Keeping a Group Together

[SirAntoine]

Hmm ... let me try to explain. Fudging some die rolls to ensure that the game continues and that everyone at the table is having fun is, in my experience and opinion, a good thing! Fudging the die rolls so that the baddies always hit, make their saves, crit or generally make it feel like the DM is being vindictive is a bad thing. Does that help?

You should always have confidence in yourself as a DM, to fudge anything, for whatever reason. Just so long as you are still fair to all of the players, and trying to run the game. It's a question of whether you think the game would benefit, and just that.

 

[pemerton]

You should always have confidence in yourself as a DM, to fudge anything, for whatever reason. Just so long as you are still fair to all of the players, and trying to run the game. It's a question of whether you think the game would benefit, and just that.

Why do the players not enjoy the same privilege?

 

[SirAntoine]

The players could do as much as the DM permits them to.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

Why do the players not enjoy the same privilege?

Because the players aren't the ones running the game.

 

[Razjah]

I don't like fudging, I think it takes something away from the game. If a GM fudges hit points, target numbers, modifiers, or other things- it takes away the player's agency. FATE's aspects and fate points allow players to modify their roles, if a GM lowers the number after a player spent the fate point- it negates that player's choice. Now the player spent a resource to exert narrative control for nothing.

I think fudging is cheating. It may be sugar coated so we feel better, but it is cheating. I think adding HP to a monster mid-fight is cheating. As a GM it is easy to say "I wanted this to be a challenging fight" when PCs are rolling over their enemies. But, we don't engage in even fights! People use weapons, numbers, tactics, and anything we can to not have a fair fight. Fair fights mean your side is equally likely to lose or get hurt. Even chimpanzees don't attack another troupe of chimps without 3:1 numbers.

Think of this from a player's perspective: the players utilized strategy and excellent combat preparation to improve their chances of a success; by adding HP to the monster not only are you negating their efforts- you are denying them the ability to feel successful. Most players know the approximate average combat rounds for games. If a game has an average encounter last 5 rounds the PCs wreck their enemy in 2, that is amazing! Adding hp to extend the fight is not only cheating, it is deny the players (your friends most likely) a moment of triumph and glory. For what? You know that you added hp so you don't feel like you gave them a good fight.

 

[pemerton]

I don't like fudging, I think it takes something away from the game.

<snip>

Think of this from a player's perspective: the players utilized strategy and excellent combat preparation to improve their chances of a success; by adding HP to the monster not only are you negating their efforts- you are denying them the ability to feel successful. Most players know the approximate average combat rounds for games. If a game has an average encounter last 5 rounds the PCs wreck their enemy in 2, that is amazing! Adding hp to extend the fight is not only cheating, it is deny the players (your friends most likely) a moment of triumph and glory. For what? You know that you added hp so you don't feel like you gave them a good fight.

What's your view about adding new elements into a fight?

In Marvel Heroic RP, this costs dice from the Doom Pool - so the GM has to pay to add enemies.

In my 4e game, I sometimes plan waves of enemies in advance, and sometimes add them in as seems fun and sporting. This doesn't cost me any GM-side resource, but because of the XP and milestone rules for that system, there is at least a rough mechanical recognition of the greater challenge that the players (and their PCs) faced.

Because adding enemies is a transparent GM manoeuvre (and, in my case, an opportunity to poke or gently mock my players) I think it' fair game, at least in systems like 4e where the players have a great depth of resources and flexibility to respond to a GM-delivered twist.

But I can understand that others would see it differently. And there are systems where I don't think it would work, because the players don't have depth and flexibility of resources (eg low level Rolemaster, RuneQuest, non-spell user classic D&D).

 

[Lanefan]

This is not a statement of necessary truth. It's an expression of a playstyle preference, and I would say a fairly narrow one at that.

For instance, if I'm GMing a classic D&D module, and the treasure key says that there is a magic sword in the chest, and a player whose PC is standing next to the chest casts Detect Magic, then the player absolutely has a right to the information that the spell registers the presence of magic in the chest.

That's the whole point of those detection spells and abilities that are so common in classic D&D - that when players use them in relevant circumstances, the GM is obliged to hand over GM information, in the form of true answers about what is written in the dungeon key.

OK then, let's amend it to say no player has the right to any DM information until and unless the run of play allows for (or forces) its release; your example clearly illustrates such a case.

But no player has the right to know ahead of time how many h.p. a monster has, or that there's a trap in room 17 when they're only in room 9, or that the next NPC they'll meet is a spy working for Vlad the Cruel; though of course these things may be learned during the ongoing run of play.

This is a different process from fudging dice rolls - it is changing the fiction, as opposed to interfering in the mechanics of action resolution.

From the perspective of both players and characters it doesn't in fact change anything: you didn't know the monster was written to have 145 h.p. before the fight began and you'll never know I shaved 30 of them off once I saw things were going sideways. In other words, while you might end up knowing it took about 115 points of damage to kill it you'll have no way of knowing how that number was arrived at...unless I for some reason tell you. The same is true in reverse: if the module says 115 h.p. but the battle's supposed to offer a challenge I might toss on a few more h.p.; though never enough to kill a PC or turn a win into a loss.

