Do you "save" the PCs?

[Piratecat]

My campaign has been successful without fudged rolls. I guess that may be hard for some people to believe...

That's not hard for me to believe in the least. In fact, it's easier for me to believe than a campaign that involves a lot of fudged rolls, because I think players sometimes make stupid choices when they believe their DM won't let them die.

 

[Garthanos]

That's not hard for me to believe in the least. In fact, it's easier for me to believe than a campaign that involves a lot of fudged rolls, because I think players sometimes make stupid choices when they believe their DM won't let them die.

There are things worse than death, bwahahahahahaah.


Dead not Dead that is so clean. Honestly in fact there are things that could happen to a character that ... dead or not I would cease being interested in playing them.

Used to fudge... but then the systems were so swingy that wild dice killed easy (no I am not referring to an earlier D&D) and pcs were such a mixed bag of competence that trying to challenge one it was way too easy to kill another ... I refuse to not challenge them ... it was just a bloody mess.

I don't have any such problem with D&D now and level is a usable measure of character power.

 

[billd91]

Authority is granted by people, not games. I wonder why it would be different if a player fudged a roll "for the good of the story."

Player fudging is what hero points are for.

But yes, games do set ground rules and, by selecting the game, the players do implicitly agree to them and the authority they entail. So the difference between authority being granted by the players or the game is fairly irrelevant. If they're players for that game, then they're pretty much giving the game master a considerable degree of authority based on the game's ground rules. If they weren't they wouldn't be there to play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I said the default assumption in D&D is that the DM has ultimate authority over the game.

The default assumption in D&D is that the DM has ultimate authority over any game he runs. I would not presume to tell a DM that he couldn't fudge die rolls for that reason, although I would advise strongly against it if asked (such as in this thread).

That said, another default assumption in D&D is that if the DM abuses that authority, he will perhaps be running fewer games. As you say, "How one applies that authority is the topic of discussion", which does not mean that fudging is okay simply because the game grants the DM authority to do so.

As I said upthread, 2e not only granted the authority to do so, it specifically suggested doing so. I read the advice given to 2e DMs, and eventually ran a game where I followed it. Following that advice caused me, for the first time, to feel like a bad DM. It took away the excitement of what was happening in the campaign milieu. Because (IMHO and IME) players can always tell when the DM is hand-holding, it damaged player satisfaction. It destroyed my interest in the game. Indeed, I stopped playing the game for a period of about 3 years, until 3e sparked my interest again.

Never again will I go down that route.

Most of them feel that such an announcement would serve to break suspension of disbelief, and generally throw a monkey-wrench in dramatic tension.

Umbran, thank you for asking them. That's a good, pretty basic answer. Why would such an announcement throw a monkey-wrench in dramatic tension?

I think RC was suggesting that in his example there were no meaningful choices because there really was no choice. Left or Right were really both Straight because the "fudging" taking place was of the railroady kind, rather than the die-shifting kind. Moreover, it seems his point is that if you place a lair in hex 8G, it's there whenever and however the PCs wander into that hex, even if they are short on resources and just hoping for a safe place to camp.

Yes.

But let us say that it is a dungeon crawl, and let us say that I am thorough. As soon as I finish off whatever happens to be to the left, I come back and go right. And then......?



RC

 

[Umbran]

I wonder why it would be different if a player fudged a roll "for the good of the story."

The answer to that one is quite simple - it is different because the roles of DM and Player are different. There's nothing at all strange about this. In games where a referee (or arbiter, or other figure concerned with meta-game issues) that role is typically wildly different from that of other players.

On a thoroughly practical level, the DM should know far more about the context of the event and what is coming than the player does.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's not hard for me to believe in the least. In fact, it's easier for me to believe than a campaign that involves a lot of fudged rolls, because I think players sometimes make stupid choices when they believe their DM won't let them die.

Very true. Players do enough stupid things even when death is on the line. If they get a sense that the campaign actually rewards this approach then the ridiculous behavior gets worse.

It is natural for players to test the waters and see what they can get away with before thier activities have a chance of killing them. The further away this threshold is from common sense, the more over the top silly things get (which could be just great if that's what you are looking for)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Very true. Players do enough stupid things even when death is on the line. If they get a sense that the campaign actually rewards this approach then the ridiculous behavior gets worse.

It is natural for players to test the waters and see what they can get away with before thier activities have a chance of killing them. The further away this threshold is from common sense, the more over the top silly things get (which could be just great if that's what you are looking for)

Indeed.

"You must spread XP around....etc., etc."

RC

 

[Fifth Element]

That said, another default assumption in D&D is that if the DM abuses that authority, he will perhaps be running fewer games.

I would hesitate to call that an assumption of D&D specifically, but it is true. Of course, one man's "abuse" in this case is another man's "appropriate use".

The lack of appropriate use (while difficult to term "abuse", which is such a loaded word) may also result in a DM running fewer games. You will lose different players this way, but you will still lose players. From what I can see, for instance, my players would not enjoy a game that you DM, and they would stop playing. So it goes both ways.

As you say, "How one applies that authority is the topic of discussion", which does not mean that fudging is okay simply because the game grants the DM authority to do so.

Also true. The reasons why it can be okay have already been discussed extensively in this thread, and they do not rely on "because you can."

 

[Fifth Element]

My campaign has been successful without fudged rolls. I guess that may be hard for some people to believe

Not at all, because different people play different ways and enjoy doing so. My preference to play a different way does not mean that I can't comprehend that other people like to play that way. I don't assume that my preference is better or universal.

 

[Raven Crowking]

From what I can see, for instance, my players would not enjoy a game that you DM, and they would stop playing. So it goes both ways.

Sure can.

Of course, my problems run in the opposite direction -- I have more players hoping to play at my table than I am currently running games for, something on the order of 3:1 or 4:1 at present.

So, the loss of a player who can't get over the DM not fudging is of little consequence to me.

(EDIT: And, yes, I am absolutely sure that there are people in the same boat on the fudging side of the Force.)