Balancing "RP" and "G"

[Barak]

Action points are great. Action points.. Put that power back on. But even then, they are sorta gambling. They are a limited resource. DM fudging can be done every roll.

And yes, I understand you "fudgers" don't do it every roll. But it -could-. Action point are an open, acknowledged, in the hands of the players mechanic. And yet, they are not arbitrary.

And please spare me the "you are but a dumb, beginner DM who doesn't understand when to, and when not to" crap. This isn't a job, none of us (I sincerely hope!) are getting paid, so none of us are professionals, no matter how good ya think ya are.

Shaman, See ya in Wing and Sword.

 

[Reynard]

The fact that this keeps getting brought up is more proof that there are some DM's whom don't understand that art and can't figure out its purpose. Its to enchance gameplay. . . Whenever you devulge from the original rules you're techincally cheating from those rules. I know it makes some feel good when they can all others cheaters and approve their own rule "bends" but in reality its all the same.

I'm dizzy. Time to get off this merry go round.

 

[swrushing]

"Fudging" (that is, tossing out a die result you don't like) isn't a rule, i is an act of whim.

it is this type of (mis)characterization that doesn't serve your side of the discussion well or the conversation at large.

Why is it that the non-fudger side seem to have such a vested interest in not just establishing a "different groups means different preferences" kind of discourse but also seem to need to establish or state that the fudgers are "cheating" or that fudging is based on "whim" as opposed to say on reason or judgement?

I mean, I can get that you prefer having your game be the type where a new group of characters picks up and carries the torch until the stoiry of the campaign is done. Its not to my taste and we disagree on that but thats cool. In that kind of game, I can even see fudging as not beneficial, after all, if the loss of the PC isn't going to be critical to the outcome, no real need to fudge. I don't fudge in non-critical situations.

 

[Barak]

I, for one, don't begrudge you your fun. I do, however, see you as more involved in "telling a story" than "playing a RPG".

I guess you see me in a similar way, from the other side, and that's fine. But the point remain that a player doing what you are doing would be universally acclaimed as a cheater.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Action points are great. Action points.. Put that power back on. But even then, they are sorta gambling. They are a limited resource. DM fudging can be done every roll.

Yeah, part of the reason I use the action dice from spycraft 3-5 ds, or higher, every session.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

But the point remain that a player doing what you are doing would be universally acclaimed as a cheater.

Well as fudging is usually done for the party's benefit by the GM, I don't think that anyone would call a character a cheater if whenever he chose his change it was for the other side's benefit.

The fighter's player "Hey, I rolled a crit, but hey, I don't want to kill this guy so fast, the other people haven't had enough chance to fight, just figure I didn't crit".....

He might be called strange or stupid even, but not a cheater.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

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?

Rare, perhaps very rarely.
Note, thats also how often the pro-fudger side suggests fudging is good.

Perhaps there is a correlation there?

More often than not the players choices favor a bad result when PCs get killed.

and i don't think this thread has been inundated with "i fudge to save pcs from their own stupidity" or "I fudge to prevent what should happen" examples, well, at least not from the pro-fudger side. There was that "my peopn took on an elder andn the Gm fudged him squishing me."

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.

Not succeed, yeah, sure, in some cases, yup. no one is suggesting fudging away every failure. At least, no one on the pro-fudging side.

Die? Die, real death, story over, death.. when they didn't do anything wrong?
That might well be a fudge. I say that in part because, well, if they aren't responsible for their heroes death, than I am. And i am not a Gm who sets out to kill PCs.

My players know that, and as a result every fight - and every social interaction - is exciting.

my players know the critical outcomes and even the lesser outcomes hinge on whther or not they made/make the right decisions, and since they don't *know* they made the right decisions, that makes the scene exciting.

They know they can die, and they know it can happen in a pointless non-heroic situation.

my players aren't that interested in working up a character, developing a backstory and participating in the story of "Joe, he who died in a pointless non-heroic way." So, we adopt a different approach and tryo to run characters thru the end of "their story" and to make it a "good story", which means "not a pointless ending."

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.

Again, fudging the die roll, removing that lethal 1%, doesn't equate to "the players didn't accomplish anything."

Say for instance, in my old game, the heroes are pursuing the barbarian's plot right now and they go up against a sorceror for info and a fight breaks out. The battle proceeds and due to a rare but "hey it happenes" series of rolls the troll is about to kill the dwarf (whose story has been building but not finished yet.) This isn't going to change the outcome. The heroes are going to win this fight. They are going to get the item or info or bit to continue the fight. The only difference is "does the dwarf's story get cut short and does he get a death for no reason other than "damn unlucky rolls" or does the dwarf get knocked to -5 hp and left in a "save me or i am dead" dramatic situation which likely means his story still gets told and gets to a resolution, not a "pointless" resolution, but a more complete one.

me? I decide the pointless death doesn't help, so I tell him not "look i rolled three 20s you are so dead now lets roll the rend..." but i tell him "ouch this is gonna hurt, both claws hit and there is rend and the total is... " at this point insert 5 more than he current has so he ends up at -5 nbot dead.

really, i understand that you don't like that answer and wouldn't use it in your game, but me, I really don't want to run a game where i will MYSELF describe the acceptable results as "pointless". I want the end of a player character to be anything but "pointless". I don't see how having "pointless non-heroic" deaths somehow translates into makeing the characters and their choices "more meaningful."

As someone said earlier, a story in which when the PCs die another group of heroes pops up to continue until the "story is done" doesn't seem to be saying "your characters are important."

And the "story" goes on regardless, just not as planned by the all-mighty GM.

not for the character who had the unheroic pointless demise, right?

The players' actions determine where the game's headed.

don't you mean "the players outcomes and their dice luck"?

