A Leap over Boiling Lava onto a Flying Wyvern

[Wolf1066]

It's kind of a standard thing in 3.x, though; if you jump, and just miss (fail by less than 5), you get a Reflex save to grab hold of the far edge.
...
He missed by one; a save to avoid going ker-splat-sizzle seems fair. Denying it would seem kind of unfair, to me.

I admit I'd be likely to give him the "second chance" as well, but that's largely because he rolled a 12 when he needed a 13. I'm superstitious enough to say that's too close not to be taken into account. The ruling of making a saving throw jibes with the overall rule of getting a save to prevent you from plummeting if you're sufficiently near a handhold, and a 12 says "you are really near that handhold."

I actually agree that if the GM had allowed unlimited saving throws that would suck BUT in this case the player only failed by one. That to me means his PC just missed the wyvern by a whisker and is flying past. Totally reasonable to allow another save to grab it on the way down imho.

Pretty much my take as well. If he'd needed 13 and rolled a 5, he's missed by miles and is well on his way to lava-induced immolation but such a close roll to me is "missed it by that much" territory and, given the self-preservation instinct, I'd say the character would automatically attempt to grab it without even consciously thinking of it. A "roll to see if your frantic snatching saves you" for near misses that could be reasonably viewed to be within arm's reach is fine by me.

If that had failed and it was followed up with "OK, roll to see if a thermal updraft from the hot lava pushes your character upwards.... No? OK, roll to see if an air elemental notices your plight..." then I'd have serious issues.

So far as I could tell when I read the OP, the situation and its resolution were fair. A near miss like that practically demands a "saving throw" - else "fridge logic" would eventually cut in and everyone - players and GM - would be saying later "yeah, but if you were falling down a cliff you'd instinctively make a frantic grab for anything to break your fall" - and by then it'd be too late to "rewrite" the character's survival.

A substantial miss, however and the only thing you can do is start making comments on how the character chose an inopportune moment to spectacularly commit suicide - "in the middle of a pitched battle 'n' all, just when we could have done with his help"...

As to the "cool" factor:

I never once played a game that wouldn't be "cooler" than real life - grizzled space mercenaries and adventurer/traders in Traveller, various fighters, magic users, beast masters (including a female Drow and a Wemic) in AD&D, gritty edgerunners in Cyberpunk, Vampires and Werewolves in Monster: The Something, Goth paranormal investigator in nWoD - and that's getting close to thirty years of gaming...

 

[Uder]

Obviously the DM's call worked out well and a splendid empowering non-confrontational buddy moment was had by all, but... always allowing PCs to win, even when their dice say the opposite, leads to them doing insane impossible stuff all the time. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest they might be very cross the one time when the DM finally doesn't fudge the dice.

IMO You've got to feed the lava now and then, or the players lose their sense of mortality. You've got to let the dice fall where they may, or you risk favoritism. Lastly, you've got to learn to not roll the dice if you're going to say "yes" anyways.

 

[Wolf1066]

We don't play "Papers and Paychecks" because, however easy it'd be to immerse in such a world, the things in it are lame and mundane.

I get to play "Papers and Paychecks" (or "Papers and Paycheques" down here) five days a week and it bores me to tears... that's why I GM Cyberpunk (or an approximation thereof) every two weeks.

I don't think I'd like to actually live in a Corporate dystopia, as I suspect my life wouldn't be as "cool" as that which I imagine for myself in the game (one could argue we are already in a Corporate-controlled dystopia and my current mundane and boring life is what it's really like) and I rather suspect that if I were in some fantastic Middle Earth setting, I'd be the poor serf tilling some rich bloke's fields rather than a dashing and daring adventurer.

Anyone out there ever take "serf" as a character class and be content to role play getting up at dawn to break your back hand-tilling a field until dusk when you can stop for a bowl of gruel then sleep in a rude hut? No? Funny, that. None of my players decided they wanted to play white- or blue-collar "salarimen" working for Arasaka's freight division, either - I guess "cool" is the over-riding factor in all gaming...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A fudge here and there can add to the epic feel of the game, but if you do, make sure your players know its not something they can count on.

