart. It's the random that can be messy. Dying to npcs whom have no purpose, tactics or even relevance to the adventure can drain a player's moral.

This is not saynig that they encounter only story relevant encounters. Quite the contrary, they may or may not encounter logical encounters that have meaning

 

[Hussar]

If we're talking about Action Points in D&D this point is moot. With Action Points, per Unearthed Arcana, you are allowed to add your d6 after you've rolled, but before you know the result of the die roll. So action points, according to your definition of fudging at least, are not fudging.

Oh ballocks.

Y'know, through this whole bit, I missed that every bloody time.

Thanks Campbell.

Yes, Hero Points, as written in the Unearthed Arcana are no different than many other mechanics used in core.

sigh.

 

[Hussar]

True, but you can tell the story of the area without wasting 35 minutes of the players time. If somethings in the area, its in the area. Survival checks (done well) will still thep cs clear of wolves in a forest, however, if they fail there is a set forest encounter that will happen. No wierd or crazy chart. It's the random that can be messy. Dying to npcs whom have no purpose, tactics or even relevance to the adventure can drain a player's moral.

This is not saynig that they encounter only story relevant encounters. Quite the contrary, they may or may not encounter logical encounters that have meaning

Now, the problem with this that I have is the idea that an NPC can have no purpose. How should the players know who has purpose and who does not? Perhaps the only purpose of that NPC was to pop up and whack a PC. Random, arbirtrary death can be a major part of a campaign.

If nothing else, it does serve to add tension to the game. Is this a "story" NPC or not? If some are and some aren't, the players have to basically treat all of them as if they are. Meaning they should interact with all of them in some way.

I understand your point, that wonky tables can be very jarring. Some care has to be taken to make the table make sense in the context of the adventure as well as during the adventure. But, adding in random encounters can result in some very interesting twists that can surprise both the DM and the players. I love that. One of the best rp encounters I've had recently was with a random critter captured by the PC's.

The downside of that is, you need to be on your toes and be able to come up with the goods on the fly.

 

[hong]

Oh ballocks.

Y'know, through this whole bit, I missed that every bloody time.

Thanks Campbell.

Yes, Hero Points, as written in the Unearthed Arcana are no different than many other mechanics used in core.

sigh.

Hmm. I can hit a monster on a roll of 30 or better, because I've figured out the AC. I roll 29, the DM says "are you using an action point?" and I say yes. Therefore, using an action point = not fudging.

Contrariwise, I can hit a monster on a roll of 30 or better, because I've figured out the AC. I roll 29, the DM says "that's not enough, are you using an action point?" and I say yes. Therefore, using an action point = fudging.

On such minor points of detail do pedants thrive.