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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Keeping a Group Together
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6585621" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Why bother having a thread if you're going to fiat declare that the problematic element isn't actually a problem? If it's not "cheating" to rewrite the world however you like, whenever you like, with no limitations, and concealing this from your players <em>while knowing that it would upset them if they knew you were doing it</em>, what even is there to discuss? You've fiat declared that everything is fine.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, I think we need to clear up some definitions here.</p><p></p><p>How is it possible to be "fair," while also rewriting the world at any point where you feel like doing so? If you rewrite in a way that makes the players' goals harder, you are being unfair because you are setting the bar higher <em>because they're succeeding.</em> If you rewrite in a way that makes the players' goals easier, you are being unfair because you are denying them the ability to actually achieve their goals under their own merits.</p><p></p><p>Either way, you are purposefully making their success <em>your</em> responsibility, not theirs. You are denying them agency and self-determination; whether they succeed or fail depends in whole or in part on whether you <em>decided</em> they should succeed (you chose to reduce the challenge, or chose not to increase it further) or fail (you chose to increase the challenge, or chose to not reduce it further).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If you don't want PCs to die, <em>don't kill them.</em> State that ransom is far more common in this universe, or that there is a thriving slave market, or some other reason why sentient enemies would not automatically kill all prisoners. Or, treat 0 HP (or even "dead") as merely "knocked out" or "grievously wounded" (presumably some kind of lingering penalty) as long as at least one member of the group survives to pull the rest out. So (a) is solved, without needing to do something you <em>know</em> would upset your players if they knew it was happening.</p><p></p><p>(b) and (c), as Pemerton noted, are both trivially solved. (b) is solved by applying morale rules, having enemy units flee or surrender, or even just making some units fight poorly (perhaps because they are too scared and/or poorly trained to fight well). (c) is solved by fielding additional units. Reinforcements, wandering monsters or beasts, etc.; no need to fudge, just add an extra 1-2 of one of the things you're already using, or (for a "single big bad" fight) add in some local flora, fauna, or previously-used enemies. Everything is above-board, and the goal is still accomplished.</p><p></p><p>What does (d) have to do with fudging? You improve on your work by *understanding what you did wrong,* and then *correcting that mistake in the future.* Fudging, then, is <em>actively opposed</em> to actually improving your skills as a DM. It becomes an easy crutch; "Oh, I accidentally made this situation too easy...WELP I'll just make sure nobody rolls higher than 5...and the monsters get some 'lucky' crits..." or "sh*t, the party's getting massacred. Guess the Big Bad Evil Gal just broke her sword by TOTALLY RANDOM CHANCE..." Either way, you're substituting actual learning for kludged in-the-moment solutions.</p><p></p><p>While I agree that fudging "keep<s> your players guessing," consider exactly how it achieves that: the players have information, upon which they base their choices. That information *is actually correct*...until the DM starts rewriting the world. Suddenly, their choices are now based on information which SHOULD have been good, but is now faulty. Whether this helps or hinders doesn't matter--they are no longer capable of making informed choices. You are "keeping them guessing" by <em>invalidating their choices</em>. That is not a healthy relationship between player and DM. Instead, you could "keep them guessing" in a variety of other ways. Challenge their preconceived notions: give them goblins and minotaurs and full-blooded orcs that are Lawful Good, sentient undead that just want to be left alone and have no interest in affecting the living, supposedly "good" elves who think genocide is the only answer, etc. Give them <em>incomplete</em> or <em>conflicting</em> information; never tell them the whole story. Force them to choose the lesser of two evils, or force them to support one "good" and thus violently oppose another. All of these are from the top of my head with no planning; if I were preparing for an actual campaign, I'm sure I could come up with both more things and more specific things.</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>So...no. I reject the notion that "fudging" is a tool DMs should use, and I completely refuse to accept the idea that DMs should <em>outrightly lie</em> to their players when asked a direct question. Honesty is fundamentally important to all human interactions. Doesn't mean you have to tell others <em>absolutely everything</em>, but lying should be avoided in the majority of situations, <em>particularly</em> when your statements--whether true or false--are the only information another person has for deciding what to do.