Balancing "RP" and "G"

[Lord Mhoram]

Knowing they -can- die, even in a stupid, unimportant encounter with goblins make the game more fun.

That is the key. Every player I have gamed with, and myself, do not fall into this catagory of player. We spend lots of time on character development, both mechanical and backgrounds, and the reason we play, aside from killing things and taking thier stuff (which is fun in it's own right), is to plumb the depths and get to know the character. If they die,especially before the character story is done, then all the reason for playing that character is done. That is not what anyone I know would consider fun.*

Replace "die" with "lose" where losing is not neccessarily death, then I agree with you.

* and some people here it seems would then say "don't play D&D"... and for the most part I don't - I play the HERO system, where losing without dieing can happen pretty easily - buy I play my D&D exactly the same way.

Edit: as a sidenote - I use Spycraft style Action dice in my game - 3+ dice of difference type by level per session to used for adjusting die rolls.

 

[LostSoul]

But here is the biggie...

I want their outcomes determined by their choices.

note the loss of the "and the luck of the dice".

i don't want the luck of the dice determining whether my group succeeds or fails in big ways like tpks or the like. i don't want luck of the dice to determine whether or not my campaign stops.

It sounds (to me) like you want your players to fudge the dice. Which is a valid way of playing. You use "Action Points" or something similar, right? That's a good rule that allows players to alter their fate when they think it's appropriate. The more effective the action point, the more effect the player has in determining outcome.

Consider that if you had the right rule set, you wouldn't need to fudge dice any more. The rules would allow you to get the kind of game play you wanted without any need to change things on the fly. It would also put more power into the hands of the players, since they can control when the "fudging" happens. (Not that it's fudging any more, since it follows the rules, but you get the same effect from the rules as you do from fudging.)

So all you have to do is to identify a mechanic that allows you to get the kind of game you want. I think "action points" would be a good one.

One important one for you (as I see it) would be something that allows player deaths to have meaning. Which means that players take a stand when something is important to them: "This is worth dying for."

This could be as simple as saying that, whenever things are not important, the players can't die. They can be reduced to -9 hit points (or less), but they stabilize at -9. Each player can decide when this applies, and it should be stated when the encounter begins.

However, their ability to affect the outcome of an encounter like this should be reduced. Not exactly sure how you would do this. Maybe they want to kill a BBEG. Unless they up the stakes to the level where death is a possibility, they can't kill the BBEG. They may beat him down, but he will survive somehow, and come back to face them.

How does something like that sound to you?

 

[LostSoul]

Once again, the you play my way or you are wrecking the game or have no right to play it or call it D&D arguement.

It's not that so much. It's more about recognizing what D&D was designed to do (one of the features is that there is a lot of chance affecting the outcomes) and recognizing what kind of game you want to play. If you want to play in a way that D&D wasn't designed for, what do you have to do to get that kind of experience? House rules can work, or playing a different game might be a better choice.

I think that playing the game you want without fudging the rules is always a better option - if it gives you the type of game play that you want. Fudging does reduce the player's input and it does invalidate his choices, to a degree (usually based upon the amount of fudging, although small fudges when things are important ramp this up). If you don't agree with this nothing I say will make any difference to you. But if you do agree, then take a look at the rules and see what you can change in order to make the game better.

Here's another fudging rule: the DM gets a number of points per session that he can use to adjust, plus or minus, to either the PC's or the NPC's die rolls. Which is basically the same thing as fudging, although now it's out in the open and everyone will have to agree to it. (And if the players don't like it, ask yourself how they feel about your fudging.)

 

[Odhanan]

Conceptualizing and creating a character requires that the player understands both the RP and the G aspect. The RP aspect allows him to decide what his character should be like (and therefore, what his character should be capable of). The G aspect determines how he can make those RP elements actualize within the context of the game. I.e., if I want my character to be good in climbing, it behooves me to have a high Strength and put points into the Climb skill. Possibly, I should take the Skill Focus feat.

G also limits some untenable RP ideas, such as "My character should be able to defeat anything he encounters."

