Do you "save" the PCs?

[Fifth Element]

I only need to change one numeral to change the result of the equation.

I completely agree that such fudging changes the result of the battle. It does not, however, decide the result of the battle, which is what you suggested.

Saving a PC is not the same things as saying "All the bad guys are dead. You win." That would be deciding the result of the battle.

DMs decide parts of battles all the time: who a monster will attack, when a monster runs away, etc, etc. But deciding one part of a battle does not determine the final result. It's a complex system.

 

[Fifth Element]

If fudging is okay, and you believe your players also believe it is okay, why don't you let the players know when you think you should do so, and have a say at that point whether or not fudging shall occur?

I've never suggested such a thing would be a bad idea. But on the other hand, I don't typically give players input into the adventure setup (one form of DM authority), so why give them input into another form of DM authority?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, if I were a player in a game, and I used my in-game resources (divination, etc.) to learn about the setting, I wouldn't expect "GM Authority" to prevent me from doing so, either.

If I decided my character would go left, and the GM just decided to move whatever was to the right to the left, I would be a bit miffed were I to discover it (and if I went back, and tried to go right, there is some chance that I would!).

DM authority can also decide to have the Tarrasque teleported in to face 1st level PCs, but that doesn't make it a good idea.


RC

 

[Umbran]

I think some of the problem may be confusing earning respect for your position with earning agreement. I can understand and respect a viewpoint while still disagreeing with it. If, however, you take my disagreement as a sign of disrepect, unproductive arguing ensues, aside from any other complicating issues in the discussion.

Yes, there's some of that. And then we must question - is the sign of disrespect being implied, inferred, or baldly stated?

Now, as we all know, anecdotal evidence is lousy for making generalizations. However, it is still pretty good at breaking generalizations. In simple logic, if I assert that all horses are white, all we need to do is find one black horse to prove the assertion is false.

Let's try a statement - "Fudging is harmful".

There's an unstated qualifier in there - the statement is more probably more precisely "Fudging is always harmful" or "Fudging is usually harmful". If it is "always", all we need is to accept the anecdotal evidence from a single GM who found it not so to bust it down to "usually harmful". Then, we should (if we are reasonable people) need only accept anecdotal evidence from some number more GMs to bust that "usually" down to "sometimes".

Is it so odd that people read disrespect when a bunch of them make observations that seem to not be taken into weight of evidence against a general statement?

What it comes down to is this - if you aren't in the discussion to learn from the experience of others, and expecting (even actively seeking) to take their experiences to heart, that discussion is apt to go askew.

 

[Fifth Element]

DM authority can also decide to have the Tarrasque teleported in to face 1st level PCs, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Let me ask you this. Say you have a character in a run of bad luck whose situation is looking dire. You think that fudging might be appropriate, for whatever reason. But instead of rolling the dice and ignoring the result, you decide that the monster attacks another PC instead, even though the hard-luck PC might be a more natural target.

Is that form of fudging alright? DMs have absolute discretion over monster tactics in battle. Can they fudge this way without it being harmful?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now, as we all know, anecdotal evidence is lousy for making generalizations. However, it is still pretty good at breaking generalizations.

Driving through the red light is a bad idea. That is a generalization. It is also true that you might run through the red light without getting caught, hitting a pedestrian, or striking another vehicle. I would go so far as to say that this happens very, very often. But it in no way disproved the general claim. Driving through the red light is still a bad idea.

Let me ask you this. Say you have a character in a run of bad luck whose situation is looking dire. You think that fudging might be appropriate, for whatever reason. But instead of rolling the dice and ignoring the result, you decide that the monster attacks another PC instead, even though the hard-luck PC might be a more natural target.

Is that form of fudging alright? DMs have absolute discretion over monster tactics in battle. Can they fudge this way without it being harmful?

If the hard-luck PC is the natural target, that doesn't change. Players are very likely to notice switching targets like this, and I would suggest that this is in some ways worse than just fudging the die.

If the players want to save the hard-luck PC, it is up to them to do something. It is not up to the GM.


RC

 

[Umbran]

If fudging is okay, and you believe your players also believe it is okay, why don't you let the players know when you think you should do so, and have a say at that point whether or not fudging shall occur?

How about these apples - because they asked me not to tell them!

I kid you not. Because of these discussions, I explicitly asked my players if they want me to fudge or not. Nine out of nine questioned said they didn't mind if I fudged. All also stated a preference to not know if/when I fudged.

 

[billd91]

See, here I think you are splitting hairs!

If "The result of a battle" is the sum of its parts, then changing any one of those parts perforce changes the sum.

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 =/= 5

I only need to change one numeral to change the result of the equation.

The imprecision of inputs into the events in a D&D game do not yield the same precise mathematic results as addition of integers. It's entirely possible to have:

Event A + Event B + Event C => Situation Z
Event A + Event B + Event D => Situation Z

 

[Janx]

Yes, there's some of that. And then we must question - is the sign of disrespect being implied, inferred, or baldly stated?

Now, as we all know, anecdotal evidence is lousy for making generalizations. However, it is still pretty good at breaking generalizations. In simple logic, if I assert that all horses are white, all we need to do is find one black horse to prove the assertion is false.

Let's try a statement - "Fudging is harmful".

There's an unstated qualifier in there - the statement is more probably more precisely "Fudging is always harmful" or "Fudging is usually harmful". If it is "always", all we need is to accept the anecdotal evidence from a single GM who found it not so to bust it down to "usually harmful". Then, we should (if we are reasonable people) need only accept anecdotal evidence from some number more GMs to bust that "usually" down to "sometimes".

Is it so odd that people read disrespect when a bunch of them make observations that seem to not be taken into weight of evidence against a general statement?

What it comes down to is this - if you aren't in the discussion to learn from the experience of others, and expecting (even actively seeking) to take their experiences to heart, that discussion is apt to go askew.

I'll buy that.

As speakers, I think we all tend to make a general statement or observation, and not qualify it. like putting "usually" or "in my experience" in front of these bold statements.

We also tend to toss out words like "wrong" on topics that clearly somebody disagrees on.

If I say, "Fish can't swim in water". That's quite clearly attempting to state a fact and it's wrong. It's not an opinion. It's a simple fact (not a complex one) that fish live in water, and they swim in it.

Wheras, on a complex topic like "fuidging causes harm", there's clearly 2 sides of the fence on this, and therefore does not lie in the realm of "hard or simple fact". Furthermore, for the sake of diplomacy, it'd probably be best to avoid using the word "wrong", because it sets the other side on guard, and they stop listening.

Personally, I like discussing things with people who don't do it the way I do, but are able to ask open questions of my method, and explain WHY they use their method. particularly when it is done in a way that gives me ideas to modify my method.

What makes these threads go south is when somebody escalates the defense of something, and stronger words get used, which in turn causes the other side to react in kind. Oft times, it's one statement poorly worded, leads to a retort, and so on.

 

[Fifth Element]

If the hard-luck PC is the natural target, that doesn't change. Players are very likely to notice switching targets like this, and I would suggest that this is in some ways worse than just fudging the die.

The problem is that "natural target" is very subjective. There are any number of reasons a monster might switch targets - another PC being a greater threat, another PC attacking is more recently, etc. This seems to go back to the "DM purely as neutral arbiter" argument, which I think is flawed because the DM has so much subjective authority (such as complete control over monster actions) as to make it an impossible goal.