Balancing "RP" and "G"

[Reynard]

Over at RPG.net, there's a thread regarding story elements (climax, drama, etc..) versus dice outcomes that has kind of vered off into system discussions. i'd like to talk about it without getting into "this system supports/doesn't support this play style", so I thought I'd start a thread here with a focus on the problem as it relates to D&D 3.x in particular.

The issue seems to have arisen regarding 'fudging' -- that is, the DM changing the results of a die roll to keep a PC alive, or otherwise stop an undramatic or anti-climatic event from occurring. I am, in general, against fudging, because I think the story elements (the "RP") are no more important than the system elements (the "G"). In fact, the two are inextricably linked and be emphasizing one over the other, the entire thing is weakened. IMO, anyway.

So, the question is this. Do the game elements -- the rults of dice roles, the feats and skills and other system bits, etc... -- play second fiddle to the role-playing elements -- a 'good story', dramatic climaxes, narrative flow -- in your games? If so, do you only 'fudge' in favor of the PCs, or will you do so in favor of NPCs, too? If not, when the dice give a result that disrupts the adventure plot -- a TPK, say -- how do you salvage the 'story'?

For my part, I think the story comes out of the game. When the session is over, that chapter is complete and only then do you know 'what happened'. There never is a 'supposed to happen'. A dramatic fight is one that is fun and complex and makes everyone around the table get involved. A dramatic scene is one in which the players and the GM find themselves immersed in what's going on and who is involved. And if a character dies uncermoniously, for example, it is another part of the larger, ever-unfolding story, not a undramatic or anbticlimactic event.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I am somewhat torn on this issue.

I play HERO primarily, and D&D as my second system of choice. Both games have a fair amount of time in character development. The people I play with put a lot of work, emotion and emotional attachment into said characters. Killing them because the dice go badly just seems off to me. Now my group are all long term mature gamers - everyone started gaming sometime in the seventies.

We all understand that killing a character that someone has spent hours and hours on is a bad thing. So we generally avoid that kind of situation. However, and this is partly because superheroes is our primary genre, losing =/= death. We hit the game side is tactics, abilities of characters, that kind of thing. So the game is important. And the players are mature enough that they don't go and do suicidal things, just because it is a "house rule" that PCs don't die. They play in character.

Story is also important. We really hang adventures and subplots on characters' goals, personality and motivation. When I GM, the world is created for no other reason than to give the PCs somewhere to act. I will make vast changes in the world depending on character actions, intent or even desire- assuming it all flows naturally from the story and characters.

So I try and go both ways, and it is a balance with me. But... if it is a choice between game/rules based death of a character, or story overriding such rolls - I go story.

 

[your father is]

I'm a writer first and foremost, and more comfortable with story elements, so games I run tend to be a light on dice (but players usually know that going in). If I bring out the dice, though, I almost always stand by them -- trusting in that element of chance is essential to believing in the game overall, even if individual results sometimes... suck.

 

[Crothian]

I see the dice as part of the story elements. As a DM I might have an idea how something will go but the dice and players are part of it all to.

 

[Shemeska]

The issue seems to have arisen regarding 'fudging' -- that is, the DM changing the results of a die roll to keep a PC alive, or otherwise stop an undramatic or anti-climatic event from occurring. I am, in general, against fudging, because I think the story elements (the "RP") are no more important than the system elements (the "G"). In fact, the two are inextricably linked and be emphasizing one over the other, the entire thing is weakened. IMO, anyway.

I feel the story elements, the RP, are significantly more important than the system elements. Anytime I've gamed with someone who favored the game and crunch over the RP, it was an absolutely miserable experience, and that person in one case was kicked out of the group. Some groups may want a 70's-esque wargaming experience, but not me, nor the groups I've had the chance to be involved with in the five years that I've been playing RPGs.

This is just the focus that I, and my group tends to take, and others will feel differently.

So, the question is this. Do the game elements -- the rults of dice roles, the feats and skills and other system bits, etc... -- play second fiddle to the role-playing elements -- a 'good story', dramatic climaxes, narrative flow -- in your games? If so, do you only 'fudge' in favor of the PCs, or will you do so in favor of NPCs, too? If not, when the dice give a result that disrupts the adventure plot -- a TPK, say -- how do you salvage the 'story'?

The dice rolls, game mechanics and crunchy bits play second fiddle to the RP elements. In my view of things they are there to facilitate the story, but they should never interfere with it, nor should they be considered anywhere near the same level of importance. If they do, go play the minis game or something.

Any dice fudging is -RARE-, and it's never done to cause any sort of pre-scripted plot to happen, or to make specific events go off without the PCs interfering with it. Some things might be more likely to happen, with PC action less likely to alter it, but it's never a case of 'regardless of what the PCs and dice say, this happens'. I don't railroad like that, and the only dice fudgeing that does on is purely to enhance the players enjoyment, and to enhance the dramatic effect of the game as the plots develop and the characters are fleshed out.

So yes, I very occasionally fudge in favor of PCs, on very very rare occasions. I'm more apt to fudge something to prolong a fight, but at the same time in doing so I don't do it to make the combat necessarily more lethal, just to make it last a few more rounds and give the players a sense of a more hard fought victory, and a legit challange to their abilities. I'll typically only do this if I overestimated the challange any few NPCs might pose.

