Balancing "RP" and "G"

[I'm A Banana]

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.

You're overstating your case. You don't understand some of the arguments.

There is a big difference between centralizing action on the random chance of dice and eliminating RP. Indeed, cleaving story to the game's rolls can involve more complex and detailed RP than simply moving along with plot, which can be as obsessive about control as any other system.

The RP and the G don't have an adversarial relationship focused on control.

 

[Digital M@]

You're overstating your case. You don't understand some of the arguments.

There is a big difference between centralizing action on the random chance of dice and eliminating RP. Indeed, cleaving story to the game's rolls can involve more complex and detailed RP than simply moving along with plot, which can be as obsessive about control as any other system.

The RP and the G don't have an adversarial relationship focused on control.

I agree with you, but

Above, there are arguments that state, the DM fudging a dice wrecks the entire motivation of the player and the game. All Role Playing in D&D which is all verbal communication to further the game alienates the results of dice + character ability. From what I read, I understood those individuals to say that it is the combination of thier wisdom in creating their character and their character abilities plus the result of EVERY SINGLE dice roll that makes the game exciting. So I don't think I did overstate my case. They are stating extremes as their example.

 

[Reynard]

I agree with you, but

Above, there are arguments that state, the DM fudging a dice wrecks the entire motivation of the player and the game. All Role Playing in D&D which is all verbal communication to further the game alienates the results of dice + character ability. From what I read, I understood those individuals to say that it is the combination of thier wisdom in creating their character and their character abilities plus the result of EVERY SINGLE dice roll that makes the game exciting. So I don't think I did overstate my case. They are stating extremes as their example.

You'e missing the most important part: "...when it comes down to rolling dice."

I don't think anyone is saying that the roel-playing aspects are unimportant or that they are unnecessary. What's being said is that when a situation arises in the game where a dice roll (or rolls) is needed to determine the outcome -- which is *not* for every action -- the dice rolls matter and the results from those rolls should be used. otherwise, the things that affect those dice rolls -- player decisions, character building, etc... -- are stripped of their importance, because the only thing determining the outcome of the die roll is the whim of the DM.

 

[Reynard]

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.

So i don't get the whole "fudging = trumping player decisions" thing.

do your players decide "hey, lets have a tpk tonight?"

I bet they did decide to go hunting the troll in the swamps, though. And I bet they did decide to ambush it as it came out of the bog. Then something went wrong. The troll got a lucky hit on Grognard the Invincible, lynchpin of the party. From there out, the dominoes started to fall. Grognard went down. Sly the Sneak was next to go -- he got too close trying to stab the thing between the ribs. After that, Pious the Wise and Zorch the Burninator decided to cut their losses and get the hell out. Poor Grognard and Sly would end up a meal, but someday, with new allies and a better plan, Pious and Zorch would be back to avenge them.

If the fight with the troll wasn't important enough to accept the results -- and use them to further the story that the game creates -- why were they there in the first place?

 

[Digital M@]

You'e missing the most important part: "...when it comes down to rolling dice."

I don't think anyone is saying that the roel-playing aspects are unimportant or that they are unnecessary. What's being said is that when a situation arises in the game where a dice roll (or rolls) is needed to determine the outcome -- which is *not* for every action -- the dice rolls matter and the results from those rolls should be used. otherwise, the things that affect those dice rolls -- player decisions, character building, etc... -- are stripped of their importance, because the only thing determining the outcome of the die roll is the whim of the DM.

But there are rules for dice rolling dictating the results of all actions, that is the innovation of 3E. Where in the rules does it say a dice roll for combat is more important than one for gathering information, bartering, making contacts, making friends. All of these actions have successes directly tied to stats on your character and a dice roll. Which dice rolls are oK to bypass and which ones are essential to make the game fun. Do you really think it is the same roles for all people?

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I bet they did decide to go hunting the troll in the swamps, though. And I bet they did decide to ambush it as it came out of the bog.

Ok so letds assume these were good decisions, based on sound info and past experiences and "in character".

