Balancing "RP" and "G"

[Reynard]

one specific point, again, fudging the dice means that in some cases "what the dice said" doesn't matter.

that doesn't however in any way bring with it saying "what i did" didn't matter.

fudging, most often in my experience, is done when "what the dice say" runs in opposition to or conflicts with "what the character did" in a critical way and fudging errs on the side of "what the character did".

I really do get what you are saying. i do. i just don't agree with you. It isn't necessary to fudge to 'preserve the story' or 'ensure the enjoyment of the players', at least not in my experience. Players are a resilient lot -- they roll with the punches and they find ways to make the game fun for themselves and each other.

And I am not adverse to setting up a situation that the PCs are 'supposed' to succed at. But, if I do that, I don't design it in such a way that a single die roll can kill the whole thing. if I want mooks to come out of the woodwork to provide a nice little diversionary challenge, I don't create them in such a way as to be big threat to the PCs. And in that situation, if the mooks start critting every hit and the PCs are whiffing left and right -- well, only the dumb PCs will hold the line when they are getting destroyed.

And when it comes to a 'finale' or a BBEG encounter, the gloves are off. The players ppreciate that, I have found. They want to know that they won that battle, that they saved the realm or that they cleansed the world of some horrible evil. they don't want to think that it was inevitable, that their failures would be ignored to preserve the 'perfect' ending.

Really, it is a difference in play style that is pretty severe. Player's that don't agree with me likely wouldn't have much fun at my table (though i have never experienced this) and I know I wouldn't have fun at a table run the other way.

The reason i asked, though, is I was curious how others see it. So, seriously, I appreciate you going into such detail.


Even if you're wrong...

 

[Barak]

You overestimate the amount of randomness in the game. If there was that much randomness in this game, there would be NO way to made diceless modules. I'd estimate maybe less the 20 to 33 percent of this game (as far as pages dedicated to them in the PHB, DMG and MM are about randomness). To further the point, there are few if any books (wotc or other) that are dedicated to the randomness of d and d.

The game is 66 percent story (Role Playing) and 33 percent game (Game). How can you not care about the story. I think a lot of rpgers do but don't realize it. If you didnt care about the story, you'd go in there with a vanilla character, with a vanilla weapon fighting vanilla monsters for no reason. Everyday session would be like an rpg demo. No story just a long mini competition.

I suspect few games are like this, thus you have to care about the story in some ways.

You, but more especially..

the classes aren't about randomness. The massive spell lists aren't about randomness. The settings of greyhawk and forgotten realms aren't about randomness. Most of the rules AREN'T about randomness.

you really must try and realize "having a random element" and "being about randomness" aren't the same thing

You missed my point totally. First, yes, there's lots of background stuff (commonly referred to as "Fluff") in the rulebooks. And -yes- that stuff is very important to the enjoyment of the game. Else I'd play Yahtzee, you know? But what I actually -said- is that every rule is, in a way, about randomness.

swrushing mentioned the classes. Ok, there's the names of the classes, and the flavor that go with them. That's.. Not about randomness. But that's not rules either. BAB, skill points, Hit Points, Saving throws.. That's the rule part of the class (as well as all the various special abilities, of course). And all those are about randomness. Why does the fighter have a better BAB than the cleric? Because he should hit more often. The BAB is a modifier applied to a dice-roll. Take away the dice-roll, or "fudge" it, and there's no reason to have a BAB at all, much less varying ones!

As for spells.. Most of them have some randomness. Every one that involves a saving throw includes a random element. As do every single one that deals die of damage. Matter of fact, most "fudgers" have said they don't -like- spells that have the least randomness in them! (those would be the save or die spells. Heck, Power Word: Kill has the least randomness of any "attack" spell. Not even a saving throw, you just look at HPs. You guys should be -all over that-! Oh wait, without dice rolling, can't have fudging, eh?)

Look, obviously, if you guys are having fun, and your players are having fun, obviously you're doing things right for you and your friends. That's all good. But I won't be playing with you, you won't be playing with me, and we'll all be the better for it.

Oh, and as for

The game is 66 percent story (Role Playing) and 33 percent game (Game).

