Balancing "RP" and "G"

[Raven Crowking]

Now it seems we're trying to dictate what is and what isn't a house rule, which is just a silly argument. Some house rules are static --- must train to level, some house rules are dynamic--- pcs can use action cards to provide an action their characters would not normally do.

PC "action cards" are written and printed prior to the game, known about by the players and DM, and in all ways handled above board. Each PC may gain a different "ability" during a given session, but the possibilities are static, not dynamic, in that they are part of a house rule set that exists prior to play. If, for example, a player gains the ability to force a re-roll, that is known ahead of time, and it is known by everyone at the table when that abiltiy is used.

"House rules" are not cheating because they are rules changes, known to all ahead of time, no matter how extensive or small they may be. The closest online definition I could find was from Wikpedia:

House rules is a phrase referring to a unique set of rules applying only in a certain location or organization; may also be called "rules of the house." Bars and pubs, for example, frequently have house rules posted. For example, it is a house rule in United States Air Force officers' clubs that if an officer enters the club wearing headgear and is officially noticed (i.e., the bell near the bar is rung), the entering officer must buy a round of drinks for the bar.

A common use of the term is in the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game (or other role-playing games) to signify a deviation of game play from the official rules. The usage of house rules has actually been encouraged in official game materials as a way to personalize the game.

House rules can range from the tiniest of changes or additions to substantial deviations that alter the entire game play; it's really up to the imagination of the players. It is interesting to note that most groups do not stick in 100% to the official rules.

Most house rules are made up by the members of a particular group of players, and are never published; nevertheless countless of them have been posted on the web or published via other channels. In fact, any rule book which is not a part of the core rule books, even if it's from the original publishers of the game, is a form of house rules.​

Another definition is "House Rules- Rules, especially betting, agreed upon by the players."

What you will notice is that there are two portions to the term, House and Rules. House defines where the Rules apply. Within a D&D context, your House could be your gaming group ("We all agree no sorcerers no matter who runs the game") or your own campaign ("In my world, there are no sorcerers"), for example.

The second part, Rules, means exactly that: "Established standards, guides, or regulations set up by authority." That authority can be WotC, the DM, the gaming group as a whole. It doesn't matter. What matters, strongly, is that word "established". I.e., it is not rules if you are making it up on the fly.

The result of a die roll is not rules. "If the result equals or exceeds the target number, your character succeeds. If the result is lower than the target number, you fail." is rules. If you establish that you are changing that rule, so that you now have an agreed-upon new house rule, you are not cheating by any reasonable standard. Which means that those of you who are upfront to your players and tell them that you are going to fudge some rolls are not cheating. "The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" is a valid house rule.

Again, though, would you accept "The players reserve the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" as a valid house rule? Or, going back to those of you willing to answer the question, I noted statements along the line of "I have allowed players to fudge rolls on occasion." However, no one said "I let players determine when they should fudge rolls." Again, a telling point. Why not?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Here, I would say, why fudge at all? A simple house rule that "A lethal crit roll with damage in the upper 10% range against a PC instead will result in X" eliminates any need to fudge at all.

Or, say, you only fudge when a roll is failed by 1. Why not just lower all DCs (including opponent ACs) by 1? Same difference, right?


RC

 

[swrushing]

Here, I would say, why fudge at all? A simple house rule that "A lethal crit roll with damage in the upper 10% range against a PC instead will result in X" eliminates any need to fudge at all.

Ok, let me try to get this point across one more time.

Notice that you have, similarly to others who have tried, failed to write a rule which captures what i said about fudging. Your rule would turn to X not just the ones which kill but the ones which don't kill.

If you look back thru this thread, you will see other saying the same thing, a litany of "well why not just use THIS house rule" which is sometimes close but as well sometimes not in PRECISION and EFFECT to what the fudge does.

The house rules arguement seems to keep missing one simple fact.

there is no such thing as a perfect system.

No matter how many rules with how much precision you add to the game with its 2000+ feats, it wont ever achieve a perfect system which always produces the "acceptable" or "right" or "preferrable" or maybe even most enjoyable results.

