Do you "save" the PCs?

[Fifth Element]

If Opinion A and Opinion B are mutually exclusive, and the person who holds Opinion B accepts that others hold Opinion A (although he thinks they are wrong), but the person who holds Opinion A not only believes that the other person holds Opinion B, but cannot accept that the other person holds Opinion B, then it is the person holding Opinion A who thinks his opinion should be adhered to by all.....or, perhaps, that persons holding Opinion B should just shut up.

That assumes motivation on the part of B (which would be against forum rules, by the way, if this were a real person you're talking about).

The word "accepts" is loaded here. If the person with opinion B accepts that others hold opinion A, why would he continue to argue about it on and on? He's doing exactly the same thing as the person with opinion A, arguing his case. Yet he is characterized as accepting while the other is characterized as thinking that everyone should think the way he does.

Saying that smoking is a bad idea, and that you will not be as healthy if you smoke as if you don't, is valid observation.

There's objective evidence behind that observation. This analogy doesn't work.

But some smokers and manufacturers of tobacco products might take offense at that observation.

Of course they would, because they have a vested interest in the opposite. Their financial wellbeing rests entirely on the sale of tobacco.

The only difference between Monte's opinion and mine, AFAICT, is that Monte believes that the DM can successfully conceal his fudging. I think that's a poor gamble at best. YMMV.

I prefer Gygax's take on this one.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Actually, that's not true. There is a difference between Monte's opinion as expressed in the DMG and yours. His is authoritative as far as the recommended rules go, just as Gygax's was as the writer of the 1e DMG. Yours is not. The authoritative voice of a game cannot, by definition, be badwrongfun because the game defines the baseline assumptions and expectations of the game - the rules and basic practices.

That said, you're putting a spin on Monte's comments. Monte doesn't make any kind of blanket statement that fudging hurts the game. Rather, he says:


I would submit that his statement is not incompatible with letting the PCs suffer the consequences of their own decisions but ameliorating strings of bad luck when the players are, otherwise, playing quite prudently based on what the DM knows behind the screen. After all, a bit further up the page he also says:

The problem I see with the advice in the 3.0 DMG is that anything which means life or death for a character is (by my definition) not trivial. If something trivial actually needs to be determined then either make a common sense ruling or roll the bones. If you decide to let the dice decide the outcome then accept the result. In this case most likely good judgement has already been applied while assigning probability
to the roll. Changing the result is akin to having no faith in your own judgement.

Lets say you assigned the roll an 85% chance to succeed and the roll still fails, so you change the failure to a success. Your own decision to assign success chance to a roll has been second guessed and wasted-by you! This kind of fudging not only means that the DM
has no faith in the rules or mechanics being used but in him/her self as well.

 

[billd91]

Lets say you assigned the roll an 85% chance to succeed and the roll still fails, so you change the failure to a success. Your own decision to assign success chance to a roll has been second guessed and wasted-by you! This kind of fudging not only means that the DM
has no faith in the rules or mechanics being used but in him/her self as well.

That's an awfully binary example. Suppose, however, that the DM decides that being run over by a cart does 5d6 points of damage, knowing that the average outcome is going to be 17-18 points of damage, a reasonable value that will put a significant hurt on the 4th level cleric with 20 hp being run down. Then when he rolls it, he yatzees it at 30 points. Dead cleric. Maybe he then decides to shave off a die at leave it at 24, the cleric severely injured and in danger of death if the party doesn't react fast enough. That's an outcome that doesn't mean the DM has no faith in either the rules or the mechanic, just that a highly improbable result came from the dice.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In case it is at all unclear, I would like to take a second to, once again, thank the majority of posters in this thread for their clear, rational, non-acrimonious postings.

Even though some particular post may not have swayed my particular opinion, I (for one) do appreciate the well-thought-out objections to my opinion. I don't believe that there is anything incongruous with holding an opinion, and simultaneously being willing to accept that your opinion may not be correct.

There is a difference between stating "This is what I believe" and "This is what I believe, and I also believe I cannot be wrong in that belief." I should think that obvious, but I realize that there are some few for whom it is not.

Let me use a couple of semi-absurd examples that I hope will illustrate my point:

Let us say that I have never seen a shade of green that did not utterly disgust me. I would then, naturally, hold the opinion that all shades of green are disgusting to me. I would hold that opinion very strongly. Were you to say, "I have a shade of green you will love", I would be unlikely to accept it is true without strong evidence, and, depending upon the effort required to actually obtain that evidence, I might dismiss the claim outright as being highly unlikely.

But I could be wrong. There could be a shade of green out there so dazzling to my eyes that, not only do I love it, but I find that I can now tolerate (or even enjoy) other shades of green through my appreciation of that particular shade.

Another clear example is the smoking example. I have a great deal of second-hand evidence that suggests smoking is harmful, and a reasonable amount of first-hand evidence that suggests the same. It is, therefore, likely that I will conclude that smoking is harmful. Now, it may also be true that my grandfather smoked, and lived with good health until his late 80s. It may be true that your grandmother smokes, is 127, and is still going strong. But neither of these isolated statements is likely to make me believe that smoking is not harmful, and that they could not have lived longer/be healthier without it.

