Provide an example of when FLUFF overrided > Crunch

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Honestly, Elvenshae's example of fluff going too far is outrageous.

Really.

An ogre tossing around a smaller target with his club is a good example of Fluff trumping Crunch.

Not in games where we have rules that determine whether and how far you can toss around your targets. After all, I'm a uncannily dextrous elven swashbuckler. I don't get to narrate that the ogre missed me just because of that fact any more than the DM gets to narrate that he threw me around just because he's big and strong.

Hell, because of the way hit points work, there's not even any requirement that the ogres attack physically hurt my character in any way.

Elvenshae disliked it because it negatively impacted his character.

I also disliked it because it negatively impacted my character, causing me to sit out the entire rest of the combat, and prevented me, on my next turn, from using my own character's abilities (tumbling, defensive fighting, bluffing, last-second magic item use) to extricate myself from my predicament.

Nothing described by Elvenshae remotely resembles a DM going too far with narrative.

I guess it's a good thing we don't play together, then.

 

[Niccodaemus]

I also disliked it because it negatively impacted my character, causing me to sit out the entire rest of the combat, and prevented me, on my next turn, from using my own character's abilities (tumbling, defensive fighting, bluffing, last-second magic item use) to extricate myself from my predicament.

A tumbling check would have been cool. He hits! The elf flies through the air... but...ooh....wait.... he tumbles... and lands on his feet!

 

[Viking Bastard]

A tumbling check would have been cool. He hits! The elf flies through the air... but...ooh....wait.... he tumbles... and lands on his feet!

I agree. While I throw out fluff with mechanical implications all the time, I try not to hand out effects that affect the PCs too harshly, because, well, that's no fun. I think that in this case, I would've asked the player for a Acrobatics check or else be prone.

 

[Niccodaemus]

I agree. While I throw out fluff with mechanical implications all the time, I try not to hand out effects that affect the PCs too harshly, because, well, that's no fun. I think that in this case, I would've asked the player for a Acrobatics check or else be prone.

I see the elf landing in the classic Spiderman stance

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Really.



Not in games where we have rules that determine whether and how far you can toss around your targets. After all, I'm a uncannily dextrous elven swashbuckler. I don't get to narrate that the ogre missed me just because of that fact any more than the DM gets to narrate that he threw me around just because he's big and strong.

Hell, because of the way hit points work, there's not even any requirement that the ogres attack physically hurt my character in any way.

Really

In times like this, I'm reminded of the first two rules in the 7th Sea Game Master's Guide.

Rule #1: There are no rules.
Rule #2: Cheat anyway.

The DM is more then a calculator. The DM shouldn't be a computer program mindlessly following the rules. The DM should ignore, break, bend, change, and make up the rules as needed to present the game.

The DM modified the Ogre based on the fluff. Good for him, that's good DMing. He took a look at a monster and said, how can I add something to it. If I was DMing this game, and you or another player asked for a saving throw to land gracefully against the wall, I'd have allowed it. It's just as appropriate as the Orge's mighty smash.

You are correct in saying that you can't narrate the ogre's actions based on your character's description. The DM can. The DM can ban spells, feats, classes, items, monsters, or races all for fluff or mechanical reasons. The DM doesn't need to roll an attack role to hit you. The DM gets to judge how spells work or don't work (check out the great Orca Wall example earlier).

By agreeing to play in the DM's game, you've ceded to him the vast majority of Narrative Control. If he's smart and capable, he'll trying to create an experience that everyone at the table enjoys (that includes the players and the GM). Having his monsters auto hit probably isn't a good change. If he abuses his Narrative Control, he'll find himself without players in short order.

Finally, how do you know the Ogre didn't have a mighty smash ability that knocked targets back? Is there some sort of player review of the monsters before the game session (like a peer review of a scientic paper perhaps )?

I guess it's a good thing we don't play together, then.

Who knows, you might enjoy my DMing style. Have you tried it?

