Balancing "RP" and "G"

[Starman]

If you are fudging the dice frequently, why are you rolling in the first place? If the characters are attempting something and you don't want them to fail, don't make them roll. I guess I understand the occasional fudge, but if it becomes too frequent, I wonder why the dice are being used in the first place.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

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?

I enjoy the stories that arise from the contact between the characters' goals and intentions and the results dictated by the rules of the game. So, no.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Oh, additionally: I don't feel an emotional investment in my characters. To me, there's nothing to be gained from fudging in their favour. I'd rather my character fail and die, if that's what the course of gameplay dictates; I don't need or even prefer my characters to succeed

I want, for lack of a better phrase, an authentic experience - if my characters can't succeed despite their (and my) best efforts, then such is their story.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I used to fudge dice here and there but for the last couple of campaigns, as I have grown in experience, I have developed a no fudge policy. The "story" is already provided by the motivations of the PCs and their actions. The dice simply detail how successful they are in achieving their goals. Failure here or there is an important counterbalance assisting the enrichment of success. The more profound the failure, the equally dramatic the hopeful moment of victory. In the end, I prefer not to cheapen the victories the party has by fudging them.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Reynard]

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!

I find this attitude verging on elitism, like playing by the rules of D&D is somehow lesser "role-playing" than making concessions to the story.

I guess my opinion on the matter stems from the fact that I see a role-playing game as a fundamentally unique experience. It isn't a simulation of a book or a movie, or a video (or miniatures) game with more talking in funny voices. Roleplaying games are distinct in that they facilitate the creation of a story, guided not just by what people want but by rules, as well. But while there are rules, there is also an unmatched freedom in the medium to see that story grow.

The reason I wanted to discuss this here, with a focus on D&D, is that D&D -- barring Eberron's Action Points -- does not have a metagaming resource that allows you to 'undo' the stuff that happens when the polyhedrons fly. And if you don't favor fudging, the result of those little pieces of plastic have as much bearing on any particular moment or scene in the story as 'plot' or 'characterization'. So, if Joe Fighter, with his quest to defeat Evil Lord Hoodyhoo, takes it between the ribs when he's first level, that is an undeniable aspect of the every growing and changing story.

 

[swrushing]

If you are fudging the dice frequently, why are you rolling in the first place? If the characters are attempting something and you don't want them to fail, don't make them roll. I guess I understand the occasional fudge, but if it becomes too frequent, I wonder why the dice are being used in the first place.

One answer I know i can give is: to get all that other info a roll can give.

in DND, for instance, the outcome of a typical "standard encounter" of even CR is KNOWN. The PCs will win, expending some resources. We roll out that battle, instead of saying "well Ok you win" even though we know that outcome at the start. This is done because the rolling it out tells us what resources were used. Did the fighter lose 20 hp? Did the ranger use 10 arrows? Did the mage throw three magic missile spells? etc...

Most of the time, if i fudge, its only to eliminate the extreme case, but the rest of the roll possibilities are still valuable to know and useful for fun and flavor.

Why toss out good stuff with bad stuff (don't roll at all) when i can just throw out th bad stuff (tweak the unacceptable results by fudging)? baby/Bathwater?

 

[Peter Gibbons]

I'm with you, Reynard: the story comes out of the game. Fudging is acceptable to me only in so far as it is necessary to keep the game going (avoiding a TPK, for example), and even in those cases the players must never even suspect that it has occurred or it ruins the game for me. Better that the current game end and a new one begin than have a "but this is what's supposed to happen" situation.

 

[Reynard]

in DND, for instance, the outcome of a typical "standard encounter" of even CR is KNOWN. The PCs will win, expending some resources. We roll out that battle, instead of saying "well Ok you win" even though we know that outcome at the start. This is done because the rolling it out tells us what resources were used. Did the fighter lose 20 hp? Did the ranger use 10 arrows? Did the mage throw three magic missile spells? etc...

I don't think that is true, particularly when you consider the variables involved in trying to calculate CR versus a 'non standard' party. Even given that, it is precisely the randomizer hat makes even CR encounters fun and tense. I have seen even CR ecounters end in two rounds with the PCs not even breaking a sweat, and I have seen them end in near TPKs with the paty fleeing for their lives. Sometimes it's the dice, sometimes its the tactics, but usually it is a combination of both that defines the encounter's outcome.

 

[Starman]

One answer I know i can give is: to get all that other info a roll can give.

in DND, for instance, the outcome of a typical "standard encounter" of even CR is KNOWN. The PCs will win, expending some resources. We roll out that battle, instead of saying "well Ok you win" even though we know that outcome at the start. This is done because the rolling it out tells us what resources were used. Did the fighter lose 20 hp? Did the ranger use 10 arrows? Did the mage throw three magic missile spells? etc...

Most of the time, if i fudge, its only to eliminate the extreme case, but the rest of the roll possibilities are still valuable to know and useful for fun and flavor.

Why toss out good stuff with bad stuff (don't roll at all) when i can just throw out th bad stuff (tweak the unacceptable results by fudging)? baby/Bathwater?

But the outcome isn't known. Granted, PCs should usually win an encounter against an even CR, but it isn't always going to happen. Sometimes the dice are going to dictate a different outcome, say the PCs not rolling any higher than a 5, and the badguy critting multiple times.

If you are going to let the PCs win an encounter against an equal CR, no matter what the dice say, why don't you also just tell them to mark off 20% of their resources (HP, spells, etc.) which is what the DMG says they should typically expend to overcome that encounter?

 

[Wombat]

I find this attitude verging on elitism, like playing by the rules of D&D is somehow lesser "role-playing" than making concessions to the story.

I guess my opinion on the matter stems from the fact that I see a role-playing game as a fundamentally unique experience. It isn't a simulation of a book or a movie, or a video (or miniatures) game with more talking in funny voices. Roleplaying games are distinct in that they facilitate the creation of a story, guided not just by what people want but by rules, as well. But while there are rules, there is also an unmatched freedom in the medium to see that story grow.

The reason I wanted to discuss this here, with a focus on D&D, is that D&D -- barring Eberron's Action Points -- does not have a metagaming resource that allows you to 'undo' the stuff that happens when the polyhedrons fly. And if you don't favor fudging, the result of those little pieces of plastic have as much bearing on any particular moment or scene in the story as 'plot' or 'characterization'. So, if Joe Fighter, with his quest to defeat Evil Lord Hoodyhoo, takes it between the ribs when he's first level, that is an undeniable aspect of the every growing and changing story.

Well, I can see this from two sides.

Yes, there are rules. Yes, I subscribe to most of them.

No, I do not obey all the rules. I think very few roleplayers do.

I've had far too many arguments over rules minutiae over the years, especially during my miniature gaming days. This was the direct reason why I switched away from miniatures battles to rpgs -- I loathed all the rules arguments.

Part of my thought, as well, is that I like some continuity in the stories we create. The group I am in is very interested in the story and the logic of the campaign, probably more so than the specific rules of the underlying game system. When a character dies, it takes a lot for our group to work a new character in; it can't just be "Jeff has a new character - he is in the party" - there has to be some reason why the group would accept a new member. If there is TPK the campaign is usually over -- there is rarely a reason why anyone else would take up the whole adventure mid-stream. This does not mean that characters are protected; characters die and are even able to suffer permanent damage (a house rule). Still, I sometimes fudge rolls in minor combats. This allows them to take on bigger challenges, but usually the minor combats are easy for them to tackle anyway.

If this is elitist, I accept the title.