Now, if you believe in this myth of a perfect system, thats cool. I don't. If more rules was the road to the perfect system, then HERO would have probably reached that point by now.

but me, knowing i won't get a perfect system, i don't plan to chase it with trying to get house rules to cover precisely every event ahead of time where i might fudge. It would be like trying to write a dozen pages of rules to cover something which might happen 5 times in a three year span of about 100 sessions, and it would probably miss a couple anyway.

its much easier, much more efficient, and much more precise to handle those bits ad hoc. i am very happy if the system and its house rules can "get it right" 95% of the time so i only have to step in 5% with a fudge. i doubt i fudged dice rolls more than a half dozen times over three years and 100 or so sessions.

Or, say, you only fudge when a roll is failed by 1. Why not just lower all DCs (including opponent ACs) by 1? Same difference, right?
RC

Uh, no. Saying i will only fudge if a roll is failed by 1 is NOT saying I will always fudge when a roll is failed by 1 which is what your "obvious" house rule would do.

are you starting to see that house ruling away fudging isn't as obvious and easy a solution as it seems?

so far, you were 0-for-2, one for ruling a direct statement from me and one for ruling a direct statement from you.

i have plenty of house rules.
every game i have ever ran used house rules.
i consider house rules to be the salt-pepper-catsup-mustard-etc of a campaign, where you flavor the store bought "meal" to your own tastes and consider them to be expected.

but i aint so full of myself as to think "if i just add more and more house rules, i will eventually arrive at a perfect system which will never misfire."

If thats something you believe, that with enough rules you can achieve a perfect system, I won't knock your faith, but it ain't a religion i will be converting to anytime soon.

and i also don't subscribe to the "just take the bad results too" and see my burger king reference for that one.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As much or as little as people think RP damages that G aspect, yes.

To wit....
If a GM sticks strictly by dice and numbers and a character dies by bad luck on the dice, and that character has no access to "bring 'em back" magic, when the purpose of the player playing the game is to play _that_ character, then yes specfiically the Game aspect damages the Roleplay aspect, no question. As much as percieved "cheating by dice fudging" can damage the game aspect to someone where overcoming challenges is the primary goal.


Edit:
I was also using an extreme example to draw a parallel between the "fugding = read a novel" argument is just as absurd as "game first = playing a mini game".

Right. However, while I don't think either of the "X = Y" positions is particularly valid, I do think that one makes a clearer point than the other.

Neither RP nor G sits alone. They are not things that you are forced to choose between. Without Role-playing there is no Game. After all, every choice you make in an RPG is based upon role-playing considerations, no matter how loose the connection may initially seem. Even tactical choices are RP choices, because they show how this character reacts to this problem. I don't think any of us disagree up to this point.

You suggest that "overcoming challenges" is the focus of the Gaming element of RPG. In a generic sense, you are correct. The rules exist specifically for determining whether or not you can overcome a specific challenge, and, in some cases, by what degree you can overcome it.

However, in a less generalized sense, overcoming challenges is RP rather than G. Using DOnTadow's example from earlier, the Forged wants to leap across a chasm to save his brother. The challenge involved seems to be leaping a chasm, but is also equally apparently saving his brother. Neither of these challenges is based upon the G side of RPG. Rather, the G side determines what happens in relation to the RP.

Let's say that the DonTadow had let the dice fall where they would (PC survives, brother falls to his doom). Would RP have been hurt? I say, no. When the purpose of the player playing the game is to play that character, then I would have to assume this means playing that character in a variety of circumstances. Some are glorious. Others are tragic. I would, however, agree that the DM's storyline would have been hurt. I seriously disagree with the assertation that the DM's storyline is worth altering the outcome for, though, exactly as I would disagree with the assertation that the DM ought to determine the PCs' reactions to events. Both serve as forms of railroading.

Now imagine, instead, that it was the Forged who failed his roll and would have fallen to his doom had the DM not intervened. Would RP have been hurt? I say again, no. The purpose of the player, if that player's purpose was solely to play that particular character, would certainly have been hurt. That is not the same thing as RP, though. Nor would such a player's purpose be more important (imho) than the DM's storyline in the previous example. After all, we would be talking about a rather extreme and inflexible player, right?

Finally, imagine that it was the player's purpose to play the Forged, and the player, knowing the odds of making the jump, leaped and failed. Then the DM simply ruled that the PC had made the jump anyway. Was the game aspect of RPG hurt? Sure. The player now knows that the rules are in abeyance whenever the DM likes; he can no longer trust them as a basis of decision-making. If the player trusts the DM implicitly, this may be a minor damage (akin to the DM trusting the players implicitly, and allowing them to fudge die rolls whenever they -- not he -- feels appropriate). I would say that, to whatever degree meaning has been taken from the decision, RP has also been hurt.