Remember, most fudging IMX comes when "the player's actions" (or rather "their characters choices") are opposed by or run into conflict with "their dice luck" or "my dice luck" and fudging is done to shift the weight of "which one takes precedence" to "the character's choices".

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.

you may not be saying that but numerous times we have seen that view expressed on this thread. The repeated "why not just read a book" or "why not just narrate all results"... you have seen those, right?

GMs don't kill PCs. Circumstance kill PCs.

GMs are the primary element setting circumstances.

Is that an element here? The dice have to be treated as "inviolate" and "beyond GMs control" so that when the PCs don't make mistakes but die anyway the Gm doesn't have to accept the "i killed them" responsibility? So he can have "pointless PC death" and avoid the blame?

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).

i think you left that sentence unfinished... but yes "player" death usualy does mean leaving the game.

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

Probably true. But since fudging doesn't at all equate to "a campaign of immortal PCs", i really don't see the point.

BTW, a really fun game i played in was amber diceless rpg, which was basically a bunch of immortal characters. there are many interesting stories where survival isn't the issue at stake.

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).

and again here we see the misconnect.

I don't mind orcs critting with axes.

see earlkier posts which elaborate further on the subject of when fudging is needed, what it is needed for, and the folly of "the perfect system" snipe hunt.

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.

Well, then i guess from your POV my pre-game "PCs wont die due to stupid dice luck" might equate to your -9 hit point option a.
Does that mean I am not cheating anymore by your book?

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?

there is a difference between "what the BBEG wanted or expected" and "what was supposed to happen", right? Just because "the BBEG had an escape plan" is not a reason i would fudge "the PC drops him".

I'd roll with the punch. The campaign goes on, even if the party killed the BBEG "before his time".

the situation you describe did not have anything that said "it was before his time."

if you can explain why it was "before his time", we might be able to explain why it would be good or bad to fudge then.

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.

sigh...

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

and most people i game with like to run characters whose stories do not end unheroically and pointlessly. They do not want to get involved in something thats going to end in an unfulfilling manner such as that.

not that i am saying your games are like that.

 

[swrushing]

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?

sigh... "cheating" again.

and again... i let people roll dice because the vast majority of time the dice give us useful, flavorful and fun information. once in a great while, they don't, and i fix that.

look, at burger king, i go up to their soda dispensor and pop my cup under the coke or the mello yellow and the VAST MAJORITY OF TIME it spews out my caffeinated friend and i drink it and I am happy.

Once in a great while, it spews out a sputtering miss-mix usually indicating lack of syrup and mostly carbonated water. This indicates "the system has failed."

What do i do in that circumstance?

Do i decide "well that happens" and drink the foul miss-mix? No. It tastes bad and would spoiil my entire meal.

Do i decide "well screw this. I wont ever use these machines again" and go to bringing my own sodas? No, thats a whole lot more work than i want for a soda.

Do i dump the foul concoction and CHOOSE ANOTHER spout, maybe taking mello yellow or lemonade or even water? YES!!!

I have a lot less time and effort and even money invested in that drink and that lunch than i do in my campaign, in my players, and in their characters, so i don't see not being at least as flexible with the dice part of the game as i am with my soft drink selections at fast food.

the DnD system, even after house rules, is not more reliable than the typical burger king fountain drink dispenser. So, i think I ought to be at least as flexible using it and deciding whether to take its results as when getting my lunch.

 

[swrushing]

Alright. My posts are getting a bit too wordy. I'll resume my whole position.

If you fudge a dice roll.. Why was the dice even rolled? If there was no chance of failure (or success, or crit, or whatever), why in the blue heck was the dice rolled in the first place? What's the point?

this has been answered multiple times, heck maybe even multiple times by me alone...

there are a lot more possibilities in a die roll than the "egregious extreme". you roll the dice for the 99% useful results, not the 1% or .1% whacky out-of-proportion results.

Look, a simple question. Lets say i only fudge when a crit roll kills with damage in the upper 10% of crit range a character.

you say "why roll at all?"

If you ran a game where a PC never got critted lethally in the upper 10% of crit damage, you never had one where i would ever need to fudge, would you be asking yourself "well, heck, why did i even roll dice? Why didn't i just narrate the whole blessed thing?"

is you answer "no"?
Is your answer "no, there is plenty of reason to roll dice in my games other than the high end critical that kills a PC"?

if so, then please, stop asking people who fudge away those same extremes "why do you roll dice at all?" since you already know the answer.

 

[swrushing]

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)?

First, they tend to not play as major a role in my games, appearing more rarely than "adversaries" with more options available to them. I prefer "adversaries" to "monsters" tho i use monsters as filler, now and again.

Second, when they do occur, such an issue is the major issue and i find the party tends to react accordingly, moving to cover fallen or helpless friends. A cute one was when the party gnome used a wand of gaseous form to turn the paralyzed barbarian misty, so the ghoul couldn't hurt her.

Now, turn to stone, that isn't so bad. it doesn't kill you, just take you out of commission until you can be fixed. usually by the time a party starts encountering such adversaries, they have a reasonable chance of getting the counter, even if it means hauling a statue back to civilization.

during the campaign, i had one of the "semi-finales" involve a battle against a beholder and minions. In the room around the corner was the "trophy room", where the pcs found dozens of petrified heroes, most seriously wounded. The beholder liked to keep his "trophies" you see.

My plan was *if* it did turn out badly and it became a tpk, to have the heroes that weren't "just dead" wake up some great time later, i think i was going for two centuries, having just been rescued by some other group, who had found the "trophy room" who would then start talking about a legend of "saviors from the past" and so on.

As it was the PCs won and they were the ones reviving old heroes long petrified.