Balancing "RP" and "G"

[Raven Crowking]

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?

Swrushing,

Whatever you want to do in your game is fine with me. I've defending the rights of DMs to do whatever they want in more threads than I can remember (though I'd happily point you to some). Ultimately, the only thing that matters is the social contract between you and your players. If you're both getting what you want from the game, then that's the reason you're playing, right?

One needs to believe that one can eliminate "unacceptable" results if one wishes eliminate the need for fudging. However, if you go back through this thread, I believe that you will discover that it is what results qualify as "unacceptable" that determine whether or not one is pro- or anti-fudging.

House rules offer a fix only if your definition of "unacceptable" results is fairly specific. You can house rule any number of specific "unacceptable" results. You cannot house rule to eliminate "unacceptable" results when what is "unacceptable" changes. House rules come up when someone says "I fudge because X is unacceptable" where X can be defined, and can therefore be dealt with without fudging. Which is why I could easily come up with a house rule to fix your lethal crit problem (merely by reordering your statement of the problem, for the most part), and why you found my "solution" to your second problem so unhelpful: the problem itself remains undefined.

Fudgers need to fudge either because X is a changing value, or because they don't know what X is, and, yes, I do call that user error. And, no, I am not in tech support.

Earlier on, pages and pages back, I said that your game sounded interesting. From your descriptions in this and other threads, you're defininately including elements that I would enjoy in a game.

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. Moreover, I said that if you're honest about your fudging, it isn't cheating. In another thread, which I would be happy to point you to, I even went so far as to say that the DM can do whatever he or she so desires (though he or she is not guaranteed players if he or she does so ) So, clearly, what you do in your game is fine with me. Your table, your rules.

Why not share the fun, though? Why not allow the house rule that "The players reserve the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact"?


RC

 

[swrushing]

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

yes. you include fudging to allow characters to succed at the actions their players choose as railroading.

thats why i gave you my definition of railroading in the section you quoted.

for context.

but, hey, I am perfectly willing to accept that we won't agree on the definition of railroading any more than we will agree on whether i should drink the bad cola at burger king.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Your defintion of railroading 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." My definition of railroading is "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."

Both of us agree that railroading is (1) not allowing the players to make choices, and (2) not allowing a result that does not fit the DM's preconception of where events will unfold. Our sole difference in definition, so far as I can see, is that when I say "DM's preconception of where events will unfold" I mean that the DM can preconceive both of PC failure and PC success, whereas you seem to view predetermined success as somehow less or a preconception than predetermined failure. And here, as you say, is where we differ greatly.

For example, when we look at the player deciding to try something hazardous, you say "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." I say, he is trying to succeed, but is aware of a possibility of failure. Yes, success is his hope. Success is not his choice, though. Trying is his choice.

On that note, saying "The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" as a house rule doesn't make it a "dirty little secret". If anything, it is the antithesis. It empowers players to make choices based upon the actual rules they are playing under. You yourself claim that you are upfront with your players about this, so you should understand exactly why this is important.

Moreover, pointing out that this is a valid house rule can (hopefully) get the discussion past the "Cheater, cheater!" stage and into what the actual purpose and effect of either fudging or not fudging are in the context of the game.


RC

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

One needs to believe that one can eliminate "unacceptable" results if one wishes eliminate the need for fudging.

and I and perhaps others do not believe that one can eliminate "unacceptable results" entirely from a system There is no perfect system in my world.

people who believe there is a perfect system, and believe they are playing it, probably don't fudge.

However, if you go back through this thread, I believe that you will discover that it is what results qualify as "unacceptable" that determine whether or not one is pro- or anti-fudging.

Actually, i think its not "what results are unacceptable" but "are there unacceptable results".

the pro-fudgers think "sometimes the system won't do right and i will need to fix it in the most serious cases."

the anit-fudgers seem to think "i can live with whatever results come up" and so see no reason to fudge.

"its not about the specifics of "what results" but the broader question of "are there any unacceptable results?"

at least, as i see it.