No one on the "pro-fudging" side suggests that not fudging damages the game. They suggest, rather, that fudging is an aid to role-playing. Those on the "anti-fudging" side suggest that fudging damages all aspects of RPG: both role-playing and game. The idea that fudging disempowers player decision making has nothing to do with "G" and everything to do with "RP". It is also why your attempt to draw a parallel falls flat.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ok, let me try to get this point across one more time.

Notice that you have, similarly to others who have tried, failed to write a rule which captures what i said about fudging. Your rule would turn to X not just the ones which kill but the ones which don't kill.

No. Go back and re-read my rule. It clearly says "A lethal crit roll with...blah, blah, blah". The word lethal means that it kills.

While I agree with you that "there is no such thing as a perfect system" and that no system will always produce results that are "preferable" or even "most enjoyable", I disagree with your assertation that there is no such thing as a system that always produces "acceptable" results. Moreover, I believe that choosing to throw out the results you do not like as "unacceptable" while keeping the results you like as "acceptable" devalues the system entirely. In other words, when working with a "B" gaming engine, you can fine-tune it to your needs so that it produces "A" results consistently with the occasional bad event ("Rolled a 1!") tossed in, or you can ignore the system and simply choose the results you want. Or you can chug along with a "B" system.

Or, as I said before, "The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" is a valid house rule. However, I doubt that very many people are that upfront about it with their players, or would accept the corollary "The players reserve the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" house rule. Yet, if the purpose is to "handle those bits ad hoc" why not share the fun?

When I suggested lowering all DCs by 1, that wasn't intended as a house rule. That was intended as adventure design. What I hoped to point out was that fudging a roll that is failed by 1 has nothing to do with the roll having actually failed by 1, which would be easy to deal with. That the roll "only failed by 1" is, in fact, a justification for fudging rather than the reason for fudging itself.

The reason for fudging is, and can only be: "I cannot accept the results of that die roll."

That is a bit difficult to house rule away, yes. It is also not a system design fault. Ergo, my "0-for-2" is the result of (1) your failure to notice the word "lethal" in the first house rule, and (2) the Socratic method.

Everything else about "if i just add more and more house rules, i will eventually arrive at a perfect system which will never misfire" is a straw man to avoid the actual issues. One does not need to believe in a perfect system to improve upon an existing system. Nor does one need to believe in a perfect system to know that "I cannot accept the results of that die roll" is user error.


RC

 

[swrushing]

Both serve as forms of railroading.

you know, i know its in vogue these days to really broaden the definition of railroading to encompass a lot more than its original starting (and negative connotations), so that even simple plotting techniques or anything short of random monsters fits the bill, but to try and place "fudging away a lethal failure on the part of a PC" or ostensibly to "allow a PC to succeed instead of fail at **his chosen action** by fudging" as railroading is too much for me.

railroading, to me, is not allowing the players to make choices (or not allowing their characters to succeed when they make those choices) which will not fit your preconception of where events will unfold.

if you see fudging in that, we are off vastly different experiences.

No one on the "pro-fudging" side suggests that not fudging damages the game.
They suggest, rather, that fudging is an aid to role-playing.

understanding that i make no claims that apply for ALL GAMES EVERYWHERE, but speak only for my games and those i game with and I do suspect also that there are those with similar styles and preferences for whom it would also be true....

I am saying it "hurts the game" to not fudge when the dice misfire and the system produces a bad result. However, i am not parsing this term "game" to mean one part of the event at all cuz i see them all as interrelated parts. My "game", which is the event where my players and i get together and have "a gaming session" is harmed when the results produced are "not fun." (before the retorts begin, this is not the same as saying "always succeed at everything they do".)

Having a PC die a "non-heroic pointless death" before the plots and sub-plots to which he is VITAL have reached any sort of satisfying conclusion, either for success or for failure, and dying before those secrets and mysteries that were part of his development from day one have been revealed and dealt with... those "hurt the game" for me and mine.

For those for whom this isn't a problem, those who see value in "non-heroic pointless deaths", etc... for them it likely won't "hurt the game".

