Do you "save" the PCs?

[Raven Crowking]

Unlike Gary Gygax, I don't fudge die rolls and I strongly prefer it if the GM doesn't. But I have no problem with other groups doing it if that's what works for them. I don't see the point in attempting to construct a logical system which proves that what those groups are doing doesn't work, even though they say it does.

IME, GMs who think their players don't know they are fudging are seldom correct. The odds are, IMHO and IME very, very good that, sooner or later, they will catch on.

YMMV.

The point, as far as I am concerned, is that "those groups" are not some form of bastion-like monolith. The players in "those groups" join other groups. What is done in "those groups" can (and does) affect what happens in other groups. I have firsthand experience of retraining players from some of "those groups"....and the general consensus has been that the players would rather the fudging had never occured.

ASIDE ONE: I play chess. When I am teaching chess, or playing someone I know not to be as good a player as I, I frequently give them the opportunity to "take back" a move.

Why could the GM, introducing a newbie, not simply say "In normal D&D, there are no takebacks. But, since this session is just to get you up to speed on the game, I'm going to allow takebacks, so that you can try different things and see what works."? See, no dishonesty, no risk of a string of bad luck ruining everything, no fear of PC death.

IOW, what is the motive for the dishonesty?

ASIDE TWO: 2e strongly recommended fudging, and I tried to follow the 2e guidelines. The result was an almost total loss of interest in the game, a hiatus in playing that lasted almost three years.

 

[Imaginary Number]

My overwhelming experience is that a person who cheats to get the outcome they want tends not to cheat just the one time. Especially not if they feel it is "okay" the cheat anyway.

"Cheating," I think, is pejorative as well as inaccurate, at least as applied to the sort of DM judgment calls we're discussing here. I design adventures for my players with the general goal that they will be challenging but beatable. The desired outcome of this is a certain level of dramatic tension with a reward or resolution at the end, i.e. "fun." To maintain this "fun," my view as the DM is that it indeed is okay to "cheat" from time to time. Sometimes it's in favor of the players: fudging a die roll to avoid a crit that would kill a PC, taking a few monsters out of an encounter if the PCs engage it low on resources, removing an encounter (and treasure) altogether if the PCs can't beat it, whatever. And, as Piratecat mentioned above, sometimes it's in favor of the opposition: if I screwed up and the adventure I designed isn't presenting the challenge to the party that I expected it would, I'll adjust on the fly to add more monsters or do whatever else it takes to fully engage the players. I don't feel dirty or immoral for doing it, and in almost thirty years of DMing I've never had a player complain about it. Absolute faithfulness to the text of the game rules or of an adventure sometimes = boring, so I'd rather "cheat" in the interest of giving everyone at the table a fun evening of gaming than have everyone frustrated because they entered the wrong room of the dungeon at the wrong time, particularly now that real-life issues prevent our group from getting together as often as we used to. YMMV, of course.

 

[Nagol]

I think the idea is that a GM's power is so easy to abuse, it's a good idea to restrict oneself with some rules, such as "Prepared written material is fixed once the session starts". Lines that even the GM can't cross, for fear of sliding down a slippery slope.

Also, I don't believe my choices are inherently superior to consequences that happen from following through with the game results. Something I think may be cool in the heat of play may be less compelling upon sober recollection and/or viewing the player responses to the event.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I wonder how big a divide there is for the GM between fudging die rolls in either direction vs. adjusting the number of monsters or hit points of monsters on the fly.

None.

For instance, I don't like fudging dice but I don't mind using six or eight minions instead of the normal four-per-monster. Is this at all equitable to fudging dice?

Not if done as part of scenario design.

Is die fudging (either harder or easier) a bigger "sin" than other sorts of on-the-fly monster adjustment?

No.

I would amend that to:

No PC may die without that player's consent.

That would not be my cup of tea, but it would not be objectionable.

Players are not given the authority within the rules to fudge die rolls. DM's are.

That is irrelevant to my point. If the player should not fudge, why should the player not fudge? If the DM fudges to increase the chances of a desired outcome, surely the players know their desires better than the DM does. It follows that the players, rather than the DM, should be encouraged to fudge.

If you can tell me why this should not be so, I suspect that you will understand why I also hold that the GM should not fudge.

Put it another way. Is there a significant difference between spotting me a queen and both rooks at the beginning of the game and spotting me the same pieces after the first move? How about the second move? Tenth? At what point is it unacceptable to spot me those pieces?

There is a difference.

It is unacceptable to spot those pieces after the first move has occurred.

And, if there is a difference between spotting me the pieces before play or during play, what is that difference?

Spotting the pieces before play sets up what the challenge is; spotting the pieces after play begins is a combination of "bait & switch" with the added insult that I decided you weren't up to the game we agreed to play.

Let me add, further, that in the case of the DM fudging, the player doesn't get a choice at the time of infraction. So, not only do I spot you the piece and insult you, but you don't get to decide to continue the game we agreed upon.

I think the idea is that a GM's power is so easy to abuse, it's a good idea to restrict oneself with some rules, such as "Prepared written material is fixed once the session starts". Lines that even the GM can't cross, for fear of sliding down a slippery slope.

