Balancing "RP" and "G"

[Reynard]

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.

See, that's why I don't fudge. If I design a 'minor' encounter, one that is supposed to impart some information through action (say, a squad of mooks attacking them in an alley, starting with a statement "Mr. BadEvilGuy sends his regards") I design the encounter to be easy. In D&D 3.x, there are enough tools at the players' disposal that even a few bad die rolls shouldn't result in a TPK from mooks 4 under their CR. If it does, either the players weren't being very smart, or the die rolls were weird enough that the 'minor' encounter suddenly takes on greater significance and becaomes interesting. And I use that anamolous situation to enhance the story.

As to whether a TPK ends the camapign -- it depends on how you define campaign. If a campaign is about the PCs, then yeah. If it is about the Great Wyrm Red Dragon trying to gather the Seven Crowns of Domination to take over the world, and the heroes that oppose the Wyrm, then the campaign can continue -- with the new party og heroes knowing exactly how dangerous and important this quest is.

 

[swrushing]

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.

Well, here we may be hitting a wall between the thoretical and the actual. In actuality, I haven't seen this happen in my 3 year DND 3.0 game IDmed or thetwo year midnight game i played in nor any of the three other short-lived (less than 3 months each) DND games i played in. (Thats without fudging those.)

So, in actuality, the outcome is known ahead of time, the PCs will win such an encounter. I would be better served to make decisions on the consideration of "what if the Dm has a heart attack before next session" (which did happen in that time frame) than on "what if the rolls go so badly the scenario outcome changes."

Having such an encounter go failure on us due to incredibly whacky die rolls thwarting the Gms intent, the player's choices, and even the game designer's expectations would be a sign of a system failure, not an example of "why you want to play this scene." I don't watch races just because there might be a crash where people get killed... ad i don't roleplay that way either.

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?

Ok, to start with, i literally stared at the screen slack jawed and agape when iread this. This very question tells me o8r gaming experiences are so far apart as to practically be on different planets (assuming this is a real question you don't know the answer to.)

So, odds are, we have no common reference point from which to discuss.

If the following answers to your question are really not something you are aware of, then we might as well be a klingon talking with a horta.

Why not just tell them to mark off resources if the outcome overall (win/lose) is not in doubt? Why roll out and play out the conflict at all?

Answers...

1. Well, the most basic reason is: its more fun to play something than to sit by and have it described to you. The PLAYER gets to play iof we roll it out, not just sit by and listen to the Gm dialog or skip all the playing and get straight to the bookkeeping. Between the three elements (Gm dialog/summary, playing, bookkeeping character resources) playing is the most fun for the players.

Breaking this down in a little more detail...

2. PC spotlight: by playing it out the players get to use their PC's abilities and get that chance to shine, to see their power attack come in handy or see their invisibility spell show its merit. They get to see their strengths and weaknesses in play and in the spotlight... and thats fun.

3. variety: by playing thru the encounter, the nature of the resources expended isn't just a matter of bookkeeping but a matter of choices and necessities and play. Whether the encountertakes 20% of the resource or 50% or even maybe 10% or less is determined by play as is which resources are used. this is more fun.

4. WooHoo moments: Even in an evel EL warm up fight, wonderful moments arise like the archer scoring a crit on the ogre who has been prblematic and doing 34 pts of damage and dropping him in one hit. For that player, and likely the others, that is fun.

To be blunt, the notion that someone would so discount these and dismiss these or not even value these at all as to not even consider running an encounter because the final outcome isn't in doubt... it is not only foreign to me but practically alien.

Now, not saying to do so is wrong but it is so far apart from my experience of what people enjoy while gaming with all the players i have known as to be incomprehensible. I cannot fathom a gamer who did not know these answers or who needed to ask that question?

Our gaming experiences are clearly radically different.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

If a campaign is about the PCs, then yeah.

Yup. my campaigns are all what you would describe as "about the PCs."
Heck, 905 or so of campaign design is done after i get the PCs and is "about them" when i run.

