Do you "save" the PCs?

[Jeff Wilder]

And the best part is [that "fudging" in M&M] is done with player knowledge and agreement to the mechanic up-front and player knowledge of the event during play.

I'm with Piratecat; I love this aspect of M&M. Absolutely love it.

On the other hand, a mechanic like this fits the superhero genre in a way that it doesn't, IMO, fit many others. (IMO, it also fits Star Wars, and there are likely other examples.)

While the part of my aversion to fudging that is based in logic would be satisfied if an M&M-like Hero Point system were applied to D&D, the part of my aversion to it that is more visceral would still hate it.

While Hero Points can be used by players for many purposes in M&M, the primary game mechanical purpose is to replace hit points. In D&D, hit points are ablative plot protection. M&M has a save mechanic, which means that without a do-over, an ostensibly powerful character (hero or villain) will be one-shotted significantly often, and that's just not fun. Adding Hero Points (or other fudging) to D&D is adding another layer of plot protection ... and IMO, it's too much.

(For what it's worth, if I were DMing OD&D (for some reason, perhaps I was in Hell, wait, is this Edition Warring?), I'm pretty sure I'd hold my nose and fudge until the characters were powerful enough not to be killed by a falling twig from a nearby tree.)

As an unrelated aside, it's kinda fun to post while hopped up on Guatemala Antigua, with the Ting Tings cranked absurdly loud in one's noise-isolation headphones. I'm more or less vibrating.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If there's any browbeating going on in this thread, it's the claims that DMs who fudge are untrustworthy or fearful that their creations are subpar.

I don't trust fudging DMs. I don't know if that, by your definition, means that I'm calling them "untrustworthy" or not. But I don't trust someone (in the context of a game) who is unilaterally altering the rules we've implicitly or explicitly agreed upon.

For what it's worth, I also never trusted Billy Witt, who, when we'd play Guns in the scrub-lot near the white-people projects, would never admit that he'd been shot and killed. If he's playing RPGs today, I'm sure he's a fudger (if the GM) or worse (if he's a player).

This is a good illustration of a player who prefers that his DM not fudge, then finds out his DM is fudging and is upset about it. In games where everyone is cool with the DM fudging, of course, it's not applicable as an analogy.

For the record, I think you (and Umbran, BTW) are incorrect that "everyone is cool" with fudging in your games. I know I can't prove it, and I know that you should know better than I do. But I don't believe it. This really isn't an indictment of you; it's simply a statement that I -- for better or worse -- choose to go with my own experience with gamers over what you're telling me of yours.

I've experienced players who were okay with fudging, don't misunderstand. One of my best friends outright told me one time -- it's still worth a chuckle in our gaming circle -- "I don't want to play D&D if I have a chance to fail at something!"

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't trust fudging DMs. I don't know if that, by your definition, means that I'm calling them "untrustworthy" or not. But I don't trust someone (in the context of a game) who is unilaterally altering the rules we've implicitly or explicitly agreed upon.

No, that's not calling them untrustworthy, really. You just don't like fudging in your games.

Now, if the rules the group agrees upon include the DM being able to fudge, there should be no problem, yes?

For the record, I think you (and Umbran, BTW) are incorrect that "everyone is cool" with fudging in your games. I know I can't prove it, and I know that you should know better than I do.

No you can't, and yes we do. But at least you're honest about not taking our word at face value. I suppose it's a bit less insulting that way.

However, I would ask why you'd participate in a discussion when you're not even going to believe what people say about their own personal experiences. It certainly suggests you're not here for the discussion.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

However, I would ask why you'd participate in a discussion when you're not even going to believe what people say about their own personal experiences. It certainly suggests you're not here for the discussion.

First: Dude, I'm a lawyer. I'm all about the hypothetical!

Second: What you describe as your "own personal experiences," I'll describe as "hearsay." (Seriously. Legally speaking, it's hearsay.) Again, I'm not saying that you're lying ... I'm saying that I believe you're wrong, because what you're describing contradicts every experience I've had in 29 years of gaming, and because there are other explanations for what you're describing. Gimme your game group on the stand where I can talk to them myself, and we'll see.

You do understand that I can believe what you say, but not believe you're correct about the conclusions you reach, right? I don't believe you or Umbran are lying ... I simply don't believe your conclusions.

Third: I wasn't aware that accepting everything someone says as fact was a requirement for participating in a discussion. They did, however, make an okay movie out of the premise, starring Jennifer Garner and Ricky Gervais.

 

[Ariosto]

If there's any browbeating going on in this thread it's ... There's a world of difference between ...