Agreed.



RC

 

[Piratecat]

I'm finding that I adhere to the philosophy that Hussar explains just up-thread in post #329. I'm the one who knows what's fun and challenging, and who knows how to pace a fight, and not my dice. While I prefer to run an encounter as originally planned, I reserve the right to tweak any number of factors on the fly to make the game a good one.

I think the idea is that a GM's power is so easy to abuse, it's a good idea to restrict oneself with some rules, such as "Prepared written material is fixed once the session starts". Lines that even the GM can't cross, for fear of sliding down a slippery slope.

It's a well-prepared game when I enter it with anything more than a half-page outline of what might occur. I definitely don't specify monster placement and quantity ahead of time. RC states his belief that it's fine to adjust monsters in scenario design but not once play starts; I disagree. I don't do scenario design per se and handle most of that on the fly, at the table. I see real advantages to deciding on the fly whether a second wave of monsters enters. I think those advantages - in tension, tactical challenge, and pacing - outweigh any consideration that this wasn't in my original plan for the attack.

But I still don't like fudging dice!

That means I lean far more towards cinematic gameplay than simulationist play, and I'm comfortable with that. I'm very aware that other people find different play-styles more satisfying, but this one works very well for my players and me.

Interestingly, one thing that I've never had any interest in tweaking at all is skill challenges. I allow the players to be creative in skill use and aid another, but I really don't like the idea of fudging dice rolls or DCs. I think the trick there is to always have skill challenges that the PCs can legitimately fail without derailing your plot.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Cheating," I think, is pejorative as well as inaccurate, at least as applied to the sort of DM judgment calls we're discussing here.

Okay. No intention to offend.

My overwhelming experience is that a person who fudgess to get the outcome they want tends not to fudge just the one time. Especially not if they feel it is "okay" to fudge anyway.


RC

 

[Nagol]

This becomes particularly relevant with 4e groups who experience "grind," when the battle is pretty clearly won but the monsters are stubbornly, and boringly, sticking around.

I wonder how big a divide there is for the GM between fudging die rolls in either direction vs. adjusting the number of monsters or hit points of monsters on the fly. For instance, I don't like fudging dice but I don't mind using six or eight minions instead of the normal four-per-monster. Is this at all equitable to fudging dice? Is die fudging (either harder or easier) a bigger "sin" than other sorts of on-the-fly monster adjustment?

I'm not sure I have a great answer. I know that adjusting minions on the fly to make a fight more exciting (or occasionally reducing hit points to make a non-challenging fight end more quickly) is more palatable to me than adjusting dice rolls.

For simple grind I've always had dice rolling stop at the table with mutual consent. "Guys, the last few aren't going to surrender, but don't pose a real threat. Do you plan on hacking them down? OK. It takes about another 30 seconds, but the last one falls."

I used this last session when the remaining spelllweaver was nauseated (incapable of taking any aggressive action) and the fighters moved to within melee range.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>
It is unacceptable to spot those pieces after the first move has occurred.
<snip>

I'd amend this to state It is unacceptable to spot those pieces after the first move has occurred without mutual consent and knowledge.

If about 5 moves in, it becomes obvious one person is a grandmaster and the other is not, the granddmaster can offer the reduction and the other can agree if it is acceptable.

It is unacceptable for the master to simply place his pieces into jeopardy and let the other player take them and gain a feeling of unearned accomplishment.

 

[Hussar]

IOW, what is the motive for the dishonesty?

What is the motive for characterizing this as "dishonest"?

From what I can see, you largest objection to this is that it is somehow the GM "cheating". Yet the mechanics of D&D specifically, and most RPG's generally, SPECIFICALLY allow the GM to do so. How is it dishonest to use the mechanics as written?

Or, change it a bit. When you come up with a house rule during play, is that dishonest or not? You are changing the rules agreed upon at the outset of the session, or even the rules agreed upon at the outset of the campaign. How is this not "bait and switch"?

We change the rules of games to make play smoother. We make ad hoc rulings all the time to make the game smoother and more fun for everyone involved. In the last session of 4e I played, the GM allowed a player to take a full action and then delay using an Action Point to take a later action (the paladin wanted to shove back the baddie, allowing a companion to escape and then use the action point to run.). This is not allowed by the rules, but was allowed by the GM.

Is this fair or not? After all, the GM here has changed the rules to suit the narrative of the game. Is this different from changing the result of a die roll?

To me, the end result is what matters, not how you got there. If spotting me a queen or allowing take backs or whatever, will make things more enjoyable, then by all means do it.

 

[Hussar]

I'd amend this to state It is unacceptable to spot those pieces after the first move has occurred without mutual consent and knowledge.

If about 5 moves in, it becomes obvious one person is a grandmaster and the other is not, the granddmaster can offer the reduction and the other can agree if it is acceptable.

It is unacceptable for the master to simply place his pieces into jeopardy and let the other player take them and gain a feeling of unearned accomplishment.

So, when teaching someone to play chess, I should checkmate them as fast as I possibly can, because this will make them a better player? That helping them out, pointing out possible moves they could make, asking them if they really want to do stuff, and yes, occasionally tossing a piece their way is never a good idea?