It's actually 50-50. Role-playing is an hyphenated word, not two words. And that's the way I like my games, 50-50, not 66-33. And note that only -my- version comes to 100%, that should tell you something!

PS. Yes, that last sentence was a joke.

 

[Reynard]

My arguement has always been from my first post that Fudging is a house rule elected by the DM. It is no different than a house rule. TO attempt to define house rule is comical. A house rule, is anything yo uwish. It can be a bend, a total break, a slightlty alternative version. To say (a house rule is this) is to attempt to limit the VAST amount of house rules created itn things that either change the game or grow on the game, when often, they only slightly bend the game rule.

That argument doesn't make any sense. A house rule is a change that is applied consistently, one that everyone at the table knows about and agrees upon. "Fudging" (that is, tossing out a die result you don't like) isn't a rule, i is an act of whim.

Example 1: The Iron Keep- Instance: A massive chasm stands between the party and reaching their destination. The Forged had just reuinted with his brother whom he spent quite a bit of time to find. They need to repair his brother whom was effected by the gearwell virus. Whatever the cure was it was in the keep. The Forged jumps first. Then his brother. His brother misses the jump roll by 1. And the Forged reflex roll to catch him was flubbed. The only person in the area who could have made another reflex save was a pc whom did not like the brother. She rolls the dice and rolls one below DC.

Let's ignore the fact for a moment that a challenge that can only be resolved by a single die roll is a poor idea in the first place. Assuming that it comes down to a jump roll, and assuming you don't declare "If someone makes fails their jump check, they get a reflex save to latch onto the edge", then, to my mind, you let those dice determien the outcome. If you want to avoid having an adventure brought to a screeching halt because of what amounts to a "save or die" situation, don't put it in the adventure in the first place. By putting it there, you are deciding that it is a possible outcome. By letting the players know that, you are allowing them to make an informed decision.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

.The dice only give answers to specific questions in the context of roleplaying and adventuring -.

Thank you.

Fudging only takes placy in certain places in context of the game and the rules. They are not everything in a story driven game. Hence as, in your example, randomness and tactics do not make a RPG into a non RPG game, fugding the very occasional roll does not turn the storydriven RPG into another from of story driven medium like a book or movie.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Deleted by poster.
Just woke up.
Post was too snarky.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Even though I don't "fudge" dice rolls doesn't mean I'm a "GM vs PCs" type of GM, and I think the same goes for (nearly?) all other "non-fudgers".
Why do people think that because death can happen to PCs that the GM is aiming for it to happen?

More often than not, when things go bad, it's not only because of dice rolls. Sure, the troll can crit, and maybe twice or more, but how likely is that? More often than not the players choices favor a bad result when PCs get killed.
But even when they didn't do anything wrong, it's fine by me that there's a chance that they won't succeed anyway, because, well, such is live. My players know that, and as a result every fight - and every social interaction - is exciting. They know they can die, and they know it can happen in a pointless non-heroic situation. The PCs aren't demi-gods who merely need to wish to succeed. Fights, especially those to the death, are dangerous.

My players not only want to have fun at the gaming table (who doesn't?), but they want to feel that they've accomplished something after the session ended. If I "fudged" the rolls and rules it'd be me, the GM, who accomplished something for them - that's not what they want.

And the "story" goes on regardless, just not as planned by the all-mighty GM. The players' actions determine where the game's headed. Just because I think that a specific outcome would be the greatest way to proceed the "story" means I'll force that outcome to become reality.


Btw, "fudging" isn't a very good word for this, IMHO. "Fixing" would be more appropriate.

of course, i could just start each session with a d1000 roll and if a 666 comes up tell everyone "new campaign. bring new characters next week" but i just don't think that would be as fun.

Alternatively, you could give the players handouts at the start of the session detailing the story, and say: "See you next week"
I'm not implying that your games are like that, but please don't imply that my games are like rolling a dice.

IN the DMG, it specifically says that dms have the power to provide bonus and minus circumstance bonuse's when they believe the situation deems so. And thats what I do when A add one or two to a dice roll. The monster may have pulled up slightly or been distracted by his own previous blows. He may have lost footing as he plunged deeper. THere may be tears on his armor reducing his effective ac. ...All that is right there in the DMG. Now, as for houserules, well they aren't in the DMG. To arguie against this fudging (which again is a misappropriate word) is to argue against the Core DMG.

