Balancing "RP" and "G"

[Odhanan]

Houserules and fudging aren't the same thing at all.

Houserules: you tell your players about it first (I hope). Ergo, it is a consensus reached on the rules used for the game.

Fudging: unless you tell your player when you fudge a die roll and ask for their permission each time you want to fudge one, or create an houserule allowing the DM a fixed number of fudged roll per game session/adventure/whatever, or you allow the players to fudge just as much as the DM does, there is no consensus here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Houserules and fudging aren't the same thing at all.

Houserules: you tell your players about it first (I hope). Ergo, it is a consensus reached on the rules used for the game.

Fudging: unless you tell your player when you fudge a die roll and ask for their permission each time you want to fudge one, or create an houserule allowing the DM a fixed number of fudged roll per game session/adventure/whatever, or you allow the players to fudge just as much as the DM does, there is no consensus here.

More bluntly put, but that's my point, yes.

RC

 

[The Shaman]

perhaps an opportunity to highlight a basic difference.

Lay it on me.

Player enjoyment is my number one goal.

Mutual enjoyment is my number one goal.

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

I feel that I play well if the bad guys offer the players an exciting challenge - part of that excitement comes from knowing that their characters are facing a 'real' threat, that is, one with lasting consequences in the game.

If there are no meaningful consequences (i.e., "I won't let your characters die on a fluke roll"), then the excitement of playing is lost. I prefer to play with other gamers who share that philosophy.

i am not sure what you mean by meaningful challenges so i will leave that one.

Meaningful challenges are those that have lasting consequences. Knowing that my character won't die, that luck is no longer a factor, makes challenges less meaningful for me. It tells me that I'm part of a script written by the GM, and that the only time I'll face actual consequences for what happens in the game is when the GM wants to create some arbitrary sense of drama.

The prospect of rolling a one at a critical junction during a mundane encounter is more exciting to me than my character being arbitrarily kept alive in order to "advance the plot."

I want their outcomes determined by their choices.

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

Okay. My character choice is, my character is such a great swordsman that he never misses. Make it happen.

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.

Why?

Would I be correct in guessing that you have the beginning, middle, and end of your campaign written before the players roll up their characters? That you have "scenes" and a "big climax" with the BBEG in mind before you sit down at the table?

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.

Many years ago, I TPK'd a party with a lone orc, a wandering monster, no less. The players rolled badly, I rolled well - four dead characters.

That orc became a legend. There was a running joke about the "Uber-Orc" for years, that is was lurking somewhere in my dungeons and wildernesses, that it rode a dragon and was 'serviced' by a succubus. Moreover, the players never discounted what appeared to be "pushover" encounters. It was, in the long run, a "fun" encounter for everyone, which is to say, it was memorable and enjoyable from the standpoint of the players recalling the encounter.

The element of luck is what puts me on edge anytime my character faces a challenge, large or small - the knowledge that I can't take anything for granted provides the excitement of gaming. Your style of play takes that excitement away, by reducing the "unimportant" encounters to meaningless shadowboxing. I can't imagine a more boring way to spend my gaming time.

 

[DonTadow]

I'm glad to hear that - if they're satisfied with running characters that didn't really confirm the critical for the demon but doubled their damage anyway, that failed the Will save versus domination but ignored the spell effect, that triggered the acid trap in the lock of the chest but took no damage, then y'all have a grand ol' time playing storytime together.

Hmmm those instances never happened. As said, I've never known when a DM has fudged a dice (well ecept in my diceless games). But I've enjoyed the games I've been in. I've had some of the best DMs I believe that are in my state. I"ve learned from the best. And I've had a ton of fun doing it. I love it when a DM trys to make his player happy instead of solve his own board game needs.

Me, I play a game. The dice determine the results of certain actions. Sometimes things break my way, sometimes they don't. Improbability Happens. It's how the game is played.Excuse me, but aren't you the same guy who earlier in the thread said he'll fudge the results when an encounter he designs proves to be too difficult for the players?

What I said was , if i know the players are having an incredibly bad time with the dice and situation I might lower the ac a bit. That pretty much follows what I've been saying. AS a DM I run the game and that means I need the weapons to maneuver bad situations to give the pcs a great experience. Case in point, i lowered the ac of some creature when the party had an incredibly unlucky time with the last encounter (a bunch of -2 crs whom critted often). I analzyed the following encounter and figured that it wouldn't be fair for the party to have an ac of 27 when the party was struggling in their current condition to get to 25 the way the dice were rolling that nice.

