Do you "save" the PCs?

[ExploderWizard]

I do recognize that ultimately, a GM decision is behind every death.

I don't see this as true unless you mean the decision to run an adventure game wherein character death is possible.

 

[Janx]

I just had a different thought, while writing the last post. I think it might also touch upon what pawsplay is saying.

Consider a generic quest. Say a murder mystery. I like using murder mysteries as examples lately, because in reality, they contain the elements of just about any kind of adventure with variety (search for clues/puzzles, talking to NPCs, fighting, exploring the bad guy's lair which may be trapped).

Once the players agree to pursue the goal, there's a sense of an expected ending that the bad guy is caught. There's allowance for variance in how this is achieved. If the adventure is good, there's a allowance for failure to achieve, even though the party tried their best (and possibly some safety nets to give them an alternative chance to continue the quest).

Let's even assume the PCs represent Sherlock Holmes and Watson, and up until now, this has been a serious campaign and they have earned a good reputation.

There's a lot that can go wrong to "fail to catch the bad guy"

the PCs could die in an encounter

the PCs could act totally obnoxious and stupid, out of character for what they normally protray

the PCs could get hung up on a detail that isn't really a clue, but as they investigate it, they think it is suspicious (because the GM is having to make stuff up)



technically, fudging the dice to save the PC is the most direct approach to not cratering the adventure. If combat's just window dressing to whats really going on (like it seems to be for me), then that's probably OK. If Combat's really a major focus of the campaign challenge (like a dungeon crawl might be), then fudging isn't a good tool.

If you have obnoxious players, not fudging and bringing down the iron hand of the NPC law is how you reign in the players. Unfortunately, in doing so, you've also cratered the adventure. This is a direct point where player behavior really influences any GM's expected outcome.

But in the same vein, I haven't had to play with anybody that immature since college.

On the last one, in a way, it strikes at the heart of running a simulation, or a story. If my only aim is to challenge the player's brain and don't care about a story outcome (and the fact that failure could end the career of the PCs, thus forever unintentionally changing the campaign).

Or I can move bits around in the background, revealing a new clue that gets them back on the trail. For me, if the players are earnestly trying to work the quest, I will try to reward that with results. If they make a mistake, they suffer a setback, but I try to make it one that they can regroup, overcome, and get to where they are trying to go.

How does this reflect on what Pawsplay said?

Because it's a GM style choice on intepretting player choices. Saving the PCs is more than just fudging a die roll. It's figuring out the nature of what happens next, and is it punitive or rewarding for the PCs. combat is not the most important thing that happens in a D&D adventure, it's just the most prominent. Since the adventure is written to assume the PCs get past the monster (otherwise, there'd be no point in writing more material), it's not really that important to player choice.

The real choices are whether to act like morons and try to cram a keg of ale up the barkeep's arse because he wouldn't say "sir", or to run for Sherriff of the town, or to attack the orc encampment, or to try to strike an alliance with them against the giants who threaten both.

One of the modern themes in RPGing is "to say yes". Normally, I'm a say "No" kind of guy, so I try to "Say No to stupid" and "Say Yes to reasonable".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Janx,

First off, thanks for giving this so much thought.

Let's even assume the PCs represent Sherlock Holmes and Watson, and up until now, this has been a serious campaign and they have earned a good reputation.

Oddly enough, I am currently re-reading The Complete Sherlock Holmes, and am currently reading The Hound of the Baskervilles. It may be noteworthy that there is more than one story in which Holmes fails to catch the bad guy, and several unrecorded adventures alluded to wherein Holmes fails more profoundly. Holmes frequently admonishes Watson for not being honest about the degree to which he fails.

the PCs could die in an encounter

If the PCs dying in an encounter is a problem, then you should be using a ruleset where that is impossible, or which has specific safeguards against it. Example: Cubicle 7's Doctor Who ruleset.

the PCs could act totally obnoxious and stupid, out of character for what they normally protray

How, exactly, would the GM be "cratering the session" by letting the natural consequences of this play out? It seems either that the players have chosen to "crater the game" or they want to see whether or not the GM will allow the world to behave as it should.