YMMV

House rules offer a fix only if your definition of "unacceptable" results is fairly specific. You can house rule any number of specific "unacceptable" results.

if you have the time and patience and the willingness to endure such a search, sure. But, and i say this again, the closer to perfection you try and get, the more and more and more work you need. trying to pre-list every concievable point at which i will fudge so that i will agree that "i wont fudge any other times" is to me a waste of effort.

its much more productive for me to decide "i will fudge", let my players know that, and then spend that time on the fun parts like plot, story and such.

You cannot house rule to eliminate "unacceptable" results when what is "unacceptable" changes.

or if it is not a simple or short list, it might be more work than useful to try and predetermine.

Fudgers need to fudge either because X is a changing value, or because they don't know what X is, and, yes, I do call that user error. And, no, I am not in tech support.

i call that the obvious complexity of a rich and varied game.

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. Moreover, I said that if you're honest about your fudging, it isn't cheating. In another thread, which I would be happy to point you to, I even went so far as to say that the DM can do whatever he or she so desires (though he or she is not guaranteed players if he or she does so ) So, clearly, what you do in your game is fine with me. Your table, your rules.

So where is fudging a user error then if the Gm tells players before hand?

Why not share the fun, though? Why not allow the house rule that "The players reserve the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact"?

well, i have ad hoc told players to reroll or even to "ignore the dice" on a couple of occasions.

I would not adopt a general unfettered "players change their rolls" as you suggest and its primarily because the perspectives and roles of the Gms and players are very different. its my job to "run the game" and its their join to "play their characters" and during play that puts us at very different viewpoints. I don't let them "pick your adversaries" or "tell me the layout of the next room" or "decide is there a trap ahead" unfettered either.

that said, i usually, almost always now, do allow them drama points or plot points which do allow them a limited ability to do those things, adjusting rolls before they are made, adjusting them after, etc. The dramatic editing capability, for example in the Serenity rpg, even comes close to or all the way to allowing the scene edits i mention above.

 

[swrushing]

Our sole difference in definition, so far as I can see, is that when I say "DM's preconception of where events will unfold" I mean that the DM can preconceive both of PC failure and PC success, whereas you seem to view predetermined success as somehow less or a preconception than predetermined failure.

No, not at all. It is absolutely a preconception. its just not one that removes player decision making power.

specifically i am saying that predetermining success or more specifically "predetermining not-the-worst-possible-outcome" IS NOT removing player decision power.

BTW, another of my policies is a presumption of competence on the PCs part. So, its not uncommon at all for me to say "you succeed" flat out even when by the dice there is a small chance of failure. So, if you consider "removing his chance to fail" railroading... then i got tracks running all the way thru my games up one side and down the other.

we just have different definitions.

if a 9th level fighter choose "i attack and kill the 5th lvl goblin warrior" and i say "ok you kill him. donm't bother to roll" i have just predetermined his success but i have not removed his decision making power. he gets to do what he wants but the miniscule chance the mechanics provide for a dramatic upset have been removed.

I might have removed the 5th level goblin's decision making, but he doesn't get a vote.

Leaping the chasm, if i remove the 1 in 20 say chance of falling to his death, i am not removing player decision making power. i might be removing the chasm's chance to feed today, but the chasm doesn't get a vote.

When the goblin lobby or the hungry chasm lobby knocks on my door, i will fret over that then.

Trying is his choice.

and he got to try... i did not prevent him from trying.

his choice was to try, and he tried. he even succeeded.

thats not robbing him of the ability to make choices or of his chance to succeed at those choices.

thats not railroading.

had he been trying to fail, fail critically, like in some weird suicide attempt, then it would be railroading to make him succeed, but then i have much bigger issues than a little railroading.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So where is fudging a user error then if the Gm tells players before hand?

As I have said, I am not in tech support, so maybe my jargon is off here. I am using the term "user error" to denote something that causes a system to fail not because of inadequacies of system design, but because the user is attempting to cause the system to perform outside of its functioning parameters. I.e., (1) the results given by the rules system are all considered "acceptable" by the designers, who cannot take into account that you will find X or Y unacceptable (or there would be no rules system due to an infinite amount of such variables) and (2) a rules system cannot take into account anything which cannot be defined to a reasonable degree, such as a quality X that makes fudging acceptable wherein X cannot (or will not) be defined.