However, if the PCs pull out a seriously cool idea, something I didn't expect, I'm loathe to do anything to take away from their ingenuity, even if it skirts encounters (they once bypassed two sessions worth of material. And I let them. They went into an encounter with a planar projection of lesser archfiend, a level before I'd planned on it, but they surprised me with how well they did, even if it verged very nearly on a TPK).

 

[Thia Halmades]

Wrote one reply, didn't like, wasn't concise enough. Tossed it. Second version.

Story will win over dice, straight up. I could go into a long disseratation but that requires trying to explain how I think, which is the foundation of how I write, and thus DM, and that'll take way too long and leave everyone wondering why I bothered.

As a player, your connection to the game world comes from the DM as NPC, and your dice, as your actions take form and have a direct effect on the world around you. Some DMs are anti player kill (myself among them). But I don't fudge dice to keep people alive, I fudge dice to keep drama alive. In answer to your question, I don't feel that the dice and the drama are inextricably linked, per se. I believe that the drama itself is what matters, and so long as everyone is enjoying the game, hey, fudge away.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because I'm a writer, I value the game. I can write a story about almost anything, so I use the dice as an aide to telling the story -- the dice dictate certain outcomes, and I work within those dictations to tell a compelling tale. I'm creative enough to work with what the system gives me.

 

[swrushing]

So, the question is this. Do the game elements -- the rults of dice roles, the feats and skills and other system bits, etc... -- play second fiddle to the role-playing elements -- a 'good story', dramatic climaxes, narrative flow -- in your games? If so, do you only 'fudge' in favor of the PCs, or will you do so in favor of NPCs, too? If not, when the dice give a result that disrupts the adventure plot -- a TPK, say -- how do you salvage the 'story'?

I actually think its simpler than this. its not really story vs game or random vs drama but really player vs mechanics.

A D20 never once complained to me about its roll.
A D20 doesn't have any expectations.
A rule doesn't want its share of the spotlight time.

As for fudging, i do it. The VASt majoriity of fudging i do doesn't involve dice at all. it involved decisions like "are the orcs two doors down drunk?" or "are there healing potions in asecret panel?" or "do other guards wander by?" or "how close is the nearest constable patrol?" or even "what time do the wandering trolls attack?"

Sometimes its dice results i fudge, but those are the more kludgy "corrections", kept at a minimum.

I sometimes joke that "fudging is the rules-lite approach to drama points". Every system tends to expect the Gm to adjudicate and even ignore rules now and again when its going against the "dramatic sense, common sense, or sense of fairness" and no system is perfect or claims to be. One of the rolls of the Gm is not to play "neutral party" but to "run the game" and that does mean handling it when the rules/dice go awry.

Sure, i could lower my position and just play referree like this was some "me vs them" wargame, but I choose not to.

So, i fudge the few times its necessary or preferrable and sometimes thats for PCs and sometimes its against PCs.

 

[Digital M@]

I feel the system is completely inadequate to dealing with so much of the game that I will always fudge dice rolls and outcome. Sure, we have skills for balance, climb and the like, but there are not enough skill points in the game for 90% of characters to become even mildly proficient in anything but one or two skills. It is in these cases I let the story drive the outcome. Someone wants to jump onto a carriage and fight the BBG one on one, well; I am going to give him the chance despite what the dice say. Someone wants to swing up to the balcony by cutting the rope on a chandelier, then more power to them. I will usually, make them role, but I give very generous modifiers to encourage this style play. I enjoy it and since I run most of my games, it is my call.

I played in a game where the DM made people roll for everything and even crossing a rope bridge became too deadly to attempt. So much time was wasted and in the end none of the players enjoyed the game.

I myself am not a rules nut, some people love the heavy war-game like rules, I prefer something a bit more loose and flexible to fit around my players

 

[Wombat]

So, the question is this. Do the game elements -- the rults of dice roles, the feats and skills and other system bits, etc... -- play second fiddle to the role-playing elements -- a 'good story', dramatic climaxes, narrative flow -- in your games? If so, do you only 'fudge' in favor of the PCs, or will you do so in favor of NPCs, too? If not, when the dice give a result that disrupts the adventure plot -- a TPK, say -- how do you salvage the 'story'?

Yes, absolutely. The RP outweighs the G in the games our group prefers. It's not that the Game aspect is of no importance, that characters never die, or that the unexpected can never happen -- all of these happen with fair regularity. OTOH, we are all about the larger story and about the characterizations.

So rolls get fudged for dramatic import (both up and down, but only by given amounts). And a couple of times whole campaigns have ended simply due to TPK -- no party, no plot and that is that.

Characters join in because it is appropriate, not simply because one of the gamers has lost a character and now has a new one. Levelling up happens between sessions. Mechanics are fudged or ignored if they are unimportant to the story (these changes are usually for the whole campaign, not simply a single situation).

If I wanted a pure Game, I'd still be playing miniatures battles. I hated those. Now I play Role Playing games. Makes me happier by far!