I would be very, very, very wary of giving the PCs any sort of "plot protection" under these circumstance. Even more than normal.

the PCs could get hung up on a detail that isn't really a clue, but as they investigate it, they think it is suspicious (because the GM is having to make stuff up)

Holmes getting "hung up on a detail that isn't really a clue" (according to Lestrade or other inspectors) happens in almost every story, with the odd detail almost always proving to be a clue.

Of course, the GM "having to make stuff up" is the real culprit here.....and anyone who could possibly play Sherlock Holmes is likely to realize that. Your game, AFAICT, is already cratered.

technically, fudging the dice to save the PC is the most direct approach to not cratering the adventure.

No....good prep and an appropriate ruleset is.

Saving the PCs is more than just fudging a die roll. It's figuring out the nature of what happens next, and is it punitive or rewarding for the PCs. combat is not the most important thing that happens in a D&D adventure, it's just the most prominent.

See, this is exactly like railroading to me....it usurps the natural authority of the players in the arena where they should expect their authority to be absolute.

IMHO, the players have an absolute right to expect that "what happens next" is as much about their actions as it is about the DM's "story". IMHO, the players have an absolute right to decide for themselves what is "the most important thing" and to pursue it as they like.

Since the adventure is written to assume the PCs get past the monster (otherwise, there'd be no point in writing more material), it's not really that important to player choice.

I don't even know what to say about this.

"Since treasure is given, it is assumed the PCs find it."

"Since a monster is there, it is assumed the PCs slay it."

"Since potential XP are there, it is assumed the PCs earn them."

No.

I cannot tell you what other authors assume, but I certainly never assume that, because I have written down what is beyone the Black Chasm, that the PCs will ever get beyond the Black Chasm. Or even to the Black Chasm.

Having material ready IF the characters make it to/past the Black Chasm does not imply in any way an expectation that the characters will make it to/past the Black Chasm.

Or, another way to say it is that "[A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them" (Module B1, Page 24).



RC

 

[Reynard]

I see gaming as telling a story.

I think stories are the result of gaming. Not just stories about characters ("Sir Goodheart won the day and saved the princess") but about players, too ("When Bob charged the dragon, I almost peed!"). I do not prefer games where there is any intent toward any particular story at the beginning (aside from the very broad definition of what an adventure is about).

 

[catsclaw227]

I understand the possible reasons for this kind of answer but for me personally as a player the story is only cool and the game really satisfying when it happens without being overly manipulated.

I agree with this statement, except for one part, though I think I understand the spirit of your comment.

The premise "the story is only cool and the game really satisfying when it happens without being overly manipulated" assumes that a hidden fudge of dice or other encounter elements may crop up relatively often.

I think most people here on the fudging side aren't trying to overly manipulate anything. They are talking about the rare and extreme case of making a change that helps "fix" (OK, bad word, maybe "correct") an unexpected outcome that arrives because either the encounter was incorrectly set up or the PCs might have misunderstood some of what was going on, or whatever event caused the fudge.

There were times when we were playing 1e/2e without the grid, and the misunderstandings of spacial proximity or room description or whatever caused the PCs to act/react in a way they wouldn't have if the misunderstanding was cleared up. In this case there could be lots of fixing/correcting/fudging going on.

 

[Fifth Element]

His question could be rephrased as "The DM's role does include the authority which enables him to fudge, but fudging itself is not necessarily part of the role. BUT, given the stated purpose of fudging, would it not make sense that the PLAYER's role, rather than the DM's role, would include the authority which enables the player to fudge, even though fudging itself is not necessarily part of the role?"

I believe this was already addressed, in terms of the difference of the DM's role in the game versus the players' role.

 

[Janx]

Here's another random reason to fudge.

Because I don't want to have to run this same dungeon AGAIN.

I expect that the situation that enabled the PCs to learn of the dungeon may be unique, and it would be artificially forced for the replacement party to learn of the exact same thing

 

[Nagol]

I just had a different thought, while writing the last post. I think it might also touch upon what pawsplay is saying.