The dice are a mechanic of the game, not the game itself.

It seems to me that a "pro" (whatever that means in roleplaying games... :\ ) gets the encounter design right in the first place.I'm sorry, but your attempt at developing a syllogism fails on the merits of one of its fatally-flawed premises.

Hey, I consider myself one of the best at what I do and that's provide quality role playing to my players. I understand that the game is not controlled by the dm, but guided by him and I dont control everything. But I have weapons that can assist in dire situations and I use those to produce desired effects when needed.

Developing house rules and implementing them during play is not the same thing as changing dice results on the fly because you don't like the outcome. House rules apply evenly across the board to player and non-player characters and critters each time they come into play, to alter general guidelines under which the game is played - fudging the dice is entirely subjective and circumstantial, applied when and where the GM sees fit, to alter specific results in spite of the general rules.

Circumstance bonuses don't apply in this instance either - in the games I run, the circumstance bonuses are determined before the dice hit the tabletop, not after. Most of the time I have the bonuses listed in my notes - the rest of the time it will come from a player asking about a bonus based on some skill or class feature, and I'll allow it before the dice are rolled.

IN the DMG, it specifically says that dms have the power to provide bonus and minus circumstance bonuse's when they believe the situation deems so. And thats what I do when A add one or two to a dice roll. The monster may have pulled up slightly or been distracted by his own previous blows. He may have lost footing as he plunged deeper. THere may be tears on his armor reducing his effective ac. ...All that is right there in the DMG. Now, as for houserules, well they aren't in the DMG. To arguie against this fudging (which again is a misappropriate word) is to argue against the Core DMG.

I'm glad that you're good enough so that your games are static and you don't have to make changes on the fly, but I guess I'm not. My players are constantly changing the battlefield, encounter and the world and I adapt on the fly for that. So circumstance bonus's come about at different occasions. If my pc's are creative enough to tell me about a a specific advantage they are trying to make I take a page out of Iron HEroes and make it into a stunt . I can't see sitting down at a table and saying (this is it, this is all thats going to happen a, b or c)

Once the dice are rolled, the result is the result, for better or worse.Imagine my shock.First, nowhere did I compare roleplaying games to chess - you're inferring too much from "game pieces."

Second, nowhere have I suggested that roleplaying games are adversarial. In fact, I think the suggestion is silly. The game isn't playable that way, as the GM can introduce whatever elements s/he wants at any time in order to "win."

You kept comparing it to solitaire, which is a game, and can be a competitve game like chess. I could have used solitaire but I wanted some variety. Regardles, its an adversarial game and you did bring up the comparsiion between D and D and SOlitaire. I always find it wierd that people will bring up an analogy, and then I prove how the analogy does not apply to the given subject, and then they get upset because I used to analogy to prove the analogy's irrelevance to the thread and say the analogy wasn't fair.

However, it is the GM's role in the game to provide adversaries and other challenges for the players' characters. When I introduce those adversaries, I play them according to the rules of the game, and everyone at the table succeeds or fails by the same rolls of the dice.

Usually the adventurers win. Sometimes they're wormfood. Improbability Happens.I believe you mean "executioner," though if the character doesn't leave a will, I certainly may intercede in the form of a tax collector NPC to insure that all proper obligations have been satisfied...Really, DonTadow? You've played with me to know this for a fact?

There are two kinds of DMs, those whom hug books fairly close during game play and those whom don't let books dm his games. That's not to say you don't follow the rules, but in the end you're the one navigating the game and there are instances that aren't ruled in the book. The first DM ignores the instances, the second has to make rulings and judging on the fly, sometimes on his gut and knowledge of what is going to provide the PC the best experience. Sometimes that means staying out of it and letting the PC die, sometimes that means adding that circumstance bonus to the player. But its a decision that the dm needs to make, not the lack of a ruling for it in the book.

You presume a great deal.So you're calling the plays, and the players are just there to block for you and catch your passes.

Interesting analogy.

Here's my analogy: We're playing a game together, one in which I set up the game-board, move all the pieces that aren't the players, and interpret the results so that we all have a good time together.

Do you play football?? IF all the other players did was block and catch you'd have a pretty bad team... or the Detroit Lions. A quarterback runs the team on the field. He provides the situations (encounters), he designs the weapons to do this (npcs, magic, encounters) and he guides the plays so that they gain the result that is going to benefit the team the most). Regardless its the players that make the plays happen. RArely is a play ever created and it happens like hte qb thought it was, that comes from the creativty of his team.