</s></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6585621, member: 6790260"] Why bother having a thread if you're going to fiat declare that the problematic element isn't actually a problem? If it's not "cheating" to rewrite the world however you like, whenever you like, with no limitations, and concealing this from your players [I]while knowing that it would upset them if they knew you were doing it[/I], what even is there to discuss? You've fiat declared that everything is fine. Okay, I think we need to clear up some definitions here. How is it possible to be "fair," while also rewriting the world at any point where you feel like doing so? If you rewrite in a way that makes the players' goals harder, you are being unfair because you are setting the bar higher [I]because they're succeeding.[/I] If you rewrite in a way that makes the players' goals easier, you are being unfair because you are denying them the ability to actually achieve their goals under their own merits. Either way, you are purposefully making their success [I]your[/I] responsibility, not theirs. You are denying them agency and self-determination; whether they succeed or fail depends in whole or in part on whether you [I]decided[/I] they should succeed (you chose to reduce the challenge, or chose not to increase it further) or fail (you chose to increase the challenge, or chose to not reduce it further). If you don't want PCs to die, [I]don't kill them.[/I] State that ransom is far more common in this universe, or that there is a thriving slave market, or some other reason why sentient enemies would not automatically kill all prisoners. Or, treat 0 HP (or even "dead") as merely "knocked out" or "grievously wounded" (presumably some kind of lingering penalty) as long as at least one member of the group survives to pull the rest out. So (a) is solved, without needing to do something you [I]know[/I] would upset your players if they knew it was happening. (b) and (c), as Pemerton noted, are both trivially solved. (b) is solved by applying morale rules, having enemy units flee or surrender, or even just making some units fight poorly (perhaps because they are too scared and/or poorly trained to fight well). (c) is solved by fielding additional units. Reinforcements, wandering monsters or beasts, etc.; no need to fudge, just add an extra 1-2 of one of the things you're already using, or (for a "single big bad" fight) add in some local flora, fauna, or previously-used enemies. Everything is above-board, and the goal is still accomplished. What does (d) have to do with fudging? You improve on your work by *understanding what you did wrong,* and then *correcting that mistake in the future.* Fudging, then, is [I]actively opposed[/I] to actually improving your skills as a DM. It becomes an easy crutch; "Oh, I accidentally made this situation too easy...WELP I'll just make sure nobody rolls higher than 5...and the monsters get some 'lucky' crits..." or "sh*t, the party's getting massacred. Guess the Big Bad Evil Gal just broke her sword by TOTALLY RANDOM CHANCE..." Either way, you're substituting actual learning for kludged in-the-moment solutions. While I agree that fudging "keep[s] your players guessing," consider exactly how it achieves that: the players have information, upon which they base their choices. That information *is actually correct*...until the DM starts rewriting the world. Suddenly, their choices are now based on information which SHOULD have been good, but is now faulty. Whether this helps or hinders doesn't matter--they are no longer capable of making informed choices. You are "keeping them guessing" by [I]invalidating their choices[/I]. That is not a healthy relationship between player and DM. Instead, you could "keep them guessing" in a variety of other ways. Challenge their preconceived notions: give them goblins and minotaurs and full-blooded orcs that are Lawful Good, sentient undead that just want to be left alone and have no interest in affecting the living, supposedly "good" elves who think genocide is the only answer, etc. Give them [I]incomplete[/I] or [I]conflicting[/I] information; never tell them the whole story. Force them to choose the lesser of two evils, or force them to support one "good" and thus violently oppose another. All of these are from the top of my head with no planning; if I were preparing for an actual campaign, I'm sure I could come up with both more things and more specific things. So...no. I reject the notion that "fudging" is a tool DMs should use, and I completely refuse to accept the idea that DMs should [I]outrightly lie[/I] to their players when asked a direct question. Honesty is fundamentally important to all human interactions. Doesn't mean you have to tell others [I]absolutely everything[/I], but lying should be avoided in the majority of situations, [I]particularly[/I] when your statements--whether true or false--are the only information another person has for deciding what to do.[/s] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Keeping a Group Together
Top