The Shaman
First Post
Yes, because at that point the GM is no longer "playing" the game - s/he's just making up outcomes as s/he goes rather than using the characters and the mechanics to create probabilities.swrushing said:
Balancing "RP" and "G"
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
LostSoul
Adventurer
Investigative adventures are hard because you are working against yourself. On the one hand, you want to challenge the players, so they have to find the clues. On the other hand, you want them to find the clues so that you can get to the interesting encounters.
I'm not really sure how you can balance the two things out.
I'm not really sure how you can balance the two things out.
Flyspeck23
First Post
swrushing said:
Your allegories are flawed, because there's nothing "broken" when the dice come up differently than the GM would've liked.
There's a difference between a DVD that doesn't play and TPK, really. And there's a difference between roleplaying and railroading, strange as it may seem
Let me try a different allegory: you and your friends are playing a cooperative boardgame - let's say Arkham Horror, as it has some RPG elements. The game goes bad, and Cthulhu comes knocking. You know that you won't have a chance against him once he's there, so what do you do? Remove a few doom tokens from the doom track so Cthulhu won't yet arrive (fudge), continue to play - and ultimately lose - the game (accept the result), or decide to not "allow" Cthulhu into the world so that you've got all the time in the world to win the game (use no rules/dice)?
Flawed too, right. What it boils down to is: different people have different approaches to roleplaying games. If you're just in it for the GM's story, fine. But that's not the only way to play the game - and these other ways aren't "broken".
The Shaman
First Post
It's a classic dilemma.LostSoul said:
If you're not willing to nudge or fudge to keep the players on track, then either the investigation will be successful or it won't - that means being willing to walk away from those interesting encounters in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the players' participation in the game.LostSoul said:
As I said in my previous post, I work with players the first time their characters encounter an investigative adventure, to learn how I structure puzzles and offer clues - in the example of the adventure that I'm running right now, I created a summary list of clues the characters' uncovered, answered a couple of player questions to clear up a couple of misapprehensions, and offered the players a question to ponder. Now they're on their own, sink or swim.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
It does if it destroys player trust.
And if the DM is busy trying to decieve and manipulate the players by fudging, but not letting on that he is doing so, sooner or later, he could mess up. And that will destroy player trust.
swrushing said:
That's not what is being said. What's being said is, use a set of rules -- and that includes houserules and rules changes -- that support the play style you want, *and* use those rules. If I was playing a game of modified D&D in which we had action points and no skill caps and any number of other elements designed to lessen the impact of a bad roll, I would still be irritated if the DM decided to fudge the dice during en encounter. Maybe more so, because now we have rules for that sort of thing and the DM isn't playing by the rules.
There's a huge difference between "You must play D&D by the RAW, or not play at all" and "Once you have the rules in place, stick by them -- including the die rolls that those rules all for."
As a DM, I don't want to trump the players' decisions by just making crap up whenever the dice don't give me the result I want, As a player, I don't want the DM deciding that his vision of how things should turn out is better than what the dice say.
Part and parcel with this, though, is not letting the dice be the sole determiner of the outcome of events. player decisions, planning and actions are important. Equally important.
Raven Crowking
First Post
LostSoul said:
Or, you might want to alter things until you get exactly the game that you want.
RC
[/QUOTE]
What if the "what the Gm would have liked" is to not have a campaign ending tpk?
You seem to be implying that the Gm is fudging for no good reason, that the game is as good with the current result than with the the GMs fudge.
In the vast majority of fudges i have seen, thats not the case.
which would seem to make the tpk thing worse and more well served with a little fix.
In competitive games, its more common to take a bad result and typically that likely ends the game in short order, or at least, you often hope it doesn't turn into a long forgone conclusion slow death kind of things. That would be the case in tournament play of course.
