Do you "save" the PCs?

[pawsplay]

It's the beginning of the night, the players meet a regular encounter, nothing special. The baddie walks up to the PC, hits three times, twice with crits and takes the PC from full to dead in the first round. The player did nothing wrong. No mistakes were made. Just the dice gods deciding the player is dead.

Do you whack the PC and force him to sit and observe for the next four hours because there's no reasonable way to have a new PC parachute in right now? Or do you break suspension of disbelief and parachute a new NPC in anyway? Or do you knock the damage down so that the PC is very wounded (negative hp) and let him live?

Which would be best for the game?

That's a false... er, trilemma. Since the encounter is otherwise inconsequential, I might go for the negative hp option, but typically I would just ask the player to start rolling up a new PC. There's enough of a party to continue, it reinforces the idea that no punches are being pulled, and parachuting in a PC is usually not so difficult. While it may be a short-term inconvenience, in the long term, it makes for a better game. Still, if it were the first session with new PCs, and the PC was not interchangeable in some way, perhaps a concept the player was looking forward to try out, I would probably rather go the negative hp route than awkwardly try to insert a functionally identical PC. I might also dish out some Con damage to sharpen the "near-death experience."

Still, I think it's worth looking at the larger issues. Did I introduce an inconsequential encounter with always-hostile NPCs that have the capability of killing a PC on a crit? If so, then I have erred. Either the encounter should be deadly in earnest, because it's interesting in some way, there should be an opportunity to avoid the encounter, or the mandatory encounter should be less deadly.

If the PCs, however, entered combat cavalierly, or were aggressive, or closed into melee when they had every reason to consider other tactics, sparing the PCs would not even be on the table.

I guess one distinction I make is between "story" and hassle. I don't really believe RPGs can have a story, in the sense of a predetermined series of events; even the most railroaded scenario can be distorted beyond recognition, with the right choices. What happens, happens. On the other hand, certain events represent such a disruption of play that the value of arbitrating the results, as openly and honestly as the situation warrants, must be weighed against the value of a clean end to what has gone before. In this realm of pondering how to continue the game without the PCs is where I think many of the posters can reach broad agreement. Again, there are basically two questions here.

1. Fudging dice: Mostly ok, mostly not ok?
2. Killing all the PCs: How much does the GM intervene and when and how?

 

[Kingreaper]

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

You find out what is there.


If I were GMing and gave you the meaningless "left or right" choice, with no evidence; I'd have something planned for the first direction you took, and something planned (in a very vague and general way) for if you turned back after seeing what was down the first path. (because the choice to turn back and try the other route IS meaningful)

This is useful if someone pulls out an investigative skill I'd forgotten, or simply not considered, because then the choice becomes meaningful again.



The alternative (placing the two things by "left and right" rather than by "first taken and second taken") seems antithetical to my playstyle; and my players enjoyment.
For example, let's say I've decided that the Dungeons of Terror (an area my low-level party are passing through) are actually secretly an entrance to the Ancient Temple of Tongues (something the players may not even know exists yet) and that an ancient priest will have a map leading to the temple.
The characters have none of this information yet. The players probably don't either.
It seems like your playstyle would indicate that, at this point, I should have the cave system mapped out so that I know where the entrance to the Temple is.
To me, that seems pointless. None of the characters know the temple exists, let alone where it is, so they cannot choose to go there. So why go to the extra effort of planning out the Temple's location before they enter the Dungeons?


I'm probably misinterpreting your position. But the only way to find that out is to present what I feel your position to be, and see if I you disagree.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
For some people fudging is only bad because they would like for the game to remain a game and not some other activity that fudging turns the play session into. That is the main reason I see fudging as bad. It isn't the end of the world, just the end of the game.

And that's perfectly, 1000% fine for some people.

Why is it not perfectly fine for others to prefer fudging? RavenCrowking has gone on at length now that anyone who believes that fudging improves his or her game is flat out wrong. They are misguided and don't actually know what is good for their game.

How is this not pure wrongbadfun?

RavenCrowking, you are claiming to not only know a superior way of playing, but you dismiss any claims to the contrary as being at best short sighted and at worst, outright incompetent. You don't like fudging. You see it as dishonest. Fine, no problem. Don't play in games where the DM fudges.

But don't sit there and try to tell me that you know better than all other DM's out there what is good for their game. It's unbelievably arrogant to presume that you know other people's games better than they do.

Although, I do find it uproariously funny to see you trying to minimize the effect of a Gygax quote that you don't agree with, when, in any other circumstance, you'd be pronouncing it from the rooftops as the one true way of playing.

Y'know what? If it's good enough for EGG, then, hey, it's good enough for me.