 

[Raven Crowking]

you know, i know its in vogue these days to really broaden the definition of railroading to encompass a lot more than its original starting (and negative connotations), so that even simple plotting techniques or anything short of random monsters fits the bill, but to try and place "fudging away a lethal failure on the part of a PC" or ostensibly to "allow a PC to succeed instead of fail at **his chosen action** by fudging" as railroading is too much for me.

railroading, to me, is not allowing the players to make choices (or not allowing their characters to succeed when they make those choices) which will not fit your preconception of where events will unfold.

I think that most people define railroading as the DM taking decision-making power away from the players. To me, removing the results of decision-making is the same as removing the ability to make decisions. It doesn't matter whether those results are good or bad.

To me, the player has chosen to make an attempt at something, with a fair degree of knowledge of his odds of success. The player desires to succeed, but his choice is not to succeed; it is to make an attempt. If you are allowing the player to choose to succeed, then there is no reason to fudge a die roll. There is, in fact, no reason to roll at all.

In D&D, dice are rolled to determine the outcome of events where what will happen is unknown. If you know, prior to rolling, that the character is going to succeed, then there is no reason to roll except to pretend that you didn't know the outcome. What you are doing is suggesting to the player that he is allowed to choose to place his character in jeopardy while you are, in fact, denying him that opportunity behind his back.

Or, perhaps, you are fooling yourself. Maybe you think you don't know the outcome until the die hits the table in a way that you don't like. Either way, once you have decided to change the results you don't like, the outcome is no longer unknown. It is whatever you want it to be.

Which is fine, if that's what you and your players want. Or, as I said before, "The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" is a valid house rule. However, I doubt that very many people are that upfront about it with their players, or would accept the corollary "The players reserve the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" house rule. Yet, if the purpose is to "handle those bits ad hoc" why not share the fun?

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

No. Go back and re-read my rule. It clearly says "A lethal crit roll with...blah, blah, blah". The word lethal means that it kills.

quite true. i misread. sorry. but you still missed on the second.

While I agree with you that "there is no such thing as a perfect system" and that no system will always produce results that are "preferable" or even "most enjoyable", I disagree with your assertation that there is no such thing as a system that always produces "acceptable" results.

but if "acceptable" to me is "preferrable" or "most enjoyable"... see the point.

I am not willing to drink the miss-mix all carbonated water just because the machine i choose to use spits it out. i am perfectly willing and capable of deciding to dump that result and draw another beverage from the avilable options.

Moreover, I believe that choosing to throw out the results you do not like as "unacceptable" while keeping the results you like as "acceptable" devalues the system entirely.

sorry but i think keeping 99% of the results and tossing the one in a blue moon doesn't "devalue the system entirely". We disagree. I think i can take most of the system, get value from it, and not have to take all of it.

thats what my games and experience has shown me.

Or, as I said before, "The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" is a valid house rule. However, I doubt that very many people are that upfront about it with their players, or would accept the corollary "The players reserve the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" house rule. Yet, if the purpose is to "handle those bits ad hoc" why not share the fun?

see posts above for discussion of things i tell people in my intro speeches. The pervasice myth being fostered here that gms weho fudge hide their dark dirty secret and that players would be running away in droves if they knew... amusing. But it hinges on one telling presumption... the fiction that "all the other gamers think like i do and so they will dislike it too because i would dislike it..."

some players, hold on to your hat, enjoy it when i tell them "that character you spent so much time in developing won't die a pointless unheroic death just because of dice".

really, they do.

When I suggested lowering all DCs by 1, that wasn't intended as a house rule. That was intended as adventure design. What I hoped to point out was that fudging a roll that is failed by 1 has nothing to do with the roll having actually failed by 1, which would be easy to deal with. That the roll "only failed by 1" is, in fact, a justification for fudging rather than the reason for fudging itself.

The reason for fudging is, and can only be: "I cannot accept the results of that die roll."

way too late/early for me to make hide nor hair out of that structure.

That is a bit difficult to house rule away, yes. It is also not a system design fault. Ergo, my "0-for-2" is the result of (1) your failure to notice the word "lethal" in the first house rule, and (2) the Socratic method.

so, maybe you were perfect?

