Balancing "RP" and "G"

[swrushing]

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.

perhaps an opportunity to highlight a basic difference.

Player enjoyment is my number one goal. i am happy when they are happy and i don't "play the game" the same way they do with different pieces.

I don't feel i "play well" if my bad guys do wonderful things and the players dont have fun.

To provide that, I like to provide enjoyable challenges... i am not sure what you mean by meaningful challenges so i will leave that one.

But here is the biggie...

I want their outcomes determined by their choices.

note the loss of the "and the luck of the dice".

i don't want the luck of the dice determining whether my group succeeds or fails in big ways like tpks or the like. i don't want luck of the dice to determine whether or not my campaign stops.

All i want the luck of the die to do is to determine the flavor bits and in between odds and ends.

if a player's fighter is going to lose a duel and lose his life, i want it to be because he was better or made better choices, not because his dice went wonky.

I see absolutely no value in turning such major elements as life and death of the campaign or even in some cases of the stars over to random chance.

I just see no gain in it.

I do like having the list of neat things that happen along the way to the outcome be determined at least in part by the series of events the dice can generate.

 

[swrushing]

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.

Ok, if i get you right, you think most players would be unhappy to hear things are being fudged. it would impact their enjoyment.

So, wouldn't then doing what you say and telling them things are being fudged be what "cheats them of their satisifaction"?

if you don't tell them, and they are satisfied, then they are satisfied, not "cheated out of satisfaction", right?

and, if it helps you sleep at night, my "intro to how i gm" speech tells everyone that I don't let PCs die due to fluke dice rolls, that they won't die for stupid reasons but that they can die for being stupid so they want to think about their choices and look for better alternatives when the choice they are making looks like a bad one etc etc." Also, i tend to house rule out "one roll kills" like save-or-die spells (for instance, having them take you to -1 hp.)

So far, no complaints, but then, as stated, i use actual dice fudging rarely.

of course, i could just start each session with a d1000 roll and if a 666 comes up tell everyone "new campaign. bring new characters next week" but i just don't think that would be as fun.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

So, originally I was going to post something that would get me a stern warning from the moderators. However, taking either extreme in this argument is a load of crap. The people on the pro-fudge side aren't "defending their game from the rules" or "destroying the the meaning of the players' choices" and the people on the rules side aren't "preserving player empowerment" or "sacrificing story for the sake of a boardgame".

Now, fudging:
Pro: Can help to keep the game on line, on track, and players happy
Con: It's hard to know exactly where to draw the line and is easy to overuse

Not fudging:
Pro: The game unfolds as it will and the success of player actions isn't determined by gm momentary whim.
Con: A 1 or a 20, or even enough 6's in one place can cut short a whole lot of threads

Do I fudge? On occasion. For example, in my M&M game, I let everyone know that if they do an action in a manner that I judge cool, it gets a bonus (a rough aproximation of the exalted stunt system). In that same game, a member of the enemy team would turn into water when hit by attacks. A player reasoned that water conducts electricity especially well and would deal extra damage from it. I hadn't planned it that way, but I decided to run with it.

Also, there are times when a player does something out of the blue, and it'd just be out of genre and tone to fail, so I set the DC low before they roll.

I've been in a campaign where a lot more was fudged. It didn't end up being very fun. A lot of stuff happened, or didn't happen because of "making sense", or staying within the story. Not all fudging has to be this way, but it happens.

I prefer to avoid fudging rolls or changing the rules on the fly. The rules help serve as a cross section of reality that both sides can agree on. That's not an agreement that I want to go about changing. Mind you, adding action points to the agreement early on is a big help, and there are other ways to make the the game more forgiving and story friendly. All of which is good.

Fudging scares me though. The problem is that fudging on in-game rolls is fuzzy. There isn't a definate line of where it becomes innapropriate. And the problem is that, once it holds the game in place one time, why not a second? Why not a third? Why not just nudge things so the players end up where you want them to, or the villian gets away or.... And before I know it, half the game looks like good situations to fudge in.

Do I fudge, yes. Is it a tool I use often? No. The most heroic thing any of my characters ever did was to try and rescue her friends where it likely would have cost her life. It was worth it, to both of us, to risk the wrath of the furies.

 

[Reynard]

But here is the biggie...

I want their outcomes determined by their choices.

note the loss of the "and the luck of the dice".

i don't want the luck of the dice determining whether my group succeeds or fails in big ways like tpks or the like. i don't want luck of the dice to determine whether or not my campaign stops.

All i want the luck of the die to do is to determine the flavor bits and in between odds and ends.

if a player's fighter is going to lose a duel and lose his life, i want it to be because he was better or made better choices, not because his dice went wonky.

I can't imagine whay you'd ever choose to run D&D, then, since the system is very weighted toward chance. Other games do what you want, with far less need for fudging because the randomizers aren't so powerful.

And before you answer "because my players want D&D", stop a think about that. if your players want D&D, maybe they want something different than what you're offering with all the fudging, especially since you're lying to them about how their characters are doing.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

perhaps an opportunity to highlight a basic difference.