 

[pawsplay]

If anyone has wondered at what some of us have meant by "OneTrueWayism" - above we have a prime example. Perhaps the most politely phrased example I've seen in a while, but also one of the most clearly put.

I disagree. He is simply deprecating one specific approach or technique for dealing with a certain kind of problem. He hasn't made any claims of ultimate superiority, only a claim of practical superiority. Further, I can agree with his broader point while disagreeing on many particulars of the style he is advocating.

If I were to put forward an idea, such as, "Gamemasters should not have PCs in their own game, IMO," that is a suggestion. I think it would be rather defensive to describe that proposition as One True Wayism. Same thing.

"Don't do this," is a different kind of idea than, "You are bad and wrong."

 

[pawsplay]

And that's perfectly, 1000% fine for some people.

Why is it not perfectly fine for others to prefer fudging? RavenCrowking has gone on at length now that anyone who believes that fudging improves his or her game is flat out wrong. They are misguided and don't actually know what is good for their game.

How is this not pure wrongbadfun?

Well, it is a testable assertion. You could always take the Pepsi Challenge.

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps it would help if we were able to discuss an example of fudging that is not intended to cover a weakness in design or implementation, or to promote the outcome the GM desires? Frankly, I cannot think of one. But I keep hearing that they exist, so that direction might be fruitful for discussion?

Can anyone give me one such example?


RC

Why? The entire point of fudging is to cover a weakness in design or implementation. That's what it's FOR. That's it's quintessential function. So, who is saying that they have purposes other than that?

/snip Again, there are basically two questions here.

1. Fudging dice: Mostly ok, mostly not ok?
2. Killing all the PCs: How much does the GM intervene and when and how?

That's not how I see the question. It's more:

1. Fudging dice: Can it ever be done?

At least, that's how RavenCrowking is framing it. If you fudge once, you fudge every time.

I've repeatedly stated that fudging is something that should be done very rarely, so, my answer to your first question would be "mostly not ok". If you are playing in a game where fudging is mostly ok, there's likely some pretty serious problems in the game.

That's not the issue though. At least not to me. It's the hyperbolic argument that keeps coming up that a single fudge suddenly destroys games and THOU SHALT NEVER FUDGE. I see that you don't see RC's posts as onetruewayism, but, I'm gonna tell you, given the plethora of posts in this thread, that's exactly the message he's projecting.

That if I think fudging is okay, I'm apparently deluded and incompetent as a DM. I dunno about you, but, I think that goes a bit beyond a simple, "Don't do this."

 

[Fifth Element]

If there is a purpose to your post, apart from attempting to be insulting, I would like to hear it.

Try to read your argument from our point of view:

"Yes, you can fudge, but if you do so it's only because of a weakness in your DMing. Also, if you think it improves your game, you're wrong."

I'd suggest OneTrueWayism isn't the best description of this. But it's close. OneBestWayism taken to the extreme, which is almost the same thing, perhaps?

"If your'e really a good DM, you won't fudge." That's the implication of your argument: if you didn't have this weakness, you wouldn't find the need to fudge. That's insulting.

We don't fudge because we need to cover for some weakness in our DMing. We fudge because it improves the game for us and our groups. Yes it does. Stop saying it doesn't, because you know nothing about our groups, and you have no reason to doubt us.

 

[Fifth Element]

"Don't do this," is a different kind of idea than, "You are bad and wrong."

What about "Don't do this, because doing this would show that that you are bad and wrong"?

I have no problem with being advised not to fudge, in general. I have a problem with being told that I only fudge because of a weakness in my DMing, and that my fudging hurts the enjoyment my players derive from the game, based on nothing more than presumption.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If anyone has wondered at what some of us have meant by "OneTrueWayism" - above we have a prime example. Perhaps the most politely phrased example I've seen in a while, but also one of the most clearly put.

I agree, it's OneTrueWayism.

It's fine if you're giving a beginning GM advice and you say something like, "Mary Sue NPCs are a bad idea" but when you're involved in a long discussion with obviously highly experienced and knowledgeable gamers such as Fifth Element, Umbran and Piratecat (Piratecat, in particular being generally regarded as one of the best GMs around) you have to show a lot more respect for a contrary opinion. Another factor is that fudging is accepted or even recommended in such important rpgs as D&D 1e, D&D 2e and WEG Star Wars. It's not like it's some crazy, get outta here, only works in .00000000001% of cases, idea. The evidence of this thread alone disproves that.

 

[pawsplay]

What about "Don't do this, because doing this would show that that you are bad and wrong"?

I don't think it's productive to nudge the discussion in that direction. Why not stick with what's inarguably in the post? While you may, perhaps reasonably, feel insulted by implication, that suspicion does not allow one to claim they have been insulted in fact.