Do you "save" the PCs?

[Nagol]

<snip>

I think the most important point is that fudging the occasional die roll isn't about not wanting to be challenged: it's more about understanding that a die roll doesn't take story, character or genre into account, and I find those sort of things to be more important the more I find myself playing.

In any case, carry on...

--Steve

I sandbox play. Story is taken care of by the group and is organic in nature rather than scripted. Any defeat short of a TPK, the story continues with the protagonists chastened and struggling to rebuild.

I have no interest in adjudicating differently depending on the character at risk.

I find the best way to take genre into account is to pick a game system that strongly supports the genre and playstyle I expect the game to have. More forgiving game systems generally have a visible "break the bad luck" mechanism available or construct characters capable of withstanding the luck and carrying on.

 

[Fifth Element]

I find the best way to take genre into account is to pick a game system that strongly supports the genre and playstyle I expect the game to have. More forgiving game systems generally have a visible "break the bad luck" mechanism available or construct characters capable of withstanding the luck and carrying on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret this to mean you don't think D&D supports this playstyle very well. Since the fudging we're talking about happens very rarely, the system is almost irrelevant. It just doesn't come up often enough to justify a change in ruleset. If you like the ruleset as a whole, it's infrequent enough to be irrelevant for that decision.

And as for genre, my preferred genre is D&D. That's one reason I like to play D&D.

 

[Nagol]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret this to mean you don't think D&D supports this playstyle very well. Since the fudging we're talking about happens very rarely, the system is almost irrelevant. It just doesn't come up often enough to justify a change in ruleset. If you like the ruleset as a whole, it's infrequent enough to be irrelevant for that decision.

And as for genre, my preferred genre is D&D. That's one reason I like to play D&D.

For me, D&D isn't a genre. The genre is emulating old-style swords and sorcery fiction a la Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser or Conan.

I don't feel fudging fits the genre well -- pitting your skills, wits, and luck against the hostile environment and emerging victorious and rich or mouldering in the depths to be picked over by the next group of brave/foolhardy souls.

Additionally, as per my last comments in the thread I feel I am abusing the trust of the group (is that phrasing better than dishonest?) when I present a method of random determination and substitute a covert fiat. Much as I expect I would feel if I were rolling a weighted die during the course of play. If I step outside the expected rules I want the players to be cognizant to it.

I'm not against "fix-it" systems. I've used several different ones in the past. The one the group had the most fun with was Whimsy Cards from Lion Rampant. All of systems were agreed to by the group in advance, fully visible to the player in operation, and partially or wholly in the player's control for use.

 

[pawsplay]

I've never read the book, but I do hope you're basing this argument on more than the title of the book, which is clearly a play on the author's name.

I own and have read it, if that's what you're asking.

 

[pawsplay]

You should stop playing the victim here, it doesn't become you. You're not just saying fudging is generally bad, IYHO. You're saying it's bad for everyone, and that those who think it's good for them are deluding themselves, and that you know better than they do what their players really want.

All of this about how we prefer to pretend to be elves.


Thou shalt not insult other posters and call their integrity into question while doing so.

Paging Alanis Morissette...

 

[Hussar]

If I step outside the expected rules I want the players to be cognizant to it.

But, again, how is it stepping outside the expected rules, when the rules explicitly tell you to expect it? It's not like we're actually doing something that's against the rules of the game. We're actually doing something that is expressly permitted BY the game.

Now, I can totally see the abuse of trust thing. I can. But, if the players have given you explicit permission to do it, is it still abusing the trust of the players?

 

[pawsplay]

But, again, how is it stepping outside the expected rules, when the rules explicitly tell you to expect it? It's not like we're actually doing something that's against the rules of the game. We're actually doing something that is expressly permitted BY the game.

Now, I can totally see the abuse of trust thing. I can. But, if the players have given you explicit permission to do it, is it still abusing the trust of the players?

Surely not abuse. It is a good use, though? Dropping an ancient red wyrm on a party of 2nd level heroes isn't breaking the rules either, still not a great idea in most cases.

 

[Imaginary Number]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want to hear more about jig-winking. Any takers?

 

[Nagol]

But, again, how is it stepping outside the expected rules, when the rules explicitly tell you to expect it? It's not like we're actually doing something that's against the rules of the game. We're actually doing something that is expressly permitted BY the game.

Now, I can totally see the abuse of trust thing. I can. But, if the players have given you explicit permission to do it, is it still abusing the trust of the players?

The expected rules for the players are the same rules they're playing under and the same rules I was using 2 minutes earlier in the combat and will revert to when I next adjudicate an action. That the game gives the authority to deviate from the ruleset does not make such deviation expected. Additionally, most of the so-called "authority" presented has been advice to the DM or cautions to the players that the DM may act in an arbitrary manner, not codified rules. Being given the authority to lie doesn't make a lie any more truthful.

 

[Fifth Element]

I own and have read it, if that's what you're asking.

You said you're going "mainly" by the title. I was asking if there's actual content of the book that supports the idea. The title is just a play on his name. If my last name was Laws and I was writing a book of advice, you'd bet I would use the device as well. I mean, if his name was Robin Axioms the books would undoubtedly be Robin's Axioms of Good Gamemastering.