In other words, a problem occurs. The problem is not in the system. If the problem was with the system, a patch (i.e., rule) could be applied to resolve the problem, once identified. In this case, the problem is in the expectations of the users of the system rather than in the system itself. In some cases, this can be resolved by creating a special patch for the user (i.e., house rule), because, while not a system error, the error is inherent in the interaction of the system itself. In other cases, where no such factor can be identified, the problem becomes user error. The user simply wants the system to do something that it cannot do.

Your solution is to alter the outcome of the system. You say that no number of house rules could do this for you, and you are right, because the problem is not in the system. It is in the definition (or lack thereof) of "unacceptable" results. Simply put, you are in a position where you either have to fudge, or you have to change what you find unacceptable.

Sorry. Long-winded I know. But, anyway, that is what I mean by user error. Your fudging is not the user error; rather, user error is what leads you to apply fudging as a "fix".

I would not adopt a general unfettered "players change their rolls" as you suggest and its primarily because the perspectives and roles of the Gms and players are very different. its my job to "run the game" and its their join to "play their characters" and during play that puts us at very different viewpoints. I don't let them "pick your adversaries" or "tell me the layout of the next room" or "decide is there a trap ahead" unfettered either.

Fair enough. Especially as you go on:

that said, i usually, almost always now, do allow them drama points or plot points which do allow them a limited ability to do those things, adjusting rolls before they are made, adjusting them after, etc. The dramatic editing capability, for example in the Serenity rpg, even comes close to or all the way to allowing the scene edits i mention above.

Which is another (and I think better) potential fix for the user error problem. As I mentioned earlier, I use swashbuckling cards (thank you again, EnWorld!) and am divisng a system of action points. I am also a victim of "user error"; the term is not prejorative.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, not at all. It is absolutely a preconception. its just not one that removes player decision making power.

I imagine that this depends an awful lot on how we see the decision-making process. To me, knowing what the risks are is part of the decision-making process. Altering the risks alters the validity of the decision I believe that I am making.

OTOH, "presumption of competence on the PCs part" (i.e., not requiring rolls for some tasks) does not seem like the same thing. Recently, in my game, I had a PC make a cart using the Craft skill. Rather than roll it out, we simply agreed as to how long it took. There is a definite parallel between doing this and fudging die rolls, I admit. To be quite honest, I am not 100% sure where the difference lies.

I would venture to say that, when a die roll is called for, there is an implied contract that the result of the die roll determines the outcome, and that this contract does not exist up to and until the die roll is called for. However, you would be right in pointing out (1) that, by being upfront with your players, you have modified the implied contract, and (2) that, by virtue of being in the rulebook, there is an implied contract that die rolls should have been called for to build that cart. The fact that the same rulebook also modifies that implied contract by suggesting that the DM doesn't have to call for those die rolls notwithstanding, you would have a valid arguement.

I would be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this.


RC

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I imagine that this depends an awful lot on how we see the decision-making process. To me, knowing what the risks are is part of the decision-making process. Altering the risks alters the validity of the decision I believe that I am making.

indeed it does but my decision to shift the odds in favor of what you decide should not be taken as "removing" your decision making power. if anything, it is increasing it, by reducing the likelihood of "random elements" making your decision result in failure, if success was your goal.

OTOH, "presumption of competence on the PCs part" (i.e., not requiring rolls for some tasks) does not seem like the same thing. Recently, in my game, I had a PC make a cart using the Craft skill. Rather than roll it out, we simply agreed as to how long it took. There is a definite parallel between doing this and fudging die rolls, I admit. To be quite honest, I am not 100% sure where the difference lies.

neither no rolling it or fudging off a bad result would be IMO railroading.

I would venture to say that, when a die roll is called for, there is an implied contract that the result of the die roll determines the outcome, and that this contract does not exist up to and until the die roll is called for. However, you would be right in pointing out (1) that, by being upfront with your players, you have modified the implied contract, and (2) that, by virtue of being in the rulebook, there is an implied contract that die rolls should have been called for to build that cart. The fact that the same rulebook also modifies that implied contract by suggesting that the DM doesn't have to call for those die rolls notwithstanding, you would have a valid arguement.