Player enjoyment is my number one goal. i am happy when they are happy and i don't "play the game" the same way they do with different pieces.

I don't feel i "play well" if my bad guys do wonderful things and the players dont have fun.

To provide that, I like to provide enjoyable challenges... i am not sure what you mean by meaningful challenges so i will leave that one.

But here is the biggie...

I want their outcomes determined by their choices.

note the loss of the "and the luck of the dice".

i don't want the luck of the dice determining whether my group succeeds or fails in big ways like tpks or the like. i don't want luck of the dice to determine whether or not my campaign stops.

All i want the luck of the die to do is to determine the flavor bits and in between odds and ends.

if a player's fighter is going to lose a duel and lose his life, i want it to be because he was better or made better choices, not because his dice went wonky.

I see absolutely no value in turning such major elements as life and death of the campaign or even in some cases of the stars over to random chance.

I just see no gain in it.

I do like having the list of neat things that happen along the way to the outcome be determined at least in part by the series of events the dice can generate.

Here's a shocking revelation. I've DMed 3.x for 5 years now and in all of that time I have had 8 PC deaths. All but 2 were raised back up (they were only 1st level and made some terrible choices - the party barely escaped). Since we play weekly (minus a month off for holidays) that's 240 sessions or 1 death per 30 sessions. And I don't fudge rolls. I also roll really well sometimes but the players always seem to be able to squeak out that victory through smart tactics, good role playing or having a bit better luck than I manage. I've never had anyone complain about their PC dying (at least not to the point that they didn't want to play anymore - mainly they look at it as an opportunity to make up a new and exciting character).

Fun is the only reason we play and when a character dies (all but one death i would count as highly dramatic - PCs sacrificing themsleves to save a more powerful PC knowing they could save the day when things are desperate (a cleric played by my wife sacrificed herself to cast Heal on the party tank - he went on to drop 3 of the tribe of Hill Giants the party was nearly overcome by - that even tis still talked about and it happened over 3 years ago)) things are remembered and fun is in creased. Should I have fudged to allow the PC cleric to live? What would have been gained? Dice are fun to use and I love the random element they add to my game. I don;t expect anyone else to play the way I do but I do expect them to refrain from implying that how I run a game is less fun for all involved.

 

[DonTadow]

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

Again, its key to know your players. I've never played in a gmae where as a player, I ddnt know that the dm fudged the dice every now and then. My players know it happens. Its something i talk about in the interview process. I've never had a player get up and walk out of an interview because of it. I get my enjoyment from my players enjoyment of the game. I have no want to follow every critical rule in the 3.5 ruleset. I have yet to see anyone follow every rule, and I don't think I'll be the first .

I believe if you are pro (as you call it cheating) then as a DM you should follow every rule in the book, thus the point of you (not cheating) is moot because there are rules that you are not following and are thus breaking. If you have house rules, then you can not possibly argue against fudging, as you have essentially "fudged the rules" to suit the games enjoyment.

I completely disagree with you. To compare this game to chess, is to say that this game is adversarial. Me VS. you. Thus you are putting the DM in the role you are arguing against, the role of judge, jury and executor instead of as a guide to move the game along. Just like other games, sometimes you have to lax on the rules when the tempo fits it. It's like the quarterback having the option of calling an audible if he reads something in the defense that doesnt make sense. The quarterback is the "guide" of the team just as the DM is the guide of the game.

 

[Digital M@]

I can't imagine whay you'd ever choose to run D&D, then, since the system is very weighted toward chance. Other games do what you want, with far less need for fudging because the randomizers aren't so powerful.

And before you answer "because my players want D&D", stop a think about that. if your players want D&D, maybe they want something different than what you're offering with all the fudging, especially since you're lying to them about how their characters are doing.

Once again, the you play my way or you are wrecking the game or have no right to play it or call it D&D arguement. I have had the opportuinty to play with many different groups throughout my years and have been exposed to many different styles of gameplay and have enjoyed a vast amount of them. Each GM brought their own vision of the rules and how to approach them and each improved different facets of the game.

In the end, I do not really remember the results of a single roll at the end of the night but the experience you share with the people at the table. You may be a player that has planned the 20 level progress of your character for maxamized power and don't let the story impact your character growth.

I house rule more and more each time I play. I only release PrCs as the characters become aware of new groups and have training opportunities, I release many feats and spells the same way. I have the rules fit arond the campaign and the characters. I will say that my GMing is of pretty high demand at the local college and I consistantly turn players away, so there are people who enjoy playing other visions of D&D than the one you profess is the only way to create an enjoyable game.

If I played a mega dungeon crawl ever again I would probably let the dice fall where they may 100% of the time. People who like dungeon crawls, enjoy the feeling of out smarting and overcoming the dungeon. That is not where I get enjoyment from playing or running a game, so I don't run dungeon crawls often, usually for 1 shots or something that may run a few sessions where high combat intensity is the goal of the game.

 

[Barak]

I.. Really don't see how having house rules and fudging dice rolls can be set as equals here. Well sure, you can have an house rule that you'll fudge rolls, but now that's just being silly, really.