Then something went wrong.

yes, the players dice which are not in anyone's control and the Gm's dice (control of which is the issue at hand) went out of whack.

The troll got a lucky hit on Grognard the Invincible, lynchpin of the party. From there out, the dominoes started to fall. Grognard went down. Sly the Sneak was next to go -- he got too close trying to stab the thing between the ribs.

well, getting close and stabbing especially when flanking is usually considered good tactics for a sneak. Maybe the troll rolls good 20s critted and rended all in one set of full attacks.

After that, Pious the Wise and Zorch the Burninator decided to cut their losses and get the hell out. Poor Grognard and Sly would end up a meal, but someday, with new allies and a better plan, Pious and Zorch would be back to avenge them.

So, in your preferable choice, all the players made good choices in setting up the fight, then the dice went all wonky and two died and two fled.

this seems, by best light interpretation, like two players decision were trumped on by dice (good choices result in death for no reason beyonmd bad dice luck) and the other two made a later choice which was important.

that seems like a 50% success rate on the "empower player/decisions matter" meter.

if a fudge would let the encounter win out for the PCs, but they take a lot more damage than expected due to bad dice luck etc... it seems like they all got "empowered players/decisions matter". a 100% result?

Why settle for 50% when i can get 100%?

and i don't need dead PCs to get story motivation for my players.

If the fight with the troll wasn't important enough to accept the results -- and use them to further the story that the game creates -- why were they there in the first place?

For the nth time, because of all the other good results and their variety and flavor they can add. There is more coming out of a combat than who wins and who dies. or at least there often is for my games.

Deciding as Gm that due to good planning and precautions the troll will not be able to kill multiple party members and will the troll will lose this fight in the end DOESN"T equate to "so there is nothing of use in playing out this fight nor any good that can be derived or no flavor or story that can develop from it."

Its for all those other bits that this fight is run. Thats where the import lies, where the meaning comes from, in the 99% good and useful results, not in the other 1%.

I am not running this fight for the 1% chance the PCs get killed and lose. i am not running this for the TPK chance. I dont go to car races to see the crash either.

 

[The Shaman]

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
...

Gather Information, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff do not inhibit roleplay, nor can they be used to the exclusion of roleplay.

Gather Information reveals "a feel for the major news items in a neighborhood," or put another way, local gossip. It is not a Google search. If there is no reason for local gossip to include a reference to the BBEG, for example, then no result will produce useable information. It also carries with it a time restriction - if the adventurers don't have the time to invest to make the rounds of the local watering holes, then the skill an't be used, but this in no way prevents them from attempting to walk into a bar and have a conversation with the bartender.

That brings us to Diplomacy, which is used to change a character's attitude toward the diplomat - it is not charm person or dominate, nor is it a means of getting a character to say yes to anything and everything that the adventurers want. According to the skill description in the MSRD, a Helpful character will take risks on behalf of the diplomatic character, providing protection, back up, healing, or aid. Exactly how that assistance is offered is not specified, but there's no reason to assume based on the description that a character would perform an act that is against its allegiances or alignment, for example, which may prescribe exactly what sort of aid or protection is available. There are also significant limits on how the skill can be used, such as a minimum of full round action up to whatever the GM deems reasonable.

So now we come to Intimidate, which like Diplomacy is subject to a number of significant constraints: "Circumstances dramatically affect the effectiveness of an Intimidate check. There are limits to what a successful Intimidate check can do. The character can't force someone to obey his or her every command or do something that endangers that person's life." Bluff is similarly constrained.

Here's the crux of how these skills work in game: they are not used to replace roleplaying, but to guide it. As GM, I don't tell the player making the Diplomacy check, "Okay, the mayor is now friendly to you. What do you want him to do?" - I roleplay the mayor's reactions, listen to the character's requests, weigh them in light of the mayor's convictions and abilities, and determine what aid, protection, or whatever he is able to provide. A Gather Information check leads to an encounter in a smoky backroom where a pool hustler is holding court, dispensing tidbits on the local scene - the players have the opportunity to ask additional question, or may have to decipher details about the information gathered.

