D&D 5E Do you want your DM to fudge?

[iserith]

I agree. Where we differ is that when I alter a rule, it become a consistent house rule that I will follow thereafter. I don't just throw rules out willy nilly because I want things to be a certain way. That way lies anarchy. The players deserve to have a consistent rule system that they can rely on, including house rules due to DM changes, additions or subtractions.

I have not advocating altering rules. I use the rules as they are, bringing them into play as needed to resolve uncertainty.

Because random chance only works in a game within certain parameters. Go outside those parameters due to extreme luck and the game breaks. I'm am willing to allow non-broken randomness. I'm not going to be a slave to the dice (something else the DM is not a slave to) and allow the game to break just because I called for a roll.

What does it mean for the game to "break?" If the possibility of character death (for example) is on the table, it's because you put it there. If you don't want that possibility, then set the stakes to something else. I, for one, don't have an issue with character death no matter how unlucky the PCs get (or how lucky the monsters get). I'm prepared for character death, so if it happens, it's no big deal. I'd certainly never fudge to avoid it.

That's your flawed assumption and not any kind of fact.

It is an assumption. It is clearly my opinion and not a statement of fact. It is not flawed in my own experience.

 

[wwanno]

The DM sets the stakes. Why would the DM set the stakes such that there is a possibility that one of the outcomes is not desirable?

You are judging too high the ability of a DM to properly set stakes. If he had always such ability, he could always lead the PCs and the game where he wants. He could design a whole campaign and play it as written from start to end with no needs to change or adjust it on the run.
We all know that this is not how it works.

The DM set the stakes so that those stakes are reasonably challenging (average result of the dices will lead to victory/success) for the party. This means that the party will feel the risk of failure, and if failure equals death (and it is usually true when we are talking of fighting), he will feels the risk of death. How can you feel the risk of death if you are not even threatened?

You can't.

So, or we avoid combat at all (because setting stakes too low in order to avoid PCs' deaths deny all the pathos), or we take in account that death may happen.

But death is not good, not for the PCs, nor for the DM who worked to design his plot.

So, yes, death may happen, but sometimes, if it ruins the game for all, putting an end to the whole campaign, the DM has to fudge.

 

[iserith]

If I follow your recommendation, I would not be able to call for rolls in combat..............ever. I refuse to let extreme bad luck break the game and extreme bad luck with die rolls in combat does that. Your response is that I should not roll in combat.

No, my response is to set the stakes to something other than (success) you live and (failure) you die. An example of this is in Lost Mine of Phandelver's goblin ambush scene. Defeated characters are knocked unconscious and robbed rather than killed. If you're okay with that as a condition of failure, then no matter how badly the dice run against the players, you'll have no incentive to fudge because you'll be okay with the failure condition. Another example is in my challenge Sea Horse Run where success means achieving the goal of preventing the sea horses from stealing the kraken eggs and failure means the kraken awakening and destroying the town of Hightide.

 

[iserith]

You are judging too high the ability of a DM to properly set stakes.

It's a skill. It can be developed to a high degree like any other skill.

If he had always such ability, he could always lead the PCs and the game where he wants. He could design a whole campaign and play it as written from start to end with no needs to change or adjust it on the run.
We all know that this is not how it works.

It's possible a DM could do that, but it's not what I advocate. I'm simply advocating setting stakes so that both success and failure are fun for everyone (players, if not characters) and help create an exciting, memorable story. If both success and failure are acceptable, it doesn't matter what you roll. The players will naturally strive for success, but failure isn't so bad that it would encourage the DM to fudge.

The DM set the stakes so that those stakes are reasonably challenging (average result of the dices will lead to victory/success) for the party. This means that the party will feel the risk of failure, and if failure equals death (and it is usually true when we are talking of fighting), he will feels the risk of death. How can you feel the risk of death if you are not even threatened?

You can't.

So, or we avoid combat at all (because setting stakes too low in order to avoid PCs' deaths deny all the pathos), or we take in account that death may happen.

But death is not good, not for the PCs, nor for the DM who worked to design his plot.

So, yes, death may happen, but sometimes, if it ruins the game for all, putting an end to the whole campaign, the DM has to fudge.