 

[MrMyth]

The DM is more then a calculator. The DM shouldn't be a computer program mindlessly following the rules. The DM should ignore, break, bend, change, and make up the rules as needed to present the game.

The DM modified the Ogre based on the fluff. Good for him, that's good DMing.

No, no it isn't. Improvisation and dynamically adjusting things on the fly can absolutely be a good thing, but is certainly not automatically so.

Now, this is definitely something that will vary from one group to the next. But for many groups, the point of having a shared rules system is to ensure the players can have reasonable expectations about how the rules work and how things happen... rather than the have the DM arbitrarily change things on the fly, often to the detriment of the game.

Now, I've seen groups where DMs do fudge dice and alter stuff. Maybe with the goal of making things more cinematic. Maybe because CR ratings or Encounter Levels or the like aren't reliable, and the DM likes to finetune things as the combat goes on to ensure the PCs have a 'proper' challenge - one where they triumph, but feel the difficulty of the fight before doing so.

Some groups like that, some don't. But either way, it is definitely a rather advanced form of DMing and requires a pretty solid ability to make those adjustments without PCs feeling like the DM is just deciding what happens without them having any input. As you mention, maybe the player could ask for a save against the effect, or argue for the chance to use Acrobatics or the like. Maybe the DM will allow that - but, in the end, it is still up to the DM. When actually playing by the rules, the players can at least appeal to those - but once you toss those out of the picture, they lose all agency in the matter. The DM decides the player should go flying, then decides the player should land in an acrobatic pose.

It might make a neat scene, but odds are for the player, it stops feeling like them being awesome, and more like they are just part of a puppet show being put on by the DM.

Which is, ultimately, what you are advocating - the DM as storyteller, and the players as an audience, rather than as participants.

And, honestly, I say this as someone who has done exactly this sort of thing at times. Sometimes to the player's advantage, sometimes to their disadvantage. But it is always something you need to be careful about. And anytime your 'cool fluff idea' results in arbitrarily knocking out a PC without them getting any way to respond? That is probably right at the top of the 'bad DMing' chart.

Finally, how do you know the Ogre didn't have a mighty smash ability that knocked targets back?

Well, based on the description of events, I'm guessing the DM said something like, "Hey, guess what would be cool - the force of the blow hurls you backwards and into the wall! I guess that does (roll random dice) xx damage, knocking you out.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Rule #1: There are no rules.
Rule #2: Cheat anyway.

And, from my opinion, those "rules" suck and are the primary cause of crappy DMing throughout the years.

I'm a pretty good DM. My group likes when I DM; we rotate, and I always get asked back into the head chair.

I don't need to throw out rules and futz with this fluff-overriding-crunch BS to run a good game.

And when I use houserules, I provide them to my players in a typed-up document that they get to review before the game starts. I don't pull the rug out from under them by changing the rules everyone agreed to use during play. I can do that quite easily by messing around with manipulative NPCs, tough monsters, challenging puzzles, dynamic settings, etc.

I don't need to play dirty pool to play a good game of billiards.

The DM should ignore, break, bend, change, and make up the rules as needed to present the game.

Yeah, no. I completely disagree.

He took a look at a monster and said, how can I add something to it.

No, he took a single attack roll, and said "How can I add something to it?" No other characters were affected in this way by this or any other ogre that we fought (because, presumably, no one else suffered an attack which was fluffed as "strong enough").

The DM can.

No, he can't. Not unless he's going to cheat - and, for my part, I believe that DMs can cheat, because your rules for DMing are terrible.

Who knows, you might enjoy my DMing style. Have you tried it?

I have. I don't like it, and I don't run my games that way.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, based on the description of events, I'm guessing the DM said something like, "Hey, guess what would be cool - the force of the blow hurls you backwards and into the wall! I guess that does (roll random dice) xx damage, knocking you out.

Pretty much.