If you assign the bonus or malus before the roll that's fine. That's your "job" as a GM. Doing the same thing after the roll because the player rolled one or two points less than she needed is cheating - both you and your players. Why do you let your players roll the dice in the first place, if you adjust a bad roll?

I tend towards the fugding side of things, and part of the reason is that my games run long, and everyone expects them two. My last three games lasted soemthing on the order of 8 years (or more) each. In general with the same characters throughout the entire run. At that point a bad die roll causing death (and when I say death, I mean not coming back at all) isn't a good game, it is irritating to the player who has spent so many hours, months and years with that character. And when someone spends 20 hours fiddling with a character to make him just right, with the idea that this guy will be the players alter ego for the next 5 years, killing that character early on has the same problem.

GMs don't kill PCs. Circumstance kill PCs.
My games are long-running campaigns too. But a player who's so attached to a single character that she'd leave the campaign because that player died (and, as stated above: death, while not frequent, can happen, period).
Somehow I get the feeling that in a campaign of immortal PCs you don't need a game system at all - and you don't even necessarily need a GM. Just meet with your fellow players, and tell the story you always wanted to tell

Again, since so many seem to maybe not get it, there is often more meaning to a die roll than its most extreme result. Deciding to drop the most extreme result doesn't equate to throwing away all the other bits you get from it.

Make it a house rule, then: Orcs armed with axes can't score critical hits.
I don't understand why you play by a rule you obviously don't like. Change it (and let your players know about it).

Here's a hint: axes aren't a GM's friend. High crit modifiers (x3 or x4) are bad news for PCs (because, sooner or later, they'll score a critical hit). A good GM knows this before the game starts, and plans accordingly:
a) change the rules (great axes have the same stats as greatswords; no critical hits in my game; critical hits can't bring a PC below -9 hp; ...)
b) don't use axes, or use them only sparingly
c) go with it
Your choice.
In my game, it's perfectly acceptable that the orc's greataxe chopps the PC's head off. Axes are mean - as are most weapons. They are used to kill people, that's what they are made for.

And what about the other way round? The PCs confront the BBEG, who's got an escape plan: if things go bad, he'll flee. But the fighter's axe scores a critical hit, killing the BBEG instantly. Do you "fudge" that too and let him escape regardless? Because that's what was "supposed" to happen?
I'd roll with the punch. The campaign goes on, even if the party killed the BBEG "before his time".

Regardless of how you like to word it, or make yourself feel good about it, you cheat everytime you change a rule.

Uh, no. If I change a rule prior to the game, it's not cheating. Everyone knows the rules, and everyone knows the changes.
If, OTOH, I change the rule on the fly, you're right: that's cheating.

Most of the people i game with like to watch the whole movie, read the whole book not get about 2/3s thru and have it stop there.

Most people I game with like to watch the whole movie when we're watching a movie. And they want to roleplay when we're playing RPGs. They do not want to be part of a live-action re-enactment of someone else's movie script.
Note that I didn't say that your games are like that

On the other hand, if the dice are all that matter, as opposed to plot, story and character, then why not just play Magic: The Gathering or the D&D Mini game. Same thing. It's just tactics and randomness.

Who ever said that "dice are all that matter"?
I don't want my players to die (as opposed to: I want to win at M:tG or the D&D MG), but it may very well happen - because I don't want them so survive no matter what either.

 

[fusangite]

But even when they didn't do anything wrong, it's fine by me that there's a chance that they won't succeed anyway, because, well, such is life. My players know that, and as a result every fight - and every social interaction - is exciting. They know they can die, and they know it can happen in a pointless non-heroic situation. The PCs aren't demi-gods who merely need to wish to succeed. Fights, especially those to the death, are dangerous.

My players not only want to have fun at the gaming table (who doesn't?), but they want to feel that they've accomplished something after the session ended.

This is a great articulation of my opinion on this subject. If there are no negative consequences for the choices I make, I can't enjoy playing the game because my actions and choices have no real meaning. An RPG is successful and engaging when players feel that their actions and choices genuinely matter.

