Do you "save" the PCs?

[Jeff Wilder]

For shorter games I'd say no fudge.

Why? (Note that I'm not asking for a contrast: "Why here, but not here?" I'm asking, "Why do you prefer no fudge?")

Interestingly, I'm pretty much the exact opposite. A four- or five-hour convention game, for instance, is the one type of game where I think it's possible that the harm of fudging is outweighed by the benefits.

 

[Fifth Element]

Why? (Note that I'm not asking for a contrast: "Why here, but not here?" I'm asking, "Why do you prefer no fudge?")

Interestingly, I'm pretty much the exact opposite. A four- or five-hour convention game, for instance, is the one type of game where I think it's possible that the harm of fudging is outweighed by the benefits.

Hard to say, really. I think for longer campaigns it's harder to build up continuity if characters die off too much. If the makeup of the party changes over time such that no original characters are left, for instance, a recurring baddie wouldn't have the same effect.

For a convention game I can see your point. For shorter games at home, though, rolling up a new character isn't a big deal.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Hard to say, really. I think for longer campaigns it's harder to build up continuity if characters die off too much.

So you fudge to keep characters alive.

All the time?

If only sometimes, how do you decide?

(Oh, and you didn't answer: As a player, do you prefer secret fudging or not-secret fudging?)

 

[Fifth Element]

So you fudge to keep characters alive.

All the time?

Nope, not all the time.

If only sometimes, how do you decide?

I answered that previously in response to Raven Crowking. It's more about feeling than anything. There are no rules by which the determination is made. It's DM's discretion.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It's more about feeling than anything. There are no rules by which the determination is made. It's DM's discretion.

So ... you might end up fudging to save the PC of the player who bought the pizza that night, while allowing the PC of the player who argued with you earlier to die? (Note that I'm not implying any causation. I'm asking if the "feeling" you have that determines whether or not you save a PC might result in something like this, theoretically.)

 

[Fifth Element]

So ... you might end up fudging to save the PC of the player who bought the pizza that night, while allowing the PC of the player who argued with you earlier to die? (Note that I'm not implying any causation. I'm asking if the "feeling" you have that determines whether or not you save a PC might result in something like this, theoretically.)

In theory, that might happen, same as the decision of who a monster might attack would be affected. DM's disrection applies to a great deal of things in the game.

But I was really referring more to reading the players to try to gauge their reactions to the situation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yet it always comes back to me to be the primary DM.

Now, I'm sure there's some reason you can think of that this does not actually mean they enjoy my style of DMing for them, but on the face of it that would seem to say they approve.

I would agree with your assessment; they clearly want you to DM.

It therefore follows that (1) you are probably the best DM in your group, and (2) that you are probably the one who enjoys DMing most.

It does not therefore follow that your game is the best that it could possibly be.

And this is where we differ. I try to give the players what they want. It's just a game, after all, and if they want me to fudge I'll do it. If they want me to roll in the open I'll do that instead. You seem to be very hard-line, "my way or no way" about it. I can't fathom being that way about a game of make-believe.

I have walked down that path, from both sides of the screen, and I know that it is not fun. For me. For anyone I have ever played that way with. YMMV (obviously).

Like you, I try to give the players what they want. In the end, though, what I suspect they want is the best game that I can give them. And that game doesn't include fudging. Indeed, there are all sorts of things a player might want right now, that damage the game in the long run. Thus Monty Haul was born.

(Aside: You keep going on with that "about a game of make-believe" stuff. Sure, it's a game of make believe. All games are make-believe. Arguably, all achievement is make-believe in that nothing is ultimately permanent. So what that it is make-believe? Does that mean that you don't bring your best game to the table, or that you shouldn't care about the quality of experience you provide?)

Raven Crowking has answered the question himself, at any rate, which makes this moot.

And has tried to do so as honestly as possible.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

But unless you want me to bring jig-winking into the discussion, perhaps we should leave other threads out of it.

Jig-winking was awesome, and it is horrible of you to bring this up right now, when I cannot XP you for doing so.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

In theory, that might happen

So, (a) your players know you fudge, (b) you sometimes fudge to save a PC and other times don't do so, and (c) it's possible for that to happen so that it corresponds with whomever the DM likes more that night. Right?

same as the decision of who a monster might attack would be affected. DM's disrection applies to a great deal of things in the game.

If, to keep a PC from dying, you have a choice of:

(1) Having it attack another target or otherwise do something less dangerous to the threatened PC, or,

(2) Roll and ignore any result that would kill the PC ...

... which would you prefer to do? If you have a preference, why?

But I was really referring more to reading the players to try to gauge their reactions to the situation.

And you choose to do this in the seconds after you roll the die and the result is undesirable, right?

Would it be possible to read the players and gauge their reactions to a potential PC death in the seconds before rolling the die? If not, why not? If so, why do you choose to wait until after?

 

[Sigurd]

Some of this must happen

I think every DM has to spend some time tempering the results of player actions.

Simply, the situation is this. You describe a situation to the best of your ability and the player appears to understand. Upon seeing the players actions you realize that the player has not understood and is behaving from a misunderstanding you are part of.

Perhaps you have a lethal surprise that is too tailor made for that situation. Perhaps you find yourself cherry picking spells, magic or strategies in reaction to what the NPCs can't really know. In spite of the best games craftsmanship sometimes you can see the challenge scale slide to a TPK. At that point every good DM will adjust and not let the player know.

I think most of the time the DM rolls are hidden to help the players not kill them.


Sigurd