The players I've seen as being "outstanding" at the game table were going further than the "how is my character going to matter in the game". They also understand this equation of RP+G by allowing the mechanics to feed their imagination in terms of character concepts and their character concepts to feed the game mechanics (in how the character is designed mechanically and/or by proposing variant rules to represent their concepts accurately, like in the case of the Urban Ranger for instance). Further, they understand the character is a medium to the game itself. Therefore, the character concept and the mechanics used to represent it should be helpful for the gameplay experience, and constructive by increasing the pleasure experienced by each participant to the game.

 

[Odhanan]

double post, sorry.

 

[DonTadow]

I.. Really don't see how having house rules and fudging dice rolls can be set as equals here. Well sure, you can have an house rule that you'll fudge rolls, but now that's just being silly, really.

Having an house rule in a game of Solitaire is saying "I'll stop after going to the pack three times, and go three cards at a time", as opposed to going through the pack as many times as you can. Both are accepted forms of playing solitaire. Fire the came up on your computer, you'll see. Fudging, (to me), is like going through the pack looking for the card you want, and pulling it out.

The best "proof" it's cheating is to ask yourself "what would I think if a -player- fudged a roll?" It could very well be because he thinks it would be more dramatic to have a crit against the dragon right now. But I doubt many of you would think it's a good idea to let the players fudge the rolls. Why not? They should have a say as to how dramatic the game is, shouldn't they? So why is it ok for the DM to do it?

I'll let you in on a little secret. I fudge monster HPs in pretty much every campaign I run. And sometimes, I even fudge die rolls! Aha, I lied!.

Well not really. I only do so in the first couple game sessions of each campaign. Because I'm not that good at looking at my PCs sheets, and figuring out just how tough they are compared to the average group, and as mentioned, CR is iffy at best. Could they take 12 goblins, or would 8 be all they can realistically take? I dunno. But after running a couple of sessions, I -do- know. And then I set things up at the level of deadliness I want it to be. And -after- that, no more fudging, because I set things up right from the start. Still, yeah, I can have a night that I roll very well, and my players roll crappily. Or, the reverse, and my BBEG can go down much quicker than I'd like, which I'll admit can lessen the drama. But on the average, everyone rolls average. That's why it's called average.

And here's another thing. The group I run used to have another DM (he moved away shortly after I joined, so I barely played under him). They consistently took on greater challenges that they should have beaten in his game. And yet, they never had a character death. Never. Yeah, they knew the DM fudged. I mean, it gets obvious when your characters never have a night of bad luck in 5+ years of playing. When I started DMing, I warned them I wouldn't fudge. I asked them what they thought, they said "That sounds excellent!" That very first night, a character died an horrible death. And I've had many others since. And yes, some are anti-climactic, to a degree. Not too long ago, a character died at the bottom of a spiked pit because he rolled a 3 on a jump check. He needed a 5 to make the pit, and he didn't. But they -liked- it. Why? Now they think. When they had to recross the pit, they set up a pulley system, using the tools at hand, instead of just trying to jump the pit, trusting -me- to make sure they wouldn't die. Why bother with a pit trap if no one can ever die from it?

Knowing they -can- die, even in a stupid, unimportant encounter with goblins make the game more fun. It makes tactics more important. Not just avoiding stupid decisions (which should be a given), but striving for -great- decisions. Because they -know- I won't fudge, they do their darndest to put every numerical advantage on their side. And that leads to better roleplay, I think. After all, it's not that great roleplaying to try jumping a pit while wearing heavy armor, no matter the fact that you only need a 5 thanks to your great strenght.

And I'll admit, it makes it more fun for me if I don't know how everything will turn out before game time.

In both ways you're changing the system to fit your needs.

First, the system is not set up to be adversarial, that is to say, it is not set up so that what the dm does mimics the rules the pcs does. By definition the rules are not equal. The rules say I can place combatants anywhere I wish at the beginning of an encounter, it does not say the same about pcs. The rules allow me to add reinforcements into a battle, it does not do so for the pcs. The rules allow me to set DCs for skill checks. The PCs are limited to their DCs to the abilities of their characters. So, you can not compare what a pc does to what the dm does, because its too different games.