The point is, the so-called social skills of d20 games do not preclude roleplaying - under a set of limited circumstances, they provide a source of guidance on how to roleplay a character in light of an adventurer's skills. This is hardly mere dice-rolling.

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.

Where you see "power and control," I see a social contract that says, "This is a game. Play fair."

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.

I grew up with those same games as well - the ninety-odd pages of Top Secret, the sixty-some pages of Boot Hill, the dozen or so pages of Melee. All great games, no question.

Whether a game has a lot of rules or only a few, the rules exist to do one thing: resolve the element of chance. They create a set of probabilities, to guide the description of the action based on the roll of the dice. My approach to this as GM is to assign those probabilities at the beginning of the adventure, and to stand by them when the dice hit the tabletop. And this means accepting a simple rule: Improbability Happens.

I would ask one thing of GMs who fudge in order to maintain the story, the characters' place in the game-world, to blunt improbable outcomes, or whatever: tell your players up front that this may occur. Don't lie to your players and cheat them out of the satisfaction of their successes by allowing them to think that the events of the game broke their way on the roll of the dice, that their improbable success was really the result of the GM tipping the scales.

 

[DonTadow]

So it's okay to cheat the players, as long as they don't figure it out?

:\ So you don't roll to see if monsters hit, or to makes saves for NPCs? You just decide to hit the adventurers or not, to avoid a spell effect or not?

Saying that you fudge sparingly is the same as saying you cheat, but only when it really matters. It also misses the larger point: you're taking control of the players' characters out of their hands. As Barak astutely observed, there's little reason to weigh different mechanical options, since you will decide if a given action succeeds or fails based solely on your personal sense of drama or significance, or to cover your GMing mistakes in encounter design.

When I'm behind the screen, I am playing the game - I have different "game pieces," but those pieces are still govererned by the same rules as the players'. Moreover, I'm not "telling a story" - I'm setting a scene sprinkled with chances for random outcomes, then interpreting the action through roleplaying based on those random outcomes.

A DM runs the game. HE doesn't play the game. Understanding this fine line is the definition between an ok DM and a great DM. Even the word fudging is inappropriate. IT is essentially like saying, god is fudging something in your life. Well the DM is god of that world, and he makes that world, there's no fudging. The PCs look for challenges and enjoyment and THAT is the number one goal. Not to make sure that you're on even ground with the pcs, because by the very definition you aren't.

Bottom line is I bet you my players get more enjoyment out of the game than yours, because my primary goal is to fulfill thier enjoyment needs, NOT to play the game.

 

[The Shaman]

The PCs look for challenges and enjoyment and THAT is the number one goal. Not to make sure that you're on even ground with the pcs, because by the very definition you aren't.

First, when I GM, my enjoyment is every bit as important as that of the players. If I'm not having fun, I assure you that they're not either.

Second, my goal is to create meaningful challenges for the players and their characters, where the choices they make and the luck of the dice determine the outcome, not my idea of what's 'supposed to' happen. That means I create opponents that follow the rules in terms of abilities and features and I roll the dice to resolve the element of chance during an encounter. As the GM I have access to a different set of game pieces, but I still play my pieces the same way the other gamers at the table do.

DonTadow, I'm curious about something: you keep saying that you fudge results - infrequently, or so you claim - in order to enhance the players' enjoyment of the game, but if I understand you correctly, it seems like the only person determining the criteria for what gets fudged is you. Do you ever ask the players if they want you to tweak the dice roll, or under what circumstances? Or do you put your enjoyment ahead of theirs by assuming that they want you to make successes out of failures?

Bottom line is I bet you my players get more enjoyment out of the game than yours, because my primary goal is to fulfill thier enjoyment needs, NOT to play the game.

If you want to know what players think of my GMing style, ask them yourself.

 

[Bront]

I'm not 100% sure I understand your point here, but I will respond to the idea of an adventure hinging on a single roll: in my humble opinion, that's poor adventure design.

I was trying not to out and out say that, but yes, that is exactly what it is. The needed item they missed because they blew a single search check, or oops, you failed your search check, instant TPK trap.