In my experience gathered over some years of gaming, here's what I've learned about playing with "storyteller" GMs: they tend to be raving egomaniacs who are so enamored of their own brilliance that they don't want to allow something as messy as chance to interfere with the display of their cleverness. It's also been my experience that few - none, actually - were as brilliant as they believed themselves to be.

Perhaps from that personal history I've come away with the notion that a really great GM is one who can take the messy, unpredictable results of playing a game that involves the element of chance and turn it into a memorable experience through interpreting those results, rather than ignoring them.

One more thing: Since I was a little kid playing Candy Land, a roll of two on a die did not mean a six. It's no less true today. If I want roleplaying without the game, I'll join an improv troupe.

So what kind of DM are you? It sounds like you're on the other end of the spectrum, you refuse to allow a story effect the precious worshipping of the dice. Chance states this and thats whats going to happen is what I"m hearing, whether its fun for your players or not. I think you've played with some great gms, and you never knew what those dice really did.

 

[Reynard]

IN the DMG, it specifically says that dms have the power to provide bonus and minus circumstance bonuse's when they believe the situation deems so. And thats what I do when A add one or two to a dice roll. The monster may have pulled up slightly or been distracted by his own previous blows. He may have lost footing as he plunged deeper. THere may be tears on his armor reducing his effective ac. ...All that is right there in the DMG. Now, as for houserules, well they aren't in the DMG. To arguie against this fudging (which again is a misappropriate word) is to argue against the Core DMG.

I don't think it says what you think it says.

There are two kinds of DMs, those whom hug books fairly close during game play and those whom don't let books dm his games. That's not to say you don't follow the rules, but in the end you're the one navigating the game and there are instances that aren't ruled in the book. The first DM ignores the instances, the second has to make rulings and judging on the fly, sometimes on his gut and knowledge of what is going to provide the PC the best experience. Sometimes that means staying out of it and letting the PC die, sometimes that means adding that circumstance bonus to the player. But its a decision that the dm needs to make, not the lack of a ruling for it in the book.

Wow. You totally lost me. How'd you get from accepting the results of the die roll to level of adherence to the core rules or the ability to improvise? Again, thse things are not the same. The choice to fudge the roll happens independent of whatever rules you are using, and based solely upon the DM deciding what's 'best' -- which isn't the DM's right or responsibility, by the way.

So what kind of DM are you? It sounds like you're on the other end of the spectrum, you refuse to allow a story effect the precious worshipping of the dice. Chance states this and thats whats going to happen is what I"m hearing, whether its fun for your players or not. I think you've played with some great gms, and you never knew what those dice really did.

Funny, what it sounds like to me is that he's saying that the results of those die roles inform the story that he and his players are producing as they play the *game*. 'Cause, he doesn't have a story he is intent upon dragging his players' characters through, whether they want to go or not.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

My thoughts are pretty much that there is no story except for what the dice and the decisions of the players create. So we roll in the open. A TPK can happen, adventuring is a dangerous career.

 

[Raven Crowking]

IN the DMG, it specifically says that dms have the power to provide bonus and minus circumstance bonuse's when they believe the situation deems so. And thats what I do when A add one or two to a dice roll. The monster may have pulled up slightly or been distracted by his own previous blows. He may have lost footing as he plunged deeper. THere may be tears on his armor reducing his effective ac. ...All that is right there in the DMG. Now, as for houserules, well they aren't in the DMG. To arguie against this fudging (which again is a misappropriate word) is to argue against the Core DMG.

I doubt that I am alone when I say that there is a world of difference between determining circumstance modifiers before the dice roll and determining them after. The DMG gives you leeway to determine what the target number is prior to rolling the dice; that does not suggest that you should change the die roll. I don't have the DMG in front of me at the moment, but I believe that this is fairly explicit.

If the circumstance bonuses you apply are based on actual conditions, why not apply them before the dice are rolled? The answer is clear: the "condition" they are based on is the facet which the die happens to be showing at the time.

I also don't see exactly what the difference is between a "weapon" and a "tool" in your parlance. A weapon is any tool used for the purpose of harming another. Since you believe that you are helping your players, perhaps it would be more accurate to claim that you are fudging as "armor" -- which is, I believe, exactly what others find objectionable.