If I make a house rule, 9 times out of 10 it effects the pcs, as it could not possibly affect the dm. Solitair can not be compared to D and D because it is a game that, if played with more than one person, becomes adversarial and thus both players play with the same rules.

House rules change the game in ways that the creators either did not design or did not come into agreement on.

The example you give does not support anti-fudging but supports bad dm'n. There are some things you can't teach in dungeons and dragons. How and when to use puzzles, when to use your judgement instead of the rules, when and when not to fudge. All these go under one question though, what would make my pcs more entertained and won't seriously disrupt the game. Saving a barbarian who has taken 18 hit point of damage when he was at 2 hp is disruptive to the game. Saving a barbarian who was under a confusion spell the entire campaign and wondered into an orc axe for 13 points of damage then telling the person he's unconcssious but not dead is a good call.

The easiest thing is to do is follow the rules and never vere. But if that's the only job a dm is doing its a pretty easy cruise.

 

[LostSoul]

First, the system is not set up to be adversarial, that is to say, it is not set up so that what the dm does mimics the rules the pcs does. By definition the rules are not equal. The rules say I can place combatants anywhere I wish at the beginning of an encounter, it does not say the same about pcs. The rules allow me to add reinforcements into a battle, it does not do so for the pcs. The rules allow me to set DCs for skill checks. The PCs are limited to their DCs to the abilities of their characters. So, you can not compare what a pc does to what the dm does, because its too different games.

I think the only place where the DM does not have to follow the same rules as the players is in adventure/encounter design. Probably because there are no rules for it, just suggestions.

However... what if you took Table 3-2 on pp 49 in the DMG as a "hard" rule? That it was cheating for the DM to ignore it. Therefore, his encounters are limited by their EL. In that case, you have an adversarial system, where the DM can do all he can to bring down the PCs. No more holding back; give 'em all you got. Just make sure you stick to Table 3-2.

As far as DCs go, most of them are listed in the PHB. The times that a situation comes up where the DC is not in the PHB, the group should agree on what the proper DC is based on the examples in the PHB. (Allowing the DM to do this at "run-time" would be okay, but after the game the group could come up with a set value that you use from then on.)

That sounds like a pretty fun game to me. It's also one where you can "win", even if you're the DM.

 

[The Shaman]

I've never played in a gmae where as a player, I ddnt know that the dm fudged the dice every now and then. My players know it happens. Its something i talk about in the interview process.

I'm glad to hear that - if they're satisfied with running characters that didn't really confirm the critical for the demon but doubled their damage anyway, that failed the Will save versus domination but ignored the spell effect, that triggered the acid trap in the lock of the chest but took no damage, then y'all have a grand ol' time playing storytime together.

Me, I play a game. The dice determine the results of certain actions. Sometimes things break my way, sometimes they don't. Improbability Happens. It's how the game is played.

I believe if you are pro...

Excuse me, but aren't you the same guy who earlier in the thread said he'll fudge the results when an encounter he designs proves to be too difficult for the players?

It seems to me that a "pro" (whatever that means in roleplaying games... :\ ) gets the encounter design right in the first place.

... (as you call it cheating) then as a DM you should follow every rule in the book, thus the point of you (not cheating) is moot because there are rules that you are not following and are thus breaking. If you have house rules, then you can not possibly argue against fudging, as you have essentially "fudged the rules" to suit the games enjoyment.

I'm sorry, but your attempt at developing a syllogism fails on the merits of one of its fatally-flawed premises.

Developing house rules and implementing them during play is not the same thing as changing dice results on the fly because you don't like the outcome. House rules apply evenly across the board to player and non-player characters and critters each time they come into play, to alter general guidelines under which the game is played - fudging the dice is entirely subjective and circumstantial, applied when and where the GM sees fit, to alter specific results in spite of the general rules.

Circumstance bonuses don't apply in this instance either - in the games I run, the circumstance bonuses are determined before the dice hit the tabletop, not after. Most of the time I have the bonuses listed in my notes - the rest of the time it will come from a player asking about a bonus based on some skill or class feature, and I'll allow it before the dice are rolled.

