Balancing "RP" and "G"

[Raven Crowking]

Ah, the star wars theme is another thread another day, (but Lucas has been quoted man ytimes as stating the entire six part series is about Vader's rise and fall and not Luke) .

HIJACK:

Ah, but was that the case when Star Wars was first penned? Or did it evolve that way because people liked Vader more than Luke?

Or put it this way: Lucas gave us Ewoks, Jar-Jar Binks, midi-chlorians, Greedo shooting first, Luke screaming (sounding amazingly like the Emperor; thankfully, he realized that was an error) as he fell away from his father in Cloud City, and changed Anakin's face at the end of Return of the Jedi (dying makes you younger? why not Jake Loyd's face then? Why didn't Obi Wan get younger, or Yoda?). Clearly, the man is not to be trusted.


:END HIJACK

 

[Raven Crowking]

And for those who refuse to deviate from the rules as written for the sake of RP, preferring more of a strict gamist approach, I could ask (though as a bit of a rhetorical question):

Why play D&D, and not the minis game, warhammer40K, or something similar? The questions being asked are fair to rephrase and pose to each varying side.

Rules and Rules As Written are two differnt things. Me, I am making a 600-page book for my players, covering all rules changes to races, classes, skills, feats, equipment, combat, magic...just about everything.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let me turn that around. As a player in a game in which the DM will fudge, why worry about character building at all? "Hmm. Yeah, I could take that Dodge feat. But why? If the DM prefers I will not be hit, I won't, no matter my AC, and Vice-versa". And the same would hold true of -any- character building decision that involves numbers. Why put skill points in skills? The DM will fudge. Why take Weapon Specialization? The DM will fudge.

Fudging makes -every- choice players make meaningless, from character creation to game decisions.

This is absolutely, 100% in accord with the way I feel (as player or DM). It's also worded much better than I would have put it.

 

[DonTadow]

Geez. So because we won't fudge, (yeah, I'm in that camp. I actually roll most dice in which the result will be immediately noticed (such as attack rolls) in the open) we should play a mini-game?

Let me turn that around. As a player in a game in which the DM will fudge, why worry about character building at all? "Hmm. Yeah, I could take that Dodge feat. But why? If the DM prefers I will not be hit, I won't, no matter my AC, and Vice-versa". And the same would hold true of -any- character building decision that involves numbers. Why put skill points in skills? The DM will fudge. Why take Weapon Specialization? The DM will fudge.

Fudging makes -every- choice players make meaningless, from character creation to game decisions.

I must be taking the in between argument in this. If you're not fudging, then you're not using your most powerful weapon as a DM to control the game, and that is whatever you know the PCs don't. Again, it's a weapon, not something to be overused until it has no meaning to you or your players.

Reasons I use Fudge; During big bad encounters I might weaken the enemies AC, if I am trying to convserve time and I see that the big bad is finished (and that the lowered AC has not been rolled).

If the DC for a specified save is a bit too harsh

If the big bad's attack is going to barely completely kill a pc because of bad luck and not the the pc's own stupidity (don't stand right in front of the two headed dragon and insult her). Then there's the reverse, if I know I've fudged, I don't mind balancing it out down the line. If my rogue's being extremely arrogant (I've played this mod before, there's no traps in this hall) and the tension isn't where I want it to be , I might fudge in a pit trap on the fly or produce a random encounter. If the Forged is a bit too cocky (he's a powergamer that has built a great role playing character, but is damn near invincible) I might knock my hit roll up a point so he can take damage and the rest of the party doesn't feel inept. If the pcs have been screaming for a challenging fight, and I realize my latest encounter is starting to become a dud, I might bring in some unplanned reinforcements with slightly higher made up dcs and fudge all their dice rolls by 1 or 2.

 

[Faraer]

I've noticed that a few people use 'balance' in this context in the same self-righteous sense that a few people talk up, say, narrativism or gameism, as if there's some single healthy correct balance that everyone should gravitate to. The term 'balance' conveys a spurious objectivity -- who could say they don't want 'balance'? Like 'freedom', etc.

In practice, everyone likes interesting and dynamic characters, situations and actions rather than boring ones. Those are story things; the fact that some people (including Gary Gygax) define 'story' in a narrow way (all-at-once non-improvised probably-single-person telling to an audience) that exlcudes RPGs is not, in itself, very interesting.

I don't understand Reynard's position that 'the story elements (the "RP") are no more important than the system elements (the "G")'. What inherent interest does a set of game mechanics have, compared to real human concerns? Rules aren't memorable, or worthy of time and passion. There are effective ways of running good games that require strict adherence to the rules, but they don't require assigning the rules inherent value.

 

[Reynard]

What D&D is not great at is doing different genres (low-magic, for one) or a game where play is about creating stories. It takes some work to get D&D to do that sort of thing. Fudging dice rolls, for one.