There are two kinds of DMs, those whom hug books fairly close during game play and those whom don't let books dm his games. That's not to say you don't follow the rules, but in the end you're the one navigating the game and there are instances that aren't ruled in the book.

Again, I don't see fudging die rolls as having an intrinsic basis on either style of DMing. Nor does fudging die rolls have anything to do with a "lack of a ruling for it in the book". These things are simply straw men lined up so that you can knock them down. Which is, frankly, a lot easier than answering some simple questions:


Do you tell your players that you fudge die rolls? If not, why not? If so, how did they respond?

Do you allow your players to fudge die rolls? If not, why not? If so, how does it affect your game?



RC

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Do you tell your players that you fudge die rolls? If not, why not? If so, how did they respond?

Do you allow your players to fudge die rolls? If not, why not? If so, how does it affect your game?


RC

My players know I adjust things on the fly.

As for the second yes. If a scene has happened through player actions to lead to something that is amazing and one player is about to do something dramatic, and really blows a roll, I will allow a reroll. Not all the time, and not consitintly, but if it fits the story that has developed by character choices, and the previous game. There are also times where a roll would be called for, but I declare it a success, saying that the character's previous choices and set up give it so high a postive modifier that it cannot possibly not succeed.

Never had any complaints. But then our group is pretty much on the same page.

And although it does fly in the face of classic D&D play I will repeat yet again failure =/= death. Characters can fail, and get the opportunity to roleplay the situation that comes from that failure. If a character dies, then the roleplaying that could have come from the failure is then stopped. OUr group plays to be the big hero. Effectively we play James Bond, we play the JLA, we play John McLane. We play Aragorn. These characters do not die - we try to emulate that kind of feel in play. Threat of failure is as good a motivator, if not better, than threat of death.

 

[The Shaman]

Hmmm those instances never happened. As said, I've never known when a DM has fudged a dice (well ecept in my diceless games). But I've enjoyed the games I've been in.

Okay.

I love it when a DM trys to make his player happy instead of solve his own board game needs.

And I love it when I sit down with a group of gamers to enjoy a roleplaying game together.

What I said was , if i know the players are having an incredibly bad time with the dice and situation I might lower the ac a bit.

It is?

See, I thought you said the following back in post no. 59:

If all you have to do is change a 13 to a 15 and you know the results will be a memorable scene for one of your players, why not do this.

So advocating fudging a dice roll was just a hypothetical exercise, then?

AS a DM I run the game and that means I need the weapons to maneuver bad situations to give the pcs a great experience.

As GM I develop the campaign-world, the adventures, and the encounters, including the places, the non-player characters, and the critters, and then turn the players and their characters loose. Where a random result is called for at some point in the action, we roll dice, and we interpret the results through roleplaying and in-character description.

Gaming is a shared experience for me, not a power trip.

Case in point, i lowered the ac of some creature when the party had an incredibly unlucky time with the last encounter (a bunch of -2 crs whom critted often). I analzyed the following encounter and figured that it wouldn't be fair for the party to have an ac of 27 when the party was struggling in their current condition to get to 25 the way the dice were rolling that nice.

So bad luck has no place at all in the games you play?

"Yay, we win again." *yawn*

The dice are a mechanic of the game, not the game itself.

Without the mechanics, is it still a game?

I understand that the game is not controlled by the dm, but guided by him and I dont control everything.

Wha-huh?!?

Now you're just flat-out contradicting yourself: you RUN the game, remember? YOU decide what happens. YOU are the god of your roleplaying world. YOU decide what makes a memorable encounter. YOU are responsible for providing the fun at the table. Any of this sound familiar? Do I need to go back and dig up these quotes, too?

Why the sudden change of heart, DonTadow?

But I have weapons that can assist in dire situations and I use those to produce desired effects when needed.

Like compensating for poor encounter design? Or to protect your plot from the mechanics of the game?

IN the DMG, it specifically says that dms have the power to provide bonus and minus circumstance bonuse's when they believe the situation deems so. And thats what I do when A add one or two to a dice roll. The monster may have pulled up slightly or been distracted by his own previous blows. He may have lost footing as he plunged deeper. THere may be tears on his armor reducing his effective ac. ...All that is right there in the DMG.

A short quote from the section on "The GM's Best Friend":

Most of the time, favorable and unfavorable conditions arise because of special situations that aren't (and can't be) specifically covered by the rules.