Similarly, I enjoy a game in which chance plays a role. If it doesn't, why do we have all these dice? As such, I find it nearly as unfulfilling if my character is incapable of having bad luck as I do if he is incapable of making bad choices.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

My games are long-running campaigns too. But a player who's so attached to a single character that she'd leave the campaign because that player died (and, as stated above: death, while not frequent, can happen, period).
Somehow I get the feeling that in a campaign of immortal PCs you don't need a game system at all - and you don't even necessarily need a GM. Just meet with your fellow players, and tell the story you always wanted to tell
.

Well, it's a difference in playstyle. If the player is playing the campaign because he wants to play _that_ character, explore his personality and plumb the depths of his history and future, and no other reason, then that character's death ruins the campaign for that player. This is not a bad thing; it's just a kind of playstyle.

"Dice isn't all that matters" is something I keep seeing, as a description of that side of the argument, to avoid hyperbole that it isn't just about the fall of the dice or winning or losing, but then the "Tell the story, rather than game" comes out, which in my mind is just as much of an exaggeration.

Yes I want to tell a story. I want to tell a story that happens in my world. However I don't want to tell the story of the characters. My end of the story is how the world reacts to the actions of the PCs. The Players tell the story of thier characters. They may have goals, they may have ends they want to achieve, but they have no idea how the characters are going to get there. I sometimes have no idea how they will react to an element of the world. The fun of the game is the co-operative storytelling through the sturcture of the rules, to see events unfold. It is a story told within the structure of the RPG. The rules themselves are not rules of a "game (such as Mini gaming)" that the players play, they are the phsysics and structure with which the characters interact with the world. When a fudge is made, as long as that alteration is within the norms generated by the rules (ie it could happen with the dice), and is used sparingly, then it is wthin that structure of physics. The enjoyment of the whole thing is watching the story unfold, when none of us, players or GMs know exactly how it is going to happen beforehand.

The phrase of "just meet with your fellow players and tell the story you wanted to tell" is about as honest and realistic as the "roll a d1000 and when 666 comes up roll up new characterrs" to describe the other side.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

This is a great articulation of my opinion on this subject. If there are no negative consequences for the choices I make, I can't enjoy playing the game because my actions and choices have no real meaning. An RPG is successful and engaging when players feel that their actions and choices genuinely matter..

And I agree.

The only place I disagree with your comments, and I have mentioned this many times, failure does not equal death.

So in a case where the PC would "die" becasue of bad die roll, the character is knocked out. The party looses and runs away, the KOed PC is now a prisoner. Wonderful roleplaying opportunites, not just for the survivors, but for the character who "died" who wouldn't have been able to play more, until he had a new character.

Instead of a TPK, the PCs are all rebuffed, beatan, and wake up. The mission a failure. The king that hired them has been killed by the BBEG they tried to fight, and are now called outlaws and have to figure out how to right the circumstances, and fix thier failure.

The actions and choices all have real meaning, and genuinely matter - and now you have some extra opportunities for character interaction, story and depth that killing said character does not have.


Failure has to be present for the thrill of risk but chance of failure does not equal chance of death.

 

[Reynard]

So in a case where the PC would "die" becasue of bad die roll, the character is knocked out. The party looses and runs away, the KOed PC is now a prisoner. Wonderful roleplaying opportunites, not just for the survivors, but for the character who "died" who wouldn't have been able to play more, until he had a new character.

Instead of a TPK, the PCs are all rebuffed, beatan, and wake up. The mission a failure. The king that hired them has been killed by the BBEG they tried to fight, and are now called outlaws and have to figure out how to right the circumstances, and fix thier failure.

Out of curiosity -- what if it is ghouls or some other 'eat you' enemies? How do you maintain some sense of versimiltudeif the PC(s) get knocked unconscious in a fight where the enemy is someone that will kill them, eat them, or turn them into stone? Do you avoid those kinds of encounters entirely, or do you try and create a plausible explanation fo why the creatures did, in fact, not kill the PC(s)?

BTW, this is a serious question, and one that i think has bearing on the topic at hand. Moreso than the endless circle of defining "fudging", anyway, since I think everyone knows what everyone else's definition is, even if we don't agree.