In friendly games, even "competitive" ones, it depends on the players and the atmosphere. Ches guys tend in my experience to be much more akin to the "you messed up so pay the price" kind of notion. However, i also play go, sometimes in tourneys, and at go clubs and I much prefer that atmosphere. At the clubs when you play you often play against stronger or weaker players and so its not as cutthroat. Its very common to see games in which after one player makes a blunder, the better player shows them the error, then puts it back, and they continue. its often considered sort of "uncivilized" or "uncouth" to have a great game spoiled by a careless error and both sides are frequently more than happy to take a step back and continue to play the game they are having fun at. Really, its less about winning than playing. an enjoyable game that has lasted one hour and shows promise of lasting another equally fun hour is seemingly preferable (to that crowd) to one that ends abruptly and abortively with a single brainfart spoiling it midway.
Now, both of those are way different than rpgs in that RPGs are not competitive and MOST RPGs have a degree of randomness involved.
I don't know about your arkham game but i would be the answer would depend more on the players and their outlook than on the game. On whether they are more like chess players or like go players.
truthfully about the only time i would see "take the roll" as your only recourse is in tourney type setups.
The disconnect between us is that you seem to be lumping fudging with "the Gms story" and maybe eve with railroading.
I see it as recognizing that no system is perfect and that part of the Gms role is to handle the occasional rare system blow out.
I also see dice fudging specifically as one small piece of dozens of far more serious "adjustments" to encounters and happenings and challenges and in those "the system" that a Gm makes session after session, so getting all flustered over that one bit is rather pointless.
look, in my DND game, by the time we were six months in, I decided to toss in a Buffy rule and turn "monsters attack" rolls into "players evade " rolls 'cuz i had seven players. They took to it just fine. You see the rule presented later on in UA, though wotc got the math wrong. I think iirc i did it even for monster saves, letting the players roll "spell potency" instead of me rolling saves. Saved me some time and effort, let me tell you and the players took to it quite nicely.
That didn't impact my ability to mitigate system blowouts and "fudge" by any measurable quantity.
So, if you wanna think whether or not the Gm fudges some dice results now and agai9n is some high powered control over "roleplaying vs railroading" or "playing vs storytelling" go right ahead.
huh?Flyspeck23 said:
What if the "what the Gm would have liked" is to not have a campaign ending tpk?
You seem to be implying that the Gm is fudging for no good reason, that the game is as good with the current result than with the the GMs fudge.
In the vast majority of fudges i have seen, thats not the case.
roleplaying and railroading, sure. unplayable dvd and tpk, not seeing the difference that much. Both generally mean no more doing this until you get a new one. About the only diff is we all probably have a lot more time and work spent into the characters and the campaign than we did buying the dvd.Flyspeck23 said:There's a difference between a DVD that doesn't play and TPK, really. And there's a difference between roleplaying and railroading, strange as it may seem
which would seem to make the tpk thing worse and more well served with a little fix.
I have no knowledge of that game so i will have to wing it.Flyspeck23 said:
In competitive games, its more common to take a bad result and typically that likely ends the game in short order, or at least, you often hope it doesn't turn into a long forgone conclusion slow death kind of things. That would be the case in tournament play of course.
In friendly games, even "competitive" ones, it depends on the players and the atmosphere. Ches guys tend in my experience to be much more akin to the "you messed up so pay the price" kind of notion. However, i also play go, sometimes in tourneys, and at go clubs and I much prefer that atmosphere. At the clubs when you play you often play against stronger or weaker players and so its not as cutthroat. Its very common to see games in which after one player makes a blunder, the better player shows them the error, then puts it back, and they continue. its often considered sort of "uncivilized" or "uncouth" to have a great game spoiled by a careless error and both sides are frequently more than happy to take a step back and continue to play the game they are having fun at. Really, its less about winning than playing. an enjoyable game that has lasted one hour and shows promise of lasting another equally fun hour is seemingly preferable (to that crowd) to one that ends abruptly and abortively with a single brainfart spoiling it midway.
Now, both of those are way different than rpgs in that RPGs are not competitive and MOST RPGs have a degree of randomness involved.
