AD&D DMG, on fudging

[The Shaman]

You're so bound up in the idea of planted rumors being breadcrumbs you can't see alternative uses for them.

bd91, if you go back and re-read what I wrote upthread, I make a distinction between rumors which inform the characters about what's going on in the setting and rumors used to drive the referee's plot.

A rumor in my campaign might be something like, "An important client of a provincial governor has offered his loyalty to the Cardinal Richelieu, the governor's enemy." It's not a "clue" (5E's word) leading the adventurers anywhere in particular; it's just information on which they may act, or not, as they see fit.

So I see plenty of alternative uses for rumors, if by "alternative" you mean other than pushing some story along to the next scene in the referee's notes.

I don't think placing clues, in an of themselves, is truly a fudge move. I deliberately sprinkle my campaign with clues and leads to a variety of things. The players get the information. Some of these clues are followed up and some are not. Without relevant data, a meaningful decision about ignoring that data cannot be made. It is when all decisions (including one to ignore all clues) lead to the same point that the decision becomes meaningless.

I think fudging the dice and illusionism go hand-in-hand; both are about fooling the players into believing their choices matter to suit the express purposes of the referee.

Planting clues or circulating rumors aren't strictly an example of either fudging or illusionism, but they can be used in the furtherance of the latter.

So you're interpreting my words in a particular way which you find unappealing.

I'm reading exactly what you wrote, 5E.

And in fact, you go on to further advocate for illusionism again in another thread.

You're consistent in what you espouse, and you make very clear what you think makes up a good gaming experience. It's not necessary for me to add any particular interpretation or shading to your words.

 

[The Shaman]

In those freakish situations where the character is killed through no fault of their own, the DM does specifically have the right to 'arbitrate the situation', and impose a penalty other than death.

It looks to me like Gary did specifically allow for it, but suggested that one should not to so frequently, and should do so only with caution. I've got no problem with that.

I think his position is quite clear.

I think it's significant that he doesn't suggest simply ignoring an unlucky roll, but rather suggests an alternative but fairly grievous result.

And, to loop some of the rest of the discussion back to the AD&D DMG - on hinting at plot points/elements, I didn't see anyone mention this:

"There must always be something desirable to win, something important to lose, and the chance for either to happen. Furthermore, there must be some purpose to it all. There must be some backdrop against which adventures are carried out, and no matter how tenuous the strands, some web which connects the evil and the good, the opposing powers, the rival states and various peoples. This need not be evident at first, but as play continues hints should be given to the players, and their characters should become involved in the interaction and struggle between these vaster entities."

-AD&D DMG pg 112

Now that's advice I do take to heart.

 

[Fifth Element]

Now that's advice I do take to heart.

I agree. Giving hints - or clues, to use another word - to the players is important.

 

[Doug McCrae]

"There must always be something desirable to win, something important to lose, and the chance for either to happen. Furthermore, there must be some purpose to it all. There must be some backdrop against which adventures are carried out, and no matter how tenuous the strands, some web which connects the evil and the good, the opposing powers, the rival states and various peoples. This need not be evident at first, but as play continues hints should be given to the players, and their characters should become involved in the interaction and struggle between these vaster entities."

-AD&D DMG pg 112

Holy metaplot, Batman!

The immediately subsequent passage is -

Thus, characters begin as less than pawns, but as they progress in experience, each eventually realizes that he or she is a meaningful, if lowly, piece in the cosmic game being conducted. When this occurs, players then have a dual purpose to their play, for not only will their player characters and henchmen gain levels of experience, but their actions have meaning above and beyond that of personal aggrandizement.

Which I found to be an amusing contrast with this passage from Necromancer Games' version of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy -

though there are powerful individual NPCs in the Wilderlands, the setting is designed to focus on the actions of the player characters. There are no secret groups of high powered meddlers to control the destiny of the world or save the day as in some published settings. The PCs are not pawns in a greater game, they are the game.

Pawns or not pawns!? Now I don't know what to think!!