Having an house rule in a game of Solitaire is saying "I'll stop after going to the pack three times, and go three cards at a time", as opposed to going through the pack as many times as you can. Both are accepted forms of playing solitaire. Fire the came up on your computer, you'll see. Fudging, (to me), is like going through the pack looking for the card you want, and pulling it out.

The best "proof" it's cheating is to ask yourself "what would I think if a -player- fudged a roll?" It could very well be because he thinks it would be more dramatic to have a crit against the dragon right now. But I doubt many of you would think it's a good idea to let the players fudge the rolls. Why not? They should have a say as to how dramatic the game is, shouldn't they? So why is it ok for the DM to do it?

I'll let you in on a little secret. I fudge monster HPs in pretty much every campaign I run. And sometimes, I even fudge die rolls! Aha, I lied!.

Well not really. I only do so in the first couple game sessions of each campaign. Because I'm not that good at looking at my PCs sheets, and figuring out just how tough they are compared to the average group, and as mentioned, CR is iffy at best. Could they take 12 goblins, or would 8 be all they can realistically take? I dunno. But after running a couple of sessions, I -do- know. And then I set things up at the level of deadliness I want it to be. And -after- that, no more fudging, because I set things up right from the start. Still, yeah, I can have a night that I roll very well, and my players roll crappily. Or, the reverse, and my BBEG can go down much quicker than I'd like, which I'll admit can lessen the drama. But on the average, everyone rolls average. That's why it's called average.

And here's another thing. The group I run used to have another DM (he moved away shortly after I joined, so I barely played under him). They consistently took on greater challenges that they should have beaten in his game. And yet, they never had a character death. Never. Yeah, they knew the DM fudged. I mean, it gets obvious when your characters never have a night of bad luck in 5+ years of playing. When I started DMing, I warned them I wouldn't fudge. I asked them what they thought, they said "That sounds excellent!" That very first night, a character died an horrible death. And I've had many others since. And yes, some are anti-climactic, to a degree. Not too long ago, a character died at the bottom of a spiked pit because he rolled a 3 on a jump check. He needed a 5 to make the pit, and he didn't. But they -liked- it. Why? Now they think. When they had to recross the pit, they set up a pulley system, using the tools at hand, instead of just trying to jump the pit, trusting -me- to make sure they wouldn't die. Why bother with a pit trap if no one can ever die from it?

Knowing they -can- die, even in a stupid, unimportant encounter with goblins make the game more fun. It makes tactics more important. Not just avoiding stupid decisions (which should be a given), but striving for -great- decisions. Because they -know- I won't fudge, they do their darndest to put every numerical advantage on their side. And that leads to better roleplay, I think. After all, it's not that great roleplaying to try jumping a pit while wearing heavy armor, no matter the fact that you only need a 5 thanks to your great strenght.

And I'll admit, it makes it more fun for me if I don't know how everything will turn out before game time.

 

[Odhanan]

I've always said, if we play this game strickly by EVERY single rule (which no one does) we would have lengthy games that are consently hampered by a multitude of rolls and forced role playing.

For me, this has nothing to do with the "fudge or no fudge" topic. If you are talking of selecting the rules you apply as a DM and those you don't, coming up with houserules the playes know about in advance, I see nothing wrong with that, so long as the dialog with the players is maintained.

This is completely different in my mind than adding "1" on a roll to make it a success instead of a failure because "the story demands it".

Just like we shouldn't mix up immersion and novelist DMing, we shouldn't mix up fudging and selecting/houseruling the game. The difference lies in the amount of thought given to the process and more importantly, the agreement existing between the players and the DM to enforce this rule instead of that one or ignore this or that.

The chance that adding a plus 1 to a roll or taking 1 ac away from a monster is going to "destroy the fabric of your game" is absurd.

I think it's not absurd if this plus/minus one applies to a significant roll in a game, and/or if it repeats itself regularly. Then there isn't any "meaning" for dice rolls anymore. You might just as well forget the dice and let the DM decide the outcome of all the actions undertaken by PCs and NPCs, and for me, there wouldn't be any excitement in that kind of game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

No, you are not.

Your earlier statement included a whole lot of "If/Then" type examples, such as (and I am paraphrasing here, because you left out the implied If/Then) "If you fight, roll" and "If you jump over a chair, roll". Now, clearly, the decision to fight, haggle, jump over a chair, etc. are not determined by the dice. Nor are the motivations. The decision comes from the RP aspect, while the resolution comes from the G aspect.

Conceptualizing and creating a character requires that the player understands both the RP and the G aspect. The RP aspect allows him to decide what his character should be like (and therefore, what his character should be capable of). The G aspect determines how he can make those RP elements actualize within the context of the game. I.e., if I want my character to be good in climbing, it behooves me to have a high Strength and put points into the Climb skill. Possibly, I should take the Skill Focus feat.

G also limits some untenable RP ideas, such as "My character should be able to defeat anything he encounters."

RP and G are not dichotomous; they are integrally linked in making both parts successful. Without RP nothing happens. Without G, the choices made through RP are rendered meaningless.


RC