I think you're conflating challenge, difficulty, and stakes here. Risk of failure can be just as engaging as risk of dying. If dying is a stake you cannot abide because it interferes with your plot, then don't choose that as the failure condition.

 

[Maxperson]

I have not advocating altering rules. I use the rules as they are, bringing them into play as needed to resolve uncertainty.

You are advocating altering the rules. Rule 0 does not mean that your rule changes are not house rules. Yes, the DM is not a slave to the rules, but each and every time he break one because he wants a different outcome, he is altering the rules.

What does it mean for the game to "break?" If the possibility of character death (for example) is on the table, it's because you put it there.

The game is set up with certain parameters in mind. Random chance can exceed those parameters, which breaks the game. If I design an encounter to be easy, but extreme bad luck breaks the game and is going to kill off the party, that's bad.

If you don't want that possibility, then set the stakes to something else. I, for one, don't have an issue with character death no matter how unlucky the PCs get (or how lucky the monsters get). I'm prepared for character death, so if it happens, it's no big deal. I'd certainly never fudge to avoid it.

Character death and TPKs are fine.......within acceptable parameters. When the cause is broken die rolling, I will step in. Thankfully it's very rare for that to happen.

 

[Maxperson]

No, my response is to set the stakes to something other than (success) you live and (failure) you die.

Death is okay, though.

 

[wwanno]

With your example from ,Phandelver you were plain in your explanation, but you cannot find those kind of achievement for each and every encounter.

 

[iserith]

You are advocating altering the rules. Rule 0 does not mean that your rule changes are not house rules. Yes, the DM is not a slave to the rules, but each and every time he break one because he wants a different outcome, he is altering the rules.

I'm not advocating altering the rules. I'm advocating using the rules as tools to resolve uncertainty. They come into play as needed and go away when not. You seem to advocate rules as process - procedures that must be followed. I don't believe the rules are meant to be used in this fashion. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions, only sometimes bringing the rules into play when there is uncertainty as to outcome.

The game is set up with certain parameters in mind. Random chance can exceed those parameters, which breaks the game. If I design an encounter to be easy, but extreme bad luck breaks the game and is going to kill off the party, that's bad.

Character death and TPKs are fine.......within acceptable parameters. When the cause is broken die rolling, I will step in. Thankfully it's very rare for that to happen.

Which says to me that the underlying issue is that you're not fully bought into the stakes. I am always okay with the stakes because I'm the one that is setting them, so whether random chance exceeds whatever parameters you're talking about (?) simply doesn't matter. If an easy encounter by the numbers goes sideways for the PCs, oh well! The outcome will still be acceptable because, win or lose, the outcome will be fun for everyone and contribute to an exciting, memorable story.

 

[iserith]

With your example from ,Phandelver you were plain in your explanation, but you cannot find those kind of achievement for each and every encounter.

Sure you can. In some RPGs, death isn't on the table - if you fail to a particular degree, you're just "taken out" of the scene and no longer able to affect it. You might have been knocked out, captured, separated from the party, or your further efforts rendered ineffective. All of these and more are possible failure conditions in D&D. It just requires a little forethought and imagination.

But of course, you don't have to do it for every challenge provided you're prepared for character death. With backup characters, for example.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not advocating altering the rules. I'm advocating using the rules as tools to resolve uncertainty. They come into play as needed and go away when not. You seem to advocate rules as process - procedures that must be followed. I don't believe the rules are meant to be used in this fashion. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions, only sometimes bringing the rules into play when there is uncertainty as to outcome.

This isn't a matter of uncertainty vs. certainty. The result of is uncertain, so a roll is called for. Extreme bad luck breaks the game, so it gets fudged. Death is okay, so it's not a matter of different stakes.

Which says to me that the underlying issue is that you're not fully bought into the stakes. I am always okay with the stakes because I'm the one that is setting them, so whether random chance exceeds whatever parameters you're talking about (?) simply doesn't matter. If an easy encounter by the numbers goes sideways for the PCs, oh well! The outcome will still be acceptable because, win or lose, the outcome will be fun for everyone and contribute to an exciting, memorable story.

This is true. I don't buy into playing the game when it breaks. I insist on fixing the breaks.