Why the World Exists

[Ourph]

I have the impression that most of the sandbox-type DMs here are non-fudgers when it comes to the dice. After all, fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the point of allow the players to make choices.

I also have the impression that most of the "There's no difference" folks here are fudgers when it comes to the dice. After all, not fudging the dice to determine what happens invalidates the way they planned the encounters to go.

And that is, perhaps, a good encapsulation of the difference: Whose choices does the DM empower? His, or his players'?

I think this is exactly the wrong distinction and perhaps explains a lot of the talking past each other that's gone on in this thread.

I'm a non-fudger (it's a game, the dice fall where they may) and I run what I would call a sandbox style game (the players have a wide array of choices and player initiative is a valued part of determining what those choices are) but I don't spend time developing "choices" that I know won't see play because the players will immediately recognize that the choice is suboptimal and I also don't make any bones about acknowledging that when it comes to making choices about the setting, my first priority is facilitating encounters and events that will be meaningful and fun for the players (which, in most cases, means the challenge is level appropriate, even if all the NPCs and monsters involved in the encounter aren't).

The distinction isn't fudging vs. non-fudging or sandbox vs. set-piece, it's prioritizing the development of play-relevant material vs. prioritizing the development of setting relevant material which may or may not impact actual play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you are unfairly painting anyone that fudges die rolls as someone that wants things to happen in a predetermined fashion. I think this is just a cheap shot.

There are a variety of reasons a DM might fudge the dice, none of which are based around his idea of how the adventure should go being invalidated.

Name one reason to fudge a die roll that has nothing to do with avoiding that roll changing the outcome that you wanted to happen.


RC

 

[Scribble]

Name one reason to fudge a die roll that has nothing to do with avoiding that roll changing the outcome that you wanted to happen.


RC

Well I guess if you consider "fun" being an outcome then yes I fudged it to promote the outcome being different then I hoped (ie unfun.)

I very rarely do this though. Only in certain extreme cases where the dice have been really bad to the PCs and they're stuck in a "can't choose to make any other choice, even though we normally would be able to" moment, and it's looking like really depressed players.

Other then that:

Misdesigned something- IE thought it would interact with the game differently then it is. Oops I'll fudge this one and fix.

Messed up on a rule call earlier, so now I'm giving a PC a bonus as a silent "make good." (Tennis refs do this all the time.)

But let me clarify your original statement because maybe I misunderstood:

What did you mean by planned the way they wanted the encounter to go?

Do you mean they planned it to be a challenge that falls within what would be their "level."

Or planned the encounter to go as in do the PCs win or loose?

I took it to mean the second based on some of your other statements. I could be wrong.

 

[Ariosto]

The underlying issue is: If you're not adjusting the setting to fit the PCs, why is it that game-appropriate scenarios keep playing out? Isn't it awfully coincidental that your game world, allegedly built upon a premise of realism and objectivity, just coincidentally happens to create good game outcomes? Real life doesn't do this. Its almost like your game world is controlled by some semi-benevolent hegemon who tailors reality to the needs of a few specific inhabitants. If that's not the case, why does it look so much like that is the case?

I certainly have a good game in mind in setting up the world. For D&D, naturally there must be dungeons and dragons (or else we'd be playing a game of "&").

It's not coincidence that PCs tend to take on challenges they can handle! The players choose where to go and what to do in the world. Part of skill at play is weighing risk and reward. Good players know better than to rush in blindly; they do investigation to inform their decisions.

That seems to me so obvious that I feel I must be missing something in Cadfan's objection.

 

[LostSoul]

Ever seen a big fire? I find it unlikely that 18 miles away, no one knows.

What if it's a green dragon?

 

[Ariosto]

And lets say that your victim blaming is true, and reasonable.

Ah, that's what I was missing. If some misfortune befalls a character, then the character's player is a victim!

There's a serious disconnection here from the premise that one is playing a game. Sometimes in Afrika Korps, you lose a tank division. Sometimes (ideally, half the time) you lose the game. That's key to what makes it a game.

 

[Ariosto]

I've honestly never met a D&D player whose preferred style of play included having their PC's eradicated by an unbeatable foe (for example, a CR18 red dragon vs. a party of 2nd level characters) which attacked them without warning while they were out shopping.

Neither have I! But if you change that to "included the possibility of ..." then I've met plenty -- assuming, of course, a situation in which going shopping is supposed to be so dangerous. That I have never encountered in D&D, and unless you have I must wonder why you consider it relevant.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Neither have I! But if you change that to "included the possibility of ..." then I've met plenty -- assuming, of course, a situation in which going shopping is supposed to be so dangerous. That I have never encountered in D&D, and unless you have I must wonder why you consider it relevant.

You can count me in the group that wants this possibility super deadly foes in unexpected places (though to be fair, not while I am shopping in the city). As a player I do want to feel like everything around me is trying to accomodate my character level. I don't think it fair to force a party to confront a super potent foe; but the experience of seeing it or running away from it is fine. Even the occassional character death from an uber foe is okay with me. If every door leads to something that perfectly matches our party level, thats a little less exciting for me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well I guess if you consider "fun" being an outcome then yes I fudged it to promote the outcome being different then I hoped (ie unfun.)

IOW, you decided that X was fun, but Y was unfun, and rolling the die to determine X or Y, and gaining Y, you chose X.

Rolling a "5" or a "1" or a "20" isn't unfun in and of itself. That roll indicates an outcome, and it is that outcome that didn't fit your vision of what was supposed to happen in that encounter. And because it didn't fit your vision of what was supposed to happen in that encounter, you decided it was unfun.

One wonders why roll in the first place?


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Thasmodeus argues that freedom is an illusion if one can't do absolutely anything one wants. That's fine for abstract philosophy, but not the kind of "freedom" relevant either to real life or to a game.