Fudging isn't, IMO, a tool for emulating genre. If you want to emulate a genre, you need to add, remove or change the rules, not keep the same rules and then throw out the dice. Players need to know what to expect from the system. Fudging doesn't allow them to do that. in addition,fudging puts the DM in charge of the outcomes of player decisions -- both in-game and during character gen/dev -- in a much more overt and to my mind unbalanced way than is usual.

 

[Reynard]

I don't understand Reynard's position that 'the story elements (the "RP") are no more important than the system elements (the "G")'. What inherent interest does a set of game mechanics have, compared to real human concerns? Rules aren't memorable, or worthy of time and passion. There are effective ways of running good games that require strict adherence to the rules, but they don't require assigning the rules inherent value.

The rules help determine the outcome of choices. In other words, they are just as important as the choices in determining the path the story ultimately takes. if the rules have no bearing on what happens at the table -- which *is* the story insofar as there even is a story -- what's the point of using rules at all?

 

[Reynard]

I must be taking the in between argument in this. If you're not fudging, then you're not using your most powerful weapon as a DM to control the game, and that is whatever you know the PCs don't. Again, it's a weapon, not something to be overused until it has no meaning to you or your players.

Reasons I use Fudge; During big bad encounters I might weaken the enemies AC, if I am trying to convserve time and I see that the big bad is finished (and that the lowered AC has not been rolled).

If the DC for a specified save is a bit too harsh

If the big bad's attack is going to barely completely kill a pc because of bad luck and not the the pc's own stupidity (don't stand right in front of the two headed dragon and insult her). Then there's the reverse, if I know I've fudged, I don't mind balancing it out down the line. If my rogue's being extremely arrogant (I've played this mod before, there's no traps in this hall) and the tension isn't where I want it to be , I might fudge in a pit trap on the fly or produce a random encounter. If the Forged is a bit too cocky (he's a powergamer that has built a great role playing character, but is damn near invincible) I might knock my hit roll up a point so he can take damage and the rest of the party doesn't feel inept. If the pcs have been screaming for a challenging fight, and I realize my latest encounter is starting to become a dud, I might bring in some unplanned reinforcements with slightly higher made up dcs and fudge all their dice rolls by 1 or 2.

See this is exactly the kind of thing I won't do. Bad rolls are part of the game. So are good ones. they guide us through the game in a way a 'narrative' never could, surprising us and challenging us to be *more* creative. Fudging is a lot like railroading. And, like Barak said, it makes player choice irrelevent.

 

[Faraer]

The rules help determine the outcome of choices. In other words, they are just as important as the choices in determining the path the story ultimately takes. if the rules have no bearing on what happens at the table -- which *is* the story insofar as there even is a story -- what's the point of using rules at all?

OK. If I understand right, you're (a) valuing the integrity of the setting (broadly understood) and how it works, and (b) giving the game rules a large role in maintaining that fictional world.

The first of those is fairly uncontroversial, the second is one of a spectrum of preferences about the relative input of the ruleset and the GM.

If the rules have no bearing on what happens, there's no point in using them. But many people successfully run games in which they have less bearing than you prefer, and that's the real test, not our theorizing.

What you said before, though, was not that rules were an important contributor in the game/story/whatever, but they were as important as the story, which doesn't seem tenable. As important as the GM's pre-play story ideas, sure -- but that's not what most story-favouring RPGers mean by the term, in theory or practice.

 

[DonTadow]

See this is exactly the kind of thing I won't do. Bad rolls are part of the game. So are good ones. they guide us through the game in a way a 'narrative' never could, surprising us and challenging us to be *more* creative. Fudging is a lot like railroading. And, like Barak said, it makes player choice irrelevent.

But it completely depends on how often you use it and how you use it. If everytime a bad roll comes across the table (or a really good one) you pull out your fudge, then you're doing a diservice and your players will catch on and feel irrelevant really quick. But using it upon chioice altercations or to give your pcs a litlte "umph" can do wonders for a sesson.

It's like any major sport, lets use basketball. The refs set the tempo of the game. Sometimes they call minor fouls, sometimes they don't. Depends on how they want the game to go.


As for Hijack

HIJACK:

Ah, but was that the case when Star Wars was first penned? Or did it evolve that way because people liked Vader more than Luke?

Or put it this way: Lucas gave us Ewoks, Jar-Jar Binks, midi-chlorians, Greedo shooting first, Luke screaming (sounding amazingly like the Emperor; thankfully, he realized that was an error) as he fell away from his father in Cloud City, and changed Anakin's face at the end of Return of the Jedi (dying makes you younger? why not Jake Loyd's face then? Why didn't Obi Wan get younger, or Yoda?). Clearly, the man is not to be trusted.


:END HIJACK

Yes, I COMPLETELY AGREE that Lucas has been making this up as he went. ::which probably shot a hole in my case: but well before the triology was annoucned there was a series of essays, (including Nancy Kress's book, how to write scifi and fantasy) that empashise on Vader's dominance in thee movies as the focus.). Though I will not call Lucas on the stand, because I know the prosecution will rip him to threads, I will use his deposition as the creator of the empire to back up that theory.

My End of hijack.