If it is about the Great Wyrm Red Dragon trying to gather the Seven Crowns of Domination to take over the world, and the heroes that oppose the Wyrm, then the campaign can continue --

I don't run games about the NPCs (whether the NPCs are people, monsters or items.) The times i have seen GMs run games that were about NPCs, it really turned out the PCs were more or less along for the ride and seemed a lot less fun. now, thats possibly a lack on those specific Gms or maybe just a matter of preference as to wanting to be the star of the piece (one of them) or at least feeling like "its my story being told".

with the new party og heroes knowing exactly how dangerous and important this quest is.

Why would they? Were they watching the previous party using scrying devices while they were being killed? Were the next set of heroes given a briefing? Did people even know the prior set of heroes died and how and that they didn't just give up somewhere along the way and head off doing something else?

I mean, i get that the players have all this knowledge, but is it common in your games for player knowledge to turn into character knowledge as a matter of course?

Why is it to you a default assumption that the second group of CHARACTERS knows this extra bit about the dangers involved?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Absolutely.

In OD&D, character generation was pretty easy and death was not a harsh outcome. As D&D became AD&D, and then began to spawn new editions, generation characters became work. In fact, players began to get some sense of the sort of the amount work the DM had been doing behind the scenes since the game was first developed. And, naturally, they became invested in that work in the same way that a DM might become invested in, say, a storyline or the Thirty-Level Dungeon of Doom.

Every DM (probably) starts out with "But I invested time in this adventure! This is what you have to do!" Most players don't care for it. To me, fudging the dice is sort of the same thing. "But I invested time in this character! He can't die!" The fact that the PC in question was sorely wounded before deciding to kick the shins of a stone giant notwithstanding.

Players make choices. In 3.X they have a pretty good idea of what the likely outcome of those choices will be. If they are to take risks, then they have to face the consequences and glories of those risks, whatever they may be. Otherwise, the risks are not real and the game is boring. In other words, as a player, my mantra is "Kill me if you must, but don't arbitrarily save me from my stupidity."

This does not mean that you have to kill the PCs, by the way. "Fudging" along the lines suggested by swrushing (i.e., "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?"") are perfectly legitimate and should be able to eliminate any need to fake your die rolls.


RC

 

[Thia Halmades]

I roll too many 20s for my party to consider fudging. And, I nearly greased a PC who had to be reincarnated as a Tieflling while in Ravenloft. These all came out of the story via mechanics, as opposed to the story as written. The idea here (as written) was that the Aboleth would swing, tag a couple of people, and a couple of NPCs. You have some Skum, but the Paladin can Remove Disease on the afflicted party members.

One of those party members was flying & invisible, and the Save or Die took hold before he sought medical attention. BAM, you turn into Skum. Considering that one of the conceits of the game is the reignition of an ancient planar war, it's no small wonder that appearing as a Demon isn't going over well with the party in general. But that's what RP is about.

My point here (and this is why I didn't launch into first) is that in this case, the actions of the PC, combined with a failed saving throw, generated a subplot, and I'm flexible enough, and fast enough, to account for that. I also have players who trust me enough to let the story develop, and that's the other danger sign. If your PCs start freaking because they think you're "out to get them" you have a whole separate problem on your hands.

However, at the end of the day, when the polyhedrons fly, as the man said, that's when it all comes out. Mind you, I don't run 25% encounters. I run 50% encounters and tell the PCs to hold their noses 'cause here goes the cold water.

 

[Odhanan]

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?

No. I want them equal. I rarely, if ever, "fudge" the dice. I'm not storytelling, I game mastering. Nuance. The story comes from the results of the game session when it's over - it's not a story while it's being played, since it's supposed to be "real".

If not, when the dice give a result that disrupts the adventure plot -- a TPK, say -- how do you salvage the 'story'?