I was referring to Hussar's post. Whatever the difference between two hypothetical cases that are not the actual case at hand, it is neither here nor there. Notice that the point was to demonstrate the inherent paradox in Hussar's lambasting of Raven Crowking for alleged paradox (or hypocrisy, perhaps).

 

[Fifth Element]

Admin here. This area of the thread right around here is where things are starting to go downhill fast. Please read my warning on the next page before responding to these posts.. ~ PCat

First: Dude, I'm a lawyer. I'm all about the hypothetical!

Second: What you describe as your "own personal experiences," I'll describe as "hearsay." (Seriously. Legally speaking, it's hearsay.)

No kidding. Did you notice this isn't a courtroom?

Again, I'm not saying that you're lying ... I'm saying that I believe you're wrong

I know precisely what you're saying, it's just incredibly arrogant. Since my experience doesn't mesh with yours, you assume I'm wrong about my experiences, rather than reasoning your experiences might not be universal. You may have been gaming 8 years longer than I have, but I'd say my 21 years are plenty to form my own experiences in gaming.

I realize lawyers are trained to argue their positions regardless of the evidence against them, but again we're not in a courtroom.

Gimme your game group on the stand where I can talk to them myself, and we'll see.

Read that back to me: "but again we're not in a courtroom."

Third: I wasn't aware that accepting everything someone says as fact was a requirement for participating in a discussion.

No, but if you're going to assume someone's wrong when in fact their experiences are just different from yours, you're not going to be productive in the dicussion.

This is another point Umbram can add to his list for why these discussions go downhill.

 

[Fifth Element]

Notice that the point was to demonstrate the inherent paradox in Hussar's lambasting of Raven Crowking for alleged paradox (or hypocrisy, perhaps).

I'm puzzled by your characterization of Hussar's post as "lambasting."

 

[Ariosto]

While the part of my aversion to fudging that is based in logic would be satisfied if an M&M-like Hero Point system were applied to D&D, the part of my aversion to it that is more visceral would still hate it.

Ditto here. They are both splendid games, but they are different games.

While Hero Points can be used by players for many purposes in M&M, the primary game mechanical purpose is to replace hit points.

Bingo! If you've got 25 hit points, then it's impossible for 4d6 damage to reduce you to zero. If you've got some % chance of an instant knockout, then it can happen right now.

For what it's worth, if I were DMing OD&D ... I'm pretty sure I'd hold my nose and fudge until the characters were powerful enough not to be killed by a falling twig from a nearby tree.

One could start the characters at, say, 3rd or 4th level. Or just give 'em a hit-point "kicker" at 1st. Maximum HP at 1st is typically just 1 short of average at 2nd, with Hit Dice per Supplement I and later.

Maximum at 1st and AD&D-style "negative points" (with the KO threshold going through -2, for 50% with d6 vs. 1 HP) proved in my experience to make characters too darned hard to kill. It was just a drag to have 'em lying around incapacitated but "not dead yet!" YMMV.

I had a game for a while in which we used the HP system from the 1978 Arduin Grimoire Vol. III (Runes of Doom). Kobold magic-User , constitution 11 = 22 points, +1/3 levels. Saurig (lizard-dude) fighter, constitution 16 = 43 points, +1/level.

 

[Raven Crowking]

After 30 pages of discussion on the topic?

When "they" are still (metaphorically) standing there to talk to?

Yes, I would still be cautious indeed about assuming that a perception that "X is a weakness" or "X is used to compensate for a weakness" somehow implies disrespect of the other side.

I am not sure what "class of people" you are referring to, so I can't really answer that.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

If fudging is good for your game, do it. There's nothing inherently wrong with it.

AH, then we agree.

We simply disagree as to what the set of "If fudging is good for your game" consists of. I tend to believe it is (for all intents and purposes) an empty set.

Who is this General that's recommending or not recommending things? Did I miss that you worked in the Pentagon, RC?

Happy to talk to you when you calm down, Umbran.

Raven Crowking (and others) has argued at length and quite vocally that DM's are the ultimate authority in a game. They should not feel that they have to change for the players or for the mechanics. They should be the masters of the game - with authority over the game, the mechanics and pretty much everything that happes at the table.

But, here, we see that the ultimate authority in his game is actually the dice.

Not at all. The ultimate authority is the DM. If the DM decides to roll the dice, and then decides to fudge, he is undermining his own authority.

Data point: this is how Mutants & Masterminds works. PC hits spectacularly well and you want to minimize the damage to your NPC? Toss a hero point. NPC needs to get away for comic book reasons? Toss a hero point. You want the NPC to automatically hit? Toss a hero point.

Building an "ignore the dice" mechanic into the game works pretty well, because the PCs can then use those hero points to reroll dice that they don't like.

Yup. I have no problem with this sort of rule.


RC