Consider a generic quest. Say a murder mystery. I like using murder mysteries as examples lately, because in reality, they contain the elements of just about any kind of adventure with variety (search for clues/puzzles, talking to NPCs, fighting, exploring the bad guy's lair which may be trapped).

Once the players agree to pursue the goal, there's a sense of an expected ending that the bad guy is caught. There's allowance for variance in how this is achieved. If the adventure is good, there's a allowance for failure to achieve, even though the party tried their best (and possibly some safety nets to give them an alternative chance to continue the quest).

Let's even assume the PCs represent Sherlock Holmes and Watson, and up until now, this has been a serious campaign and they have earned a good reputation.


There's a lot that can go wrong to "fail to catch the bad guy"

the PCs could die in an encounter

the PCs could act totally obnoxious and stupid, out of character for what they normally protray

the PCs could get hung up on a detail that isn't really a clue, but as they investigate it, they think it is suspicious (because the GM is having to make stuff up)



technically, fudging the dice to save the PC is the most direct approach to not cratering the adventure. If combat's just window dressing to whats really going on (like it seems to be for me), then that's probably OK. If Combat's really a major focus of the campaign challenge (like a dungeon crawl might be), then fudging isn't a good tool.

If you have obnoxious players, not fudging and bringing down the iron hand of the NPC law is how you reign in the players. Unfortunately, in doing so, you've also cratered the adventure. This is a direct point where player behavior really influences any GM's expected outcome.

But in the same vein, I haven't had to play with anybody that immature since college.

On the last one, in a way, it strikes at the heart of running a simulation, or a story. If my only aim is to challenge the player's brain and don't care about a story outcome (and the fact that failure could end the career of the PCs, thus forever unintentionally changing the campaign).

Or I can move bits around in the background, revealing a new clue that gets them back on the trail. For me, if the players are earnestly trying to work the quest, I will try to reward that with results. If they make a mistake, they suffer a setback, but I try to make it one that they can regroup, overcome, and get to where they are trying to go.

How does this reflect on what Pawsplay said?

Because it's a GM style choice on intepretting player choices. Saving the PCs is more than just fudging a die roll. It's figuring out the nature of what happens next, and is it punitive or rewarding for the PCs. combat is not the most important thing that happens in a D&D adventure, it's just the most prominent. Since the adventure is written to assume the PCs get past the monster (otherwise, there'd be no point in writing more material), it's not really that important to player choice.

The real choices are whether to act like morons and try to cram a keg of ale up the barkeep's arse because he wouldn't say "sir", or to run for Sherriff of the town, or to attack the orc encampment, or to try to strike an alliance with them against the giants who threaten both.

One of the modern themes in RPGing is "to say yes". Normally, I'm a say "No" kind of guy, so I try to "Say No to stupid" and "Say Yes to reasonable".

Let's look at a murder mystery I ran quite a few years ago.

The PCs were approached to uncover the murderer of a beautiful foreign noblewoman the PCs had previously met.

In reality, she was murdered by her evil younger sister for court intrigue / personal romance reasons. The younger sister had used a couple of simple illusions to cast blame towards a royal son known to be a womaniser.

There were clues readily available to find the real killer, not to mention the PCs were of a level that magical divination was a real possibility. I expected the PCs to pierce the fabrication and find the culprit.

Instead, the PCs bought the overt story, investigated only to verify their prejudices were correct, and discarded any evidence that contradicted their premise. They presented their finding to the court and the royal son was banished from the kingdom and became a new threat to the group. The evil ilusionist consolidated her power in court and became more dangerous as well.

Why is that story inferior to the original expected ending of piercing the fabrication and finding the bad guy? Why should a GM push a particular set of choices and/or specifically override a random result he decided to roll in the first place?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Consider a generic quest. Say a murder mystery. I like using murder mysteries as examples lately, because in reality, they contain the elements of just about any kind of adventure with variety (search for clues/puzzles, talking to NPCs, fighting, exploring the bad guy's lair which may be trapped).