It went (paraphrasing), DM: "The ogre hits you for ... roll, roll, roll ... X damage. Heh, that's kind of a lot. Are you even still standing?"

Me: "Yep. Jonath's pretty tough."

DM: "Oh. You sure? Okay, well, uh, the hit was so strong it knocks you flying from your feet, across the room. Oh - you hit this wall over here, 30' away, so that does ... roll, roll, roll ... Y damage."

Me: "That knocks me out."

DM: "Okay, you slump to the ground, out of the fight. So-and-so, your turn."

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

No, no it isn't. Improvisation and dynamically adjusting things on the fly can absolutely be a good thing, but is certainly not automatically so.

Now, this is definitely something that will vary from one group to the next. But for many groups, the point of having a shared rules system is to ensure the players can have reasonable expectations about how the rules work and how things happen... rather than the have the DM arbitrarily change things on the fly, often to the detriment of the game.

Now, I've seen groups where DMs do fudge dice and alter stuff. Maybe with the goal of making things more cinematic. Maybe because CR ratings or Encounter Levels or the like aren't reliable, and the DM likes to finetune things as the combat goes on to ensure the PCs have a 'proper' challenge - one where they triumph, but feel the difficulty of the fight before doing so.

Absolutely. I'm a firm believer of letting players know upfront rules you have modified. Everyone needs to be aware of this before you start. Likewise, any modification of the rules after play has began needs to be thought about at length. You are changing the rules in mid-game on your players and I don't think that's ever something to be taken lightly.

I used to fudge die rolls. I don't anymore. If I'm rolling dice, the dice will decide the matter. If I don't want the dice to resolve the matter, I don't roll them (or ask the players to roll them).

Some groups like that, some don't. But either way, it is definitely a rather advanced form of DMing and requires a pretty solid ability to make those adjustments without PCs feeling like the DM is just deciding what happens without them having any input. As you mention, maybe the player could ask for a save against the effect, or argue for the chance to use Acrobatics or the like. Maybe the DM will allow that - but, in the end, it is still up to the DM. When actually playing by the rules, the players can at least appeal to those - but once you toss those out of the picture, they lose all agency in the matter. The DM decides the player should go flying, then decides the player should land in an acrobatic pose.

I actually use a rule called the Since Clause to empower player input in the world at large. Anytime a player can say "Since X is here, I do the follow." X normally is a prop of some sort (apple cart, fireplace, large tree, etc). If it's reasonable, X is right were you need it (or something that is reasonable is placed near it. I don't need to place every tree in the forest. The only tree in the forest that matters is the one the player is trying to climb, hide-behind, or cut down.

It might make a neat scene, but odds are for the player, it stops feeling like them being awesome, and more like they are just part of a puppet show being put on by the DM.

Which is, ultimately, what you are advocating - the DM as storyteller, and the players as an audience, rather than as participants.

And, honestly, I say this as someone who has done exactly this sort of thing at times. Sometimes to the player's advantage, sometimes to their disadvantage. But it is always something you need to be careful about. And anytime your 'cool fluff idea' results in arbitrarily knocking out a PC without them getting any way to respond? That is probably right at the top of the 'bad DMing' chart.

I'm not advocating DM as puppet master. The DM presents situations to the players and the players go about interacting (or not interacting) with those situations as they see fit. It's absolutely impossible to predict what the players will do. You can guess at what they might do (if this, then that), but you've got to be ready to throw those all out the window when the PCs approach the problem sidewise.

At the end of each session, I'm think about what the PCs did and what the natural consequences of those actions should be. Did they frame someone, did they expose themselves to a powerful foe, did they make an unexpected ally. I work hard to make sure the PCs' actions play a powerful role in the situations that arise in the next session.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

It went (paraphrasing)...

To me that sounds like an needlessly harsh, fun-ruining improvisation. Would your opinion of fluff trumping crunch improve if it had been a more reasonable improvisation (such as moving your character adjacent to the wall) without taking you out of the rest of the combat?