On a more general note, I've found if things are really going badly for the PCs I can do one of two things: nothing, and let them possibly get TPKed; or throw in a divine intervention of some sort. Yes it's hamfisted, but if I can later work it into the story somehow I'm cool with it and (usually) so are my players.

Lan-"I'll say it again: there is nothing in the universe more resilient than a party of adventurers"-efan

 

[Razjah]

What's your view about adding new elements into a fight?

<snip>

Because adding enemies is a transparent GM manoeuvre (and, in my case, an opportunity to poke or gently mock my players) I think it' fair game, at least in systems like 4e where the players have a great depth of resources and flexibility to respond to a GM-delivered twist.

But I can understand that others would see it differently. And there are systems where I don't think it would work, because the players don't have depth and flexibility of resources (eg low level Rolemaster, RuneQuest, non-spell user classic D&D).

In a game with a transparent mechanic, it is part of the game. Marvel's doom pool for instance is a known quality and the GM must use a resource to accomplish this. In FATE a GM almost always need to compel a PC which gives the player a fate point to use later. These mechanics allow some level of GM fiat while minimizing the abuse as players are still able to exercise narrative control.

Throwing more monsters into a fight... can be either a sound tactic (enemies attack in waves, called for help, etc) or the GM purposefully trying to drain PC resources (requires additional spells, HP, or other resources). 4e minimizes the impact of this through the fast recovery that the system allows. But if enemies simply come in with no narrative reason why, I think this is cheating. In many systems (D&D is a great example) it is massively improbable to withdraw from combat- enemies can chase down the PCs and continue the fight or the PCs chase down an enemy and resume the fight. This means throwing in hidden reserves changes the players understanding of the risk involved. Again, with narrative explanation- it is a tactic. Without narrative explanation, I would find it cheating and belaboring a fight.

As an aside how many people complain of how long fights take in 3.5/PFRPG/4e? Adding more monsters may drive the PCs off, but is more likely to chew up another 30 minutes of the session with the same end result- PC victory. I would rather make the battles more interesting using something like glowing crystals jutting from the floor at random in a large chamber while the enemies have small medallions that glow when they are within 10 feet of crystal. The crystals provide healing- destroying, neutralizing, or avoiding the crystals become a part of the fight. It isn't just fudging more HP to monsters, it was apparent from the first blow to an enemy close to a crystal that it recovered partially from the exchange. The PCs can quickly figure this out (rolls would be called for when it happens if the players don't pick it up off the description) and change their strategy to combat this. Randomly determining a fight should last longer because the GM says so is cheating from my view.

 

[pemerton]

if enemies simply come in with no narrative reason why, I think this is cheating. In many systems (D&D is a great example) it is massively improbable to withdraw from combat- enemies can chase down the PCs and continue the fight or the PCs chase down an enemy and resume the fight. This means throwing in hidden reserves changes the players understanding of the risk involved. Again, with narrative explanation- it is a tactic. Without narrative explanation, I would find it cheating and belaboring a fight.

Thanks for the reply.

My players tend to manage their resources in combat on the assumption that something may turn up, because they know that that's the sort of GM that I am. (For the same sort of reason - namely, my known preference for undead as enemies - they favour radiant powers.)

The last time I threw in a new monster purely on a whim (at least that I can recall) was this:

I didn't use four beholders, only 2 - an eye tyrant (MV version) and an eye of flame advanced to 17th level and MM3-ed for damage. And also a 15th level roper from MV, introduced on a whim when the player of the wizard asked, before taking cover behind a column, if it looked suspicious. (Response to result of 28 on the Perception check before adding the +2 bonus for knowing what he is looking for - "Yes, yes it does!")

I don't think I would do this if I was GMing for strangers - but in this case it just elicited a wry groan or two and then additional tactical planning for how to deal with the newly-discovered enemy.

 

[pemerton]

I've found if things are really going badly for the PCs I can do one of two things: nothing, and let them possibly get TPKed; or throw in a divine intervention of some sort. Yes it's hamfisted, but if I can later work it into the story somehow I'm cool with it and (usually) so are my players.

I've got nothing against a divine invervention: it's transparent, and the players can see exactly what the GM has done, in terms of manipulating the fiction.

OK then, let's amend it to say no player has the right to any DM information until and unless the run of play allows for (or forces) its release; your example clearly illustrates such a case.

But no player has the right to know ahead of time how many h.p. a monster has, or that there's a trap in room 17 when they're only in room 9, or that the next NPC they'll meet is a spy working for Vlad the Cruel; though of course these things may be learned during the ongoing run of play.

I think this way of putting it tends to obscure what is going on. You are looking at it from the ingame perspective (ie the causal process whereby the PCs come to acquire some information). But discussions about fudging are essentially discussions about mechanics, metagame and play techniques.

If we say that the players are never entitled to gameworld information unless their PCs are appropriately situated in the fiction, that tells us nothing about what actually happens at the table, because it doesn't tell us who has control over the fiction. I think that some posters on this and other fudging threads take the view that the GM always has control over that.

Whereas my point was that there are styles of play - of which Gygaxian "skilled play" is one - in which there are rules of the game that oblige the GM, and entitle the players to information, and the GM would be cheating to unilaterally change the fiction so as to block that (eg if the GM unilaterally and post hoc decides that the chest is lead, and hence Detect Magic doesn't work, that is cheating).