Once the dice are rolled, the result is the result, for better or worse.

I completely disagree with you.

Imagine my shock.

To compare this game to chess, is to say that this game is adversarial. Me VS. you.

First, nowhere did I compare roleplaying games to chess - you're inferring too much from "game pieces."

Second, nowhere have I suggested that roleplaying games are adversarial. In fact, I think the suggestion is silly. The game isn't playable that way, as the GM can introduce whatever elements s/he wants at any time in order to "win."

However, it is the GM's role in the game to provide adversaries and other challenges for the players' characters. When I introduce those adversaries, I play them according to the rules of the game, and everyone at the table succeeds or fails by the same rolls of the dice.

Usually the adventurers win. Sometimes they're wormfood. Improbability Happens.

Thus you are putting the DM in the role you are arguing against, the role of judge, jury and executor...

I believe you mean "executioner," though if the character doesn't leave a will, I certainly may intercede in the form of a tax collector NPC to insure that all proper obligations have been satisfied...

...instead of as a guide to move the game along.

Really, DonTadow? You've played with me to know this for a fact?

You presume a great deal.

Just like other games, sometimes you have to lax on the rules when the tempo fits it. It's like the quarterback having the option of calling an audible if he reads something in the defense that doesnt make sense. The quarterback is the "guide" of the team just as the DM is the guide of the game.

So you're calling the plays, and the players are just there to block for you and catch your passes.

Interesting analogy.

Here's my analogy: We're playing a game together, one in which I set up the game-board, move all the pieces that aren't the players, and interpret the results so that we all have a good time together.

In my experience gathered over some years of gaming, here's what I've learned about playing with "storyteller" GMs: they tend to be raving egomaniacs who are so enamored of their own brilliance that they don't want to allow something as messy as chance to interfere with the display of their cleverness. It's also been my experience that few - none, actually - were as brilliant as they believed themselves to be.

Perhaps from that personal history I've come away with the notion that a really great GM is one who can take the messy, unpredictable results of playing a game that involves the element of chance and turn it into a memorable experience through interpreting those results, rather than ignoring them.

One more thing: Since I was a little kid playing Candy Land, a roll of two on a die did not mean a six. It's no less true today. If I want roleplaying without the game, I'll join an improv troupe.

 

[The Shaman]

Conceptualizing and creating a character requires that the player understands both the RP and the G aspect. The RP aspect allows him to decide what his character should be like (and therefore, what his character should be capable of). The G aspect determines how he can make those RP elements actualize within the context of the game. I.e., if I want my character to be good in climbing, it behooves me to have a high Strength and put points into the Climb skill. Possibly, I should take the Skill Focus feat.

G also limits some untenable RP ideas, such as "My character should be able to defeat anything he encounters."

RP and G are not dichotomous; they are integrally linked in making both parts successful. Without RP nothing happens. Without G, the choices made through RP are rendered meaningless.

Quoted for emphasis.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The DM can and must hide information from the players. That is part of the function of DMing. The DM can, and sometimes must, hide information from the players regarding how the world works (i.e., the true nature of the gods, prestige classes for monsters, etc.). However, the players are all (or should be) well aware that this is how the game works.

Fudging die rolls seems more like telling the players that the rules work one way, when you know that they really work another way. The players make choices based upon the belief that the odds are X, when really the odds are Y.

And, two questions keep coming up without consistent resolution: 1. Why not tell the players you intend to fudge rolls you don't like? and 2. Why not let the players fudge rolls they don't like? It is in the answer to those two questions, I think, that the answer to the larger question ("Is fudging die rolls okay?") is to be found.

Stepping back for a second, I admit that I have run games wherein I've fudged die rolls. I don't do it any more because, without exception, those games meant less to me and to the players than games where I did not fudge die rolls. In D&D, certainly a character can die before "his story is over" -- but only because D&D allows stories to continue beyond death (Ghostwalk, Raise Dead, etc). Otherwise, claiming that someone is dead but their story isn't over seems somewhat illogical.


RC