 

[The Shaman]

*snipped*

Those aren't necessarily in conflict with one another.

It's pretty clear to me that the Wilderlands text is saying, "This is not the Forgettable Realms, so if you're expecting El-Monster to show up, don't."

On the other hand, a metaplot may be simply the interaction of the different states and temporal powers of the game-world; as the adventurers gain levels, eventually building strongholds and such, they may find themselves siding with a king or a priest against the enemies of the homeland or the faith. In a game where one's alignment is a tangible presence, 'cosmic forces' imbue everything; it doesn't mean the adventurers are the literal playthings of the gods.

 

[Umbran]

bd91, if you go back and re-read what I wrote upthread, I make a distinction between rumors which inform the characters about what's going on in the setting and rumors used to drive the referee's plot.

It seems to me that "what's going on in the setting" and "the referee's plot" eventually converge.

Assume, for the moment, you are playing a game in which there are setting events - the setting is not "static", such that the only changes are the ones the PCs make. If you are playing D&D with the usual ability to climb to high level (as opposed to E6, for example), then as the players rise in power, the stakes of the events around them rise.

When stakes are relatively low, the characters have reasonable choices. The consequences of not involving themselves in some string of events are bearable. But eventually with D&D the power levels rise to the point where the consequences are not bearable. At this point, unless the characters are some variation of what we'd probably call insane, they no longer have a real choice. They must become involved, or whatever it is they care about will be lost.

To paraphrase The Tick, "You can't blow up the world! That's where I keep all my stuff!"

 

[pawsplay]

I see him taking a position:

"Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will
have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but
still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation..."

(emphasis mine)



Not quite right, by my reading (see above). In those freakish situations where the character is killed through no fault of their own, the DM does specifically have the right to 'arbitrate the situation', and impose a penalty other than death.

It looks to me like Gary did specifically allow for it, but suggested that one should not to so frequently, and should do so only with caution. I've got no problem with that.

Okay, to-may-to, to-mah-to. Sure.

And, to loop some of the rest of the discussion back to the AD&D DMG - on hinting at plot points/elements, I didn't see anyone mention this:

"There must always be something desirable to win, something important to lose, and the chance for either to happen. Furthermore, there must be some purpose to it all. There must be some backdrop against which adventures are carried out, and no matter how tenuous the strands, some web which connects the evil and the good, the opposing powers, the rival states and various peoples. This need not be evident at first, but as play continues hints should be given to the players, and their characters should become involved in the interaction and struggle between these vaster entities."

-AD&D DMG pg 112

Oo, that sounds fun!

 

[Nagol]

It seems to me that "what's going on in the setting" and "the referee's plot" eventually converge.

Assume, for the moment, you are playing a game in which there are setting events - the setting is not "static", such that the only changes are the ones the PCs make. If you are playing D&D with the usual ability to climb to high level (as opposed to E6, for example), then as the players rise in power, the stakes of the events around them rise.

When stakes are relatively low, the characters have reasonable choices. The consequences of not involving themselves in some string of events are bearable. But eventually with D&D the power levels rise to the point where the consequences are not bearable. At this point, unless the characters are some variation of what we'd probably call insane, they no longer have a real choice. They must become involved, or whatever it is they care about will be lost.

To paraphrase The Tick, "You can't blow up the world! That's where I keep all my stuff!"

Heh. Most D&D PCs are some variation of what we'd call insane anyway. I've had player character groups

1. Pick up all their stuff and leave; "Whew we're safe at least!"
2. Help blow up the planet; "It's for the best, really."
3. Save everyone; see The Tick's quote above
4. Try, but fail to stop the devastation and live through the aftermath; "Oops!"

 

[Raven Crowking]

What's really important to remember here is that the Tick was paraphrasing George Carlin.

 

[Fifth Element]

Planting clues or circulating rumors aren't strictly an example of either fudging or illusionism, but they can be used in the furtherance of the latter.

Yes, they can. But that is not their only use. Yet you read my posts as if it is.