But, again, I could be wrong. It is entirely possible that the anti-smoking lobby, for whatever reason, has doctored the evidence, intentionally or not, to fit their bias. My first-hand experiences could be coincidental.

But I would be foolish, in either the green or smoking example, to assume that I was wrong, or even assume that it was reasonably likely that I was wrong.

Anyway, I again wanted to offer a real heart-felt thank you to the majority of posters. Even where I disagree with you, I appreciate the additional material/arguments to ponder. Rational arguments are something that can be considered, answered, accepted, or rejected. Even where arguments are ultimately rejected, the consideration of them allows for real growth.

I have said it before in this thread, and I will say it again: Simply because I argue/believe one way, it shouldn't make anyone change what they are doing unless they find the argument compelling and not incongruous with his or her experience. Otherwise, the guy on the ground floor who argues that the window is a perfectly fine way to leave a house is going to lead a lot of people on the 10th floor astray. Especially if that guy has said, again and again, that he has never seen a house with more than one floor, and isn't at all certain that they exist.

And to those people who are on the other side, have provided stimulating posts again and again, and haven't taken offense that I haven't agreed with them, a special thanks. It is people like you that make EN World great!

(And, on this thread, that's quite a few people)

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's an awfully binary example. Suppose, however, that the DM decides that being run over by a cart does 5d6 points of damage, knowing that the average outcome is going to be 17-18 points of damage, a reasonable value that will put a significant hurt on the 4th level cleric with 20 hp being run down. Then when he rolls it, he yatzees it at 30 points. Dead cleric. Maybe he then decides to shave off a die at leave it at 24, the cleric severely injured and in danger of death if the party doesn't react fast enough. That's an outcome that doesn't mean the DM has no faith in either the rules or the mechanic, just that a highly improbable result came from the dice.

What is the chance of rolling 30 hp damage on 5d6?

EDIT: 1 in 7776.

So, lets say you assigned the roll a 7,775 in 7,776 chance to succeed and the roll still fails, so you change the failure to a success. Your own decision to assign success chance to a roll has been second guessed and wasted-by you! This kind of fudging not only means that the DM has no faith in the rules or mechanics being used but in him/her self as well.

The example is still binary; only the odds have changed.

Why not simply assign 5d6, with a max damage of 24, before rolling the dice in the first place?


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

I would submit that his statement is not incompatible with letting the PCs suffer the consequences of their own decisions but ameliorating strings of bad luck when the players are, otherwise, playing quite prudently based on what the DM knows behind the screen.

Very true. The passage talks about there being "no element of risk." This again goes back to the characterization that players do stupid stuff because they know the DM will save them. Some DMs may play that way, but it's never what I've been talking about.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's an awfully binary example. Suppose, however, that the DM decides that being run over by a cart does 5d6 points of damage, knowing that the average outcome is going to be 17-18 points of damage, a reasonable value that will put a significant hurt on the 4th level cleric with 20 hp being run down. Then when he rolls it, he yatzees it at 30 points. Dead cleric. Maybe he then decides to shave off a die at leave it at 24, the cleric severely injured and in danger of death if the party doesn't react fast enough. That's an outcome that doesn't mean the DM has no faith in either the rules or the mechanic, just that a highly improbable result came from the dice.

Part of the DM's job when assigning the die range for that roll is considering the potential consequences of any possible result. If the DM knows that the cart is supposed to put a hurtin on whomever
it hits but not have a real chance to be fatal then the assigned die range should bear that out.

perhaps a damage range of 15-20 on a d6 was appropriate for that occurance. Enough to really feel the bite or even knock the guy out but certainly not kill him.
In your example the DM was perfectly willing to let death be an option when assigning the damage then second guessed his own decision with an arbitrary reversal. 5d6 is easily deadly to a 20 hp character.

A DM who didn't see the potential for death wasn't very experienced or didn't think it through.
Mistakes happen. Characters die due to both player and DM mistakes during the learning process. The negative effects of those mistakes teach the lesson. If we smooth over all mistakes with fudging then play never improves on either side of the screen.

 

[Fifth Element]

Let us say that I have never seen a shade of green that did not utterly disgust me. I would then, naturally, hold the opinion that all shades of green are disgusting to me. I would hold that opinion very strongly. Were you to say, "I have a shade of green you will love", I would be unlikely to accept it is true without strong evidence, and, depending upon the effort required to actually obtain that evidence, I might dismiss the claim outright as being highly unlikely.

But what if someone says "I love this particular shade of green. Everyone in my family loves this shade of green." Would you then say "Are you sure they're not just saying that because they think you'll be upset if they told you they hated it? In my experience green is disgusting." Would that not be an absurd response?

 

[Fifth Element]

What is the chance of rolling 30 hp damage on 5d6?

EDIT: 1 in 1296.

1 in 7776, I believe.

 

[Raven Crowking]

1 in 7776, I believe.

Correct; editted.