I don't know about your arkham game but i would be the answer would depend more on the players and their outlook than on the game. On whether they are more like chess players or like go players.
truthfully about the only time i would see "take the roll" as your only recourse is in tourney type setups.
Flyspeck23 said:
The disconnect between us is that you seem to be lumping fudging with "the Gms story" and maybe eve with railroading.
I see it as recognizing that no system is perfect and that part of the Gms role is to handle the occasional rare system blow out.
I also see dice fudging specifically as one small piece of dozens of far more serious "adjustments" to encounters and happenings and challenges and in those "the system" that a Gm makes session after session, so getting all flustered over that one bit is rather pointless.
look, in my DND game, by the time we were six months in, I decided to toss in a Buffy rule and turn "monsters attack" rolls into "players evade " rolls 'cuz i had seven players. They took to it just fine. You see the rule presented later on in UA, though wotc got the math wrong. I think iirc i did it even for monster saves, letting the players roll "spell potency" instead of me rolling saves. Saved me some time and effort, let me tell you and the players took to it quite nicely.
That didn't impact my ability to mitigate system blowouts and "fudge" by any measurable quantity.
So, if you wanna think whether or not the Gm fudges some dice results now and agai9n is some high powered control over "roleplaying vs railroading" or "playing vs storytelling" go right ahead.
[/QUOTE]
but since i haven't found a perfect game system...
So i don't get the whole "fudging = trumping player decisions" thing.
do your players decide "hey, lets have a tpk tonight?"
except that, with a die roll driven resolution its possible for good decisions and good tactics and good plans to get SCREWED (perhaps lethally so) by dice that really don't care about any of those things. Now,. if those results go in the players favor, the Gm loses an encounter quicker than normal. if those results go way out of whack against the players, then you could be looking at those tpks we hear about which costs the players and the Gm what is presumably a decent campaign.
thats not an even exchange. IMO at least.
BTW, iirc, MnM for instance, the new edition, awards hero pts to players when bad things happen and that includes "rolling a 1" in a combat. So, that game designer, at least, has recognized that dice don't always "do the right thing" and built that mechanic into his game system.
Was he wrong for doing so?
is he cheating?
Again, "fudging = rules lite action pts"
its easier and less work (and sometimes much more efficient) to take a decent system and handle the rare vital bumps ad hoc with Gm discretion (aka "fudging" to some, "cheating" to others and "unraveling the space time continuum" to others) than it is to try and create a flawless ruleset that wouldn't need such. Just as in some games its easier and more efficient to let the Gm handle encumbrance with "i will let you know if you are being unreasonable" than it is to tell the players to track weights down to the coins in their purse and provide charts for how much of what one can carry and how many rings can be worn.
detailing the scraps i was carrying in midnight didn't ever play a role, mechanically or practically, in the 18 month play... so how was this a good thing to have done?
when i find the mythical perfect game that always produces the right results, while still remaining easy for newcomers and quick in play, i might adopt that policy.Reynard said:
but since i haven't found a perfect game system...
fudging is IMX less required in those games. But a TPK once you run out of action pts is not more fun than a tpk when you have them, is it?Reynard said:
my bet is the players didn't "decide" for the troll to crit him or for the group to roll 1s on its first four saves or to decide to have happen to them most of the flukey situations i typically see fudging done to deal with.Reynard said:
So i don't get the whole "fudging = trumping player decisions" thing.
do your players decide "hey, lets have a tpk tonight?"
Reynard said:
except that, with a die roll driven resolution its possible for good decisions and good tactics and good plans to get SCREWED (perhaps lethally so) by dice that really don't care about any of those things. Now,. if those results go in the players favor, the Gm loses an encounter quicker than normal. if those results go way out of whack against the players, then you could be looking at those tpks we hear about which costs the players and the Gm what is presumably a decent campaign.
thats not an even exchange. IMO at least.
BTW, iirc, MnM for instance, the new edition, awards hero pts to players when bad things happen and that includes "rolling a 1" in a combat. So, that game designer, at least, has recognized that dice don't always "do the right thing" and built that mechanic into his game system.