I redesign part of the plot after the game session is over. Decide on the reactions of this or that NPC, and keep the game going. I never assume there has to be this or that end to the campaign. I try to prepare myself for forseeable contingencies, but they don't always occur. A good DM accepts that, I think. I'm reacting to the PCs decisions maybe as much as the PCs react to my descriptions and RP.

In other words:

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.

I agree.

 

[Digital M@]

Letting the dice fall where they may can destroy a party, campaign or even a gaming group. I was involved in one of the many massive dungeon crawls out there and the DM decided he wanted it to be as challenging as possible and told us characters would die. The problem because, we were manking new characters every 2-3 sessions. Well, I am slow at making characters and soon none of us cared about our character.

Reynard called someone elitist, but on the other hand he was critiquing the other person for not playing strictly by the rules. Rule 0 is also a legitimate rule and give complete flexability to the GM.

I agree that there needs to be balance between mechanics and story, but I will not repeatedly kill off characters just becuase my dice were hot. The same way, I will increase HP or other stats of monsters & villians on the fly because CR is based on much weaker characters than most people play. In the end, it makes the fight more dramatic for the players if the conflicts are balanced to be more or less challenging. PCs still die, but not every session or every few sessions because it hurts the game, not just the story.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

There are only a few circumstances where I fudge dice,. well one actually. Every PC in my game gets 1 hand of god ever (since ressurections are very rare in my campaign). This hand of god can save a PC from otherwise certain death.
I borrowed the idea from shadowrun.

Unlike a book there is an element of chance in the RPGs story that makes which is what makes it fun. We do not know weather or not the PCs will survive or completely succeed. Where as in most books and nearly all movies they always do. Its sorta like the lady and the tiger story. Behind one door is a beautiful woman and the easy life the other death. It's fair and just because both could happen and it is your divine provence wheather you succeed or fail (and possibly being really stupid and charging head long into the BBEGs blatantly obvious trap).

 

[Reynard]

I agree that there needs to be balance between mechanics and story, but I will not repeatedly kill off characters just becuase my dice were hot. The same way, I will increase HP or other stats of monsters & villians on the fly because CR is based on much weaker characters than most people play. In the end, it makes the fight more dramatic for the players if the conflicts are balanced to be more or less challenging. PCs still die, but not every session or every few sessions because it hurts the game, not just the story.

If you are repeatedly killing off PCs, there is something wrong with your encounter design. Dice are not the only element that decides the outsome of events. There is choice, both in design and play, that weight those dice -- or rather, weight the possible results of those dice. A meatgrindr adventure isn't hard to design. An adventure in which there is challenge and risk, but also a reasonable chance of success, is much more difficult to design. Fudging dice and changing stats and/or rules mid-combat does nothing to improve the art and science of DMing, IMO.

 

[Reynard]

I don't run games about the NPCs (whether the NPCs are people, monsters or items.) The times i have seen GMs run games that were about NPCs, it really turned out the PCs were more or less along for the ride and seemed a lot less fun. now, thats possibly a lack on those specific Gms or maybe just a matter of preference as to wanting to be the star of the piece (one of them) or at least feeling like "its my story being told".[/QUOTE]

Deliberate obtuseness aside, I'm not talking about a MAry Sue GMPC with whihc to pull the PCs' strings. i am talking about an overarching plot that continues, even if one group of heroes involved falls. But I think you knew that.

Why would they? Were they watching the previous party using scrying devices while they were being killed? Were the next set of heroes given a briefing? Did people even know the prior set of heroes died and how and that they didn't just give up somewhere along the way and head off doing something else?

I mean, i get that the players have all this knowledge, but is it common in your games for player knowledge to turn into character knowledge as a matter of course?

No. What *is* common in my campaigns is that the PCs do not exist in a vaccum. nor do their adventures. If BBEG is threatening the world, people are going to notice. If Heroes step up to stop said BBEG, people are going to notice. If said Heroes get squashed by said BBEG, people are going to notice. And, chances are, somewhere, someone else is going to honor that sacrifice by taking it upon themselves to make sure BBEG doesn't win. And those people are very likely the next set of PCs.