Once the players agree to pursue the goal, there's a sense of an expected ending that the bad guy is caught.

There is? I get enjoyment from running games because I don't have an expected ending. The players may have a desired ending in mind but not an expectation of a particular outcome. This is what keeps the game exciting for them too.

There's allowance for variance in how this is achieved. If the adventure is good, there's a allowance for failure to achieve, even though the party tried their best (and possibly some safety nets to give them an alternative chance to continue the quest).

If the ultimate outcome is known then the journey to that outcome can only get so exciting.

Let's even assume the PCs represent Sherlock Holmes and Watson, and up until now, this has been a serious campaign and they have earned a good reputation.

There's a lot that can go wrong to "fail to catch the bad guy"

the PCs could die in an encounter

the PCs could act totally obnoxious and stupid, out of character for what they normally protray

the PCs could get hung up on a detail that isn't really a clue, but as they investigate it, they think it is suspicious (because the GM is having to make stuff up)

Yes indeed. The fact that any of these may happen is a good thing. Not only could any or all of these happen but if they do shouldn't such events have an effect or even change the ultimate outcome? If not then there is little purpose in them at all.

technically, fudging the dice to save the PC is the most direct approach to not cratering the adventure. If combat's just window dressing to whats really going on (like it seems to be for me), then that's probably OK. If Combat's really a major focus of the campaign challenge (like a dungeon crawl might be), then fudging isn't a good tool.

The adventure cannot be "cratered" if that adventure is an account of how the PC's face challenges and handle themselves. Put another way, an adventure that never goes on the rails can never fly off them either. Setting up an expected ending in the first place makes the adventure vulnerable to cratering.

The way I run things, whatever the PC's are involved in is important. Thus "window dressing" can be brought to center stage if the players make it so.

If you have obnoxious players, not fudging and bringing down the iron hand of the NPC law is how you reign in the players. Unfortunately, in doing so, you've also cratered the adventure. This is a direct point where player behavior really influences any GM's expected outcome.

If the game world deals with player actions in a logical manner and the players are aware of this, then "reigning in" becomes less of an issue over time. Once again, expected outcomes are the culprit here.

On the last one, in a way, it strikes at the heart of running a simulation, or a story. If my only aim is to challenge the player's brain and don't care about a story outcome (and the fact that failure could end the career of the PCs, thus forever unintentionally changing the campaign).

Or I can move bits around in the background, revealing a new clue that gets them back on the trail. For me, if the players are earnestly trying to work the quest, I will try to reward that with results. If they make a mistake, they suffer a setback, but I try to make it one that they can regroup, overcome, and get to where they are trying to go.

Not every failure or setback need be fatal or campaign ending. Failing to find a clue might merely make the challenge more difficult. If the challenges primarily consist of finding clues and the PC's are constantly failing the DM handing out the clues at that point has made the challenge meaningless.

Because it's a GM style choice on intepretting player choices. Saving the PCs is more than just fudging a die roll. It's figuring out the nature of what happens next, and is it punitive or rewarding for the PCs. combat is not the most important thing that happens in a D&D adventure, it's just the most prominent. Since the adventure is written to assume the PCs get past the monster (otherwise, there'd be no point in writing more material), it's not really that important to player choice.

If the assumption is that the PC's "get past" the adventure then why run it. On both sides of the screen the joy of playing comes from not knowing IF the PC's are going to make it past a given point.

The possibility of character death is very important to player choice. If I know that my character is gonna come through the caverns of unescapable death somehow then any decision I make in that place is kind of pointless. Fight, negotiate, or run? It doesn't matter cause everythings going to be OK. How is that not important?

The real choices are whether to act like morons and try to cram a keg of ale up the barkeep's arse because he wouldn't say "sir", or to run for Sherriff of the town, or to attack the orc encampment, or to try to strike an alliance with them against the giants who threaten both.

What makes these choices real if they all lead to the expected outcome?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I just wanted to say "Thank You" to everyone in this thread. It is fun, and filled with well-thought-out posts from everyone.

Thanks!

RC