Was he wrong for doing so?
is he cheating?
Again, "fudging = rules lite action pts"
its easier and less work (and sometimes much more efficient) to take a decent system and handle the rare vital bumps ad hoc with Gm discretion (aka "fudging" to some, "cheating" to others and "unraveling the space time continuum" to others) than it is to try and create a flawless ruleset that wouldn't need such. Just as in some games its easier and more efficient to let the Gm handle encumbrance with "i will let you know if you are being unreasonable" than it is to tell the players to track weights down to the coins in their purse and provide charts for how much of what one can carry and how many rings can be worn.
detailing the scraps i was carrying in midnight didn't ever play a role, mechanically or practically, in the 18 month play... so how was this a good thing to have done?
Digital M@
Explorer
If I understand some of the arguments for play by the rules or you wreck the game, then the game comes down to nothing but dice rolling. There are rules for everything and they eliminate the need to RP at all.
If you need to get info, don't RP your character, just roll a gather information check
Haggle for a better price, roll for diplomacy
Force someone into giving you information, roll intimidation
Pick a lock, roll
search, Roll
fight roll
ride your horse, roll
Jump over a chair, roll
climb a rope, roll
what don't you need to roll for, there is literally no reason for a player to ever say a thing, after all the dice roll or chance is the most important aspect of the game. I ask you why do you play the game? Is it to create a powerful character and see his stats and power to go up? If so, play a video game, that is what they are made for. I play a game to enjoy myself with a group of people who share the same interest. For me it is about spending time with those people. IMO a game based off nothing but dice rolls and power is as boring as a choose your own adventure book. The game without story is dull and fudging as a part of a story seems to be a no brainer.
As far as a game where a character does not die every few sessions, I can't see how that does not happen if the PCs are faced with challenging combats regularly, the dice will fall against them as often as it does for them.
The more I read these posts, the more I see a difference in approach to the game from the two sides. One group seems more focused on power and control and the other on story and social interaction. I grew up on RPGs that were very light on rules. None of the games I played as a youngin had even 200 pages of rules let alone thousands of pages. I guess to me the game was not as much about mechanics as it was sharing a good time with friends. Having powerful characters was always fun, but as mentioned above, power is always dictated by your GM. A dragon against a group of 1st lvl players is a waste of everyone's time. The great part is, the powermongers can have their game and the daydreamers can have theirs and I bet almost every group has a mix of both types.
If you need to get info, don't RP your character, just roll a gather information check
Haggle for a better price, roll for diplomacy
Force someone into giving you information, roll intimidation
Pick a lock, roll
search, Roll
fight roll
ride your horse, roll
Jump over a chair, roll
climb a rope, roll
what don't you need to roll for, there is literally no reason for a player to ever say a thing, after all the dice roll or chance is the most important aspect of the game. I ask you why do you play the game? Is it to create a powerful character and see his stats and power to go up? If so, play a video game, that is what they are made for. I play a game to enjoy myself with a group of people who share the same interest. For me it is about spending time with those people. IMO a game based off nothing but dice rolls and power is as boring as a choose your own adventure book. The game without story is dull and fudging as a part of a story seems to be a no brainer.
As far as a game where a character does not die every few sessions, I can't see how that does not happen if the PCs are faced with challenging combats regularly, the dice will fall against them as often as it does for them.
The more I read these posts, the more I see a difference in approach to the game from the two sides. One group seems more focused on power and control and the other on story and social interaction. I grew up on RPGs that were very light on rules. None of the games I played as a youngin had even 200 pages of rules let alone thousands of pages. I guess to me the game was not as much about mechanics as it was sharing a good time with friends. Having powerful characters was always fun, but as mentioned above, power is always dictated by your GM. A dragon against a group of 1st lvl players is a waste of everyone's time. The great part is, the powermongers can have their game and the daydreamers can have theirs and I bet almost every group has a mix of both types.
Similar Threads