Add to that IMO any "implied contract" that you feel gets that far down to precise timing as to when GM discretion is allowed and when Gm discretion is not allowed such as you describe, ought not to be an "implied contract" at all, but stated up front and clearly delineated. if you really feel that as a player your GM deciding "no roll needed" is perfectly fine but once a dice is rolled him deciding "you cannot fall to your death here" is railroading, then that fine a slice ought not to be something "implied" but something you state up front, at least as much as a Gm who fudges keeps getting told he should warn his players.

 

[swrushing]

BTW for a little more detail of an answer to the "why not let players fudge like GMs" since that has come up more than once...

Primarily because IMX they won't be as able to do it well. As already stated, fudging needs to be done well or it can hurt the game. Over use and misuse of fudging like any technique can be no good at all and even hurt the game. I even posted an example iirc, and it didn't involve dice.

Why cannot a player be as good as the Gm at fudging his rolls?

Speaking now from my experience with my players, three reasons: perspective, knowledge, and experience.

Perspective: Covered already but basically the player is there to play his character, sees the game world thru his character and is vested in his character. Even a small amount of immersion in that character puts him at a radically different perspective from the Gm who has no character and no vested interest in those characters but who has the players as his focus.

Knowledge: The player and his character often, almost always, doesn't have the full knowledge of situation and circumstance the Gm has, and as such is not able to put the die roll in the full context. Even if he thinks he has the whole picture, one element he is probably lacking is the detail and background of the other PC plots and sub-plots. The player is simply not making an informed decision or maybe, as informed a decision as the Gm is.

Experience: Well, again, from the perspective of "me and mine" there is a reqson i GM most of the time and its because i am better at it by far than my players. over half of them have actual Gm experience and, frankly, most of them suck at it. The others are on their better days adequate at best. The best among them is the guy i used as an example of "bad fudging" pages ago in this thread.

i find giving them a limited resource to alter rolls and such handles most of the issues without buying into the overuse and misuse issues of fudging, but thats still a tricky proposition.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

(1) the results given by the rules system are all considered "acceptable" by the designers, who cannot take into account that you will find X or Y unacceptable (or there would be no rules system due to an infinite amount of such variables) and (2) a rules system cannot take into account anything which cannot be defined to a reasonable degree, such as a quality X that makes fudging acceptable wherein X cannot (or will not) be defined.

there is another case you are missing. Since i haven't gotten it across in ganmespeak let me try tech support.

there is a error in the system output. It is producing bad data.
fixing the problem in system would be difficult, as tracking down the cause would be difficult or an attempt at a change of system would be likely too unspecific or it might just be difficult to implement.
there is an easy user side "workaround" which handles the issue.

in that case, the most practical solution might be to let your users know of the problem, let them know of the workaround, and spend your time on more important elements of the system.

believe me, when our software goes out, there are indeed some "system errors" that are deemed "not worth fixing" due to their ease of correction in post-system processing.

I know i am better spending my time getting the system "close enough", allowing for me to fudge the very rare system blow outs, and spending the rest of the time on the more important issues of the game.

In other words, a problem occurs. The problem is not in the system. If the problem was with the system, a patch (i.e., rule) could be applied to resolve the problem, once identified.

every time i see the statement that any system problem can just be corrected, i see "and eventually with enough rules we have a perfect system"...

if more rules made the perfect system, HERO would be there by now. You know what the mammoth 600 page HERO 5er rulebook author keeps saying when bumps come out in the system? Well it usually goes along the lines of "use Gm discretion guided by common sense, dramatic sense, and a sense of fairness."

Your solution is to alter the outcome of the system. You say that no number of house rules could do this for you, and you are right, because the problem is not in the system. It is in the definition (or lack thereof) of "unacceptable" results. Simply put, you are in a position where you either have to fudge, or you have to change what you find unacceptable.

and i prefer to fudge rather than accept those other results.
In also prefer to dump out the carbonated sludge and draw a good lemonade if the coke is out of whack.