Everything else about "if i just add more and more house rules, i will eventually arrive at a perfect system which will never misfire" is a straw man to avoid the actual issues. One does not need to believe in a perfect system to improve upon an existing system. Nor does one need to believe in a perfect system to know that "I cannot accept the results of that die roll" is user error.

"user error"?? So much faith in system and so little faith in "user". I would almost think you were in tech support.

one needs to believe in a perfect system OR one needs to believe he should accept "unacceptable" results if one wishes to think house rules, enough house rules, maybe just a few more house rules, will eliminate the need for fudging.

I subscribe to neither belief.

so i will continue to use my house rules for the things they are intended for, getting the system "close enough" and capturing the "flavor" and "style" and continue to fudge those few remaining gaps, and not waste that time on the (IMO) endless pursuit of "the one more rule which will finally fix it all."

hopefully, thats fine with you?

 

[Raven Crowking]

you know, i know its in vogue these days to really broaden the definition of railroading to encompass a lot more than its original starting (and negative connotations), so that even simple plotting techniques or anything short of random monsters fits the bill, but to try and place "fudging away a lethal failure on the part of a PC" or ostensibly to "allow a PC to succeed instead of fail at **his chosen action** by fudging" as railroading is too much for me.

railroading, to me, is not allowing the players to make choices (or not allowing their characters to succeed when they make those choices) which will not fit your preconception of where events will unfold.

Since you quoted me without using context, allow me:

I seriously disagree with the assertation that the DM's storyline is worth altering the outcome for, though, exactly as I would disagree with the assertation that the DM ought to determine the PCs' reactions to events. Both serve as forms of railroading.

It doesn't seem to me that I have "broadened" the description of railroading at all. Does it seem so to you?

Straw man, again.


RC

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I think that most people define railroading as the DM taking decision-making power away from the players.

Ok this will rapidly become a threadjack so i dont see much point in continuing the railroading redefination debate. As i stated before, your definition is too broad, too all inclusive.

To me, removing the results of decision-making is the same as removing the ability to make decisions. It doesn't matter whether those results are good or bad.

and here is where we differ greatly.

To me, the player has chosen to make an attempt at something, with a fair degree of knowledge of his odds of success. The player desires to succeed, but his choice is not to succeed; it is to make an attempt. If you are allowing the player to choose to succeed, then there is no reason to fudge a die roll. There is, in fact, no reason to roll at all.

and here we are again at the oft repeated and still not valid position of "ino reason to roll if you wont accept the worst outcome".

see above, been discussed already ad infinitum. in short, there are "degress of success" and "degrees of failure" and useful bits that can be gained from rolls without accepting to take the worst result.

When i step up to the burger king soda machine, I KNOW it might give me on a fluke chance carbonated slop. The fact that i stick my cup under that nozzle doesn't mean I am bound to drink it if that happens. The fact that i will pour out the slop and draw another beverage DOESN'T mean i cannot get anything of value from the process.

In D&D, dice are rolled to determine the outcome of events where what will happen is unknown. If you know, prior to rolling, that the character is going to succeed, then there is no reason to roll except to pretend that you didn't know the outcome. What you are doing is suggesting to the player that he is allowed to choose to place his character in jeopardy while you are, in fact, denying him that opportunity behind his back.

he is not choosing this action or making this decision in order to fail. he is making this decision in order to try and succeed. If in allow that to happen, i am not denying him "decision making power".
If instead i decided to fudge against him, so that regardless of his decision he would fail, that would be "denying him decision making".

Or, perhaps, you are fooling yourself. Maybe you think you don't know the outcome until the die hits the table in a way that you don't like. Either way, once you have decided to change the results you don't like, the outcome is no longer unknown. It is whatever you want it to be.

it will fall within an acceptable range. Not necessarily the same thing. failure, say on a jump check, can be falling way short or can be falling a little short and being able to grab the ledge or maybe if we are not talking a perfect straight verticle drop then a little short means a little falling damage while falling wway short means a lot of falling damage, etc etc etc.

Again, there is a lot of potential info out of a roll that has value other than that worst case bad lethal result.

Which is fine, if that's what you and your players want. Or, as I said before, "The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" is a valid house rule. However, I doubt that very many people are that upfront about it with their players, or would accept the corollary "The players reserve the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" house rule. Yet, if the purpose is to "handle those bits ad hoc" why not share the fun?

back to the dirty little secret approach...