And while the lava does need to feed on occasion, there is nothing inherently wrong with being the Intervening Hand of Plot every once in a while.

 

[Wolf1066]

Obviously the DM's call worked out well and a splendid empowering non-confrontational buddy moment was had by all, but... always allowing PCs to win, even when their dice say the opposite, leads to them doing insane impossible stuff all the time. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest they might be very cross the one time when the DM finally doesn't fudge the dice.

IMO You've got to feed the lava now and then, or the players lose their sense of mortality. You've got to let the dice fall where they may, or you risk favoritism. Lastly, you've got to learn to not roll the dice if you're going to say "yes" anyways.

Where did you get the impression that the player(s) was/were always going to win?

I gathered from the reported player reactions that there was no doubt in their minds that the GM would happily let the character die. It's not like they immediately said "hah, how are you going to write the character out of this one?"

Yes, you do have to "feed the lava" now and again - and if I were running the game and that Rogue had rolled a five, he'd be a crispy critter for certain. Where's your evidence that the GM in the reported case would have done any different?

A realistic "second chance" for a near miss (and we've all been saved by those IRL at least once) is fine. Repeated "one last chance" situations or a "second chance" when its obvious that the bloke wasn't playing the same ball game, let alone in the same park, are not good. They do smack of favouritism or "letting the players win".

It balances out - if an opponent is specifically targeting the PC's torso and has a "near miss", I roll to see if anything else is hit - arms, groin, legs, head... (as opposed to the opponent just snap-firing at the PC in which case a "near miss" is a miss).

Remember: NPCs and "monsters" get the same treatment - to me it would be just as fair if the wyvern had attempted to pounce on the Rogue with teeth and claws and had a "near miss" then had a "saving throw" to see if it managed to get him with its (rather long) tail on the way past...

 

[Uder]

Where did you get the impression that the player(s) was/were always going to win?

I'm not in the game. I don't have any impressions other than what I read. Was my advice about this wrong in your opinion? This is the sort of event that gives players the impressions they can't lose. I wonder what the outcome would have been if the second roll failed. With that much peer pressure, and real money riding on the roll, I feel very bad for the spot the DM is in. On reflection, once the money hit the table I might've just killed the PC on principle. At least the player got lunch out of the deal.

Remember: NPCs and "monsters" get the same treatment - to me it would be just as fair if the wyvern had attempted to pounce on the Rogue with teeth and claws and had a "near miss" then had a "saving throw" to see if it managed to get him with its (rather long) tail on the way past...

You lose me there for sure. I don't like to fudge, and I REALLY don't like to fudge for NPCs. I may as well send everyone home and go hang out with my kids in the sandbox if I'm just going to Calvinball the whole thing.

 

[coyote6]

That's fudging? I thought fudging was changing something; he just gave him a roll to save his life, a roll supported by the written rules at least one edition of D&D.

Giving him an endless series of rolls to save his life would be kind of dumb, but in a cheesy way, not a fudgy way. Completely different flavors, IMO.

there is nothing inherently wrong with being the Intervening Hand of Plot every once in a while.

Except for all the pancakes you have to serve. That's a lot of work, you know.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Good eye, coyote6!

 

[Fifth Element]

That's fudging? I thought fudging was changing something; he just gave him a roll to save his life, a roll supported by the written rules at least one edition of D&D.

If there's one thing we learned from the fudging thread is that "fudging" is about as hard to define as "D&D" is. Ask 100 people, get 103 answers.

This example is not fudging IMO, it's a DM making a ruling on the fly, which happens all the time in-game.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but this DM enjoys killing characters. He has repeatedly stated that his favorite module ever is the "Tomb of Horrors."

"fridge logic"

I've never heard this term before, but I like it. It's evocative of guys gathered around the fridge rehashing what should have happened after the fact--after it's too late. Is that correct?