The monster pulling up slightly, losing its footing, or being distracted is covered by the existing mechanics of combat - if the monster misses or the adventurer hits, then those are possible reasons why. Sunder covers damage to armor.

It seems that the only "special situation" here is that you are reducing the challenge in the belief that it adds to the fun for your players.

It also goes on to add the following:

Multiple favorable or unfavorable conditions add up to give a check a total modifier and the DC a final result.

If a circumstance bonus or penalty is warranted, I'll advise the player before the roll is made - that's not the same as deciding after you see the roll to bump it one direction or another.

Now, as for houserules, well they aren't in the DMG. To arguie against this fudging (which again is a misappropriate word) is to argue against the Core DMG.

Houserules and fudging are not the same thing - we've already covered this ground, and the footing doesn't get any better by repeating the trip.

I'm glad that you're good enough so that your games are static and you don't have to make changes on the fly, but I guess I'm not.

My changes on the fly are reactions to what the adventurers do, not to the results of the dice.

My players are constantly changing the battlefield, encounter and the world and I adapt on the fly for that.

Mine too, thank goodness, because the game would be awfully predictable if I could anticipate everything they were going to do.

Of course, in the games I run, the luck of the dice play a part in this process as well - since I anticipate the possibility of weird things happening, I design my encounters to handle stochasticity and therefore there are fewer adjustments needed. Or maybe I just accept that fact that my best laid plans can be sundered and rather than force a correction, I let those events play out.

Improbability Happens.

So circumstance bonus's come about at different occasions. If my pc's are creative enough to tell me about a a specific advantage they are trying to make I take a page out of Iron HEroes and make it into a stunt.

I don't need to make up "stunts" - I tell the players to do what they want and we'll find a way to resolve it by using the rules as written or a logical extrapolation where no rule exists.

The Iron Heroes stunt system was presaged by an outstanding column by Rich Redman on the d20 Modern boards, by the way - Redman's "Notes from the Bunker" article highlighted ways to extend the existing rules to cover circumstances not expressly addressed, such a hockey-shirting an opponent.

Once again, however, this isn't the same thing as turning a 13 into a 15. Houserules are not fudging - changing or ignoring the numbers on the dice is.

You kept comparing it to solitaire, which is a game, and can be a competitve game like chess. I could have used solitaire but I wanted some variety. Regardles, its an adversarial game and you did bring up the comparsiion between D and D and SOlitaire.

Wha-huh?!?

Find the quote where I compared roleplaying games to solitaire or chess.

This bulletin board isn't one of your games, DonTadow - you don't get to just make things up here when it suits you.

I always find it wierd that people will bring up an analogy, and then I prove how the analogy does not apply to the given subject, and then they get upset because I used to analogy to prove the analogy's irrelevance to the thread and say the analogy wasn't fair.

This is nonsense, since I never drew any such analogy, and I'll thank you not to misrepresent me this way.

There are two kinds of DMs, those whom hug books fairly close during game play and those whom don't let books dm his games....blah, blah, blah....

There are more than two kinds of GMs in the world - we see a range of opinions in this thread that touch on both ends of the spectrum as well as points in between.

A quarterback runs the team on the field....blah, blah, blah....

Why do you keep resorting to analogies? Why can't you just talk in terms of playing roleplaying games?

As soon as I saw the quarterback thing again, I stopped reading that paragraph, so please forgive me if I just move on....

So what kind of DM are you? It sounds like you're on the other end of the spectrum, you refuse to allow a story effect the precious worshipping of the dice. Chance states this and thats whats going to happen is what I"m hearing, whether its fun for your players or not.

How do I GM roleplaying games? I create a setting and a campaign and adventures, I roleplay the non-player characters and critters, and I adjudicate the rules of the game. I try to make the setting an immersive, interactive environment, the campaign and adventures exciting and engaging, and the non-player characters three-dimensional figures with goals and a place in the world, who act and react in response to the player characters and the events of the game.

When the dice aren't on the shrine in our living room, resting on a gold tray placed on a purple velvet cloth, surrounded by flickering votives and wreathed in incense, I use them to generate random numbers that may determine the success or failure of an action where appropriate.

The story is what happens after the actions are spoken, after the dice are rolled, not before.

Are the players' characters allowed to fail in my games? Yes. Is that fun? It depends. A character death, for example, may be moving, or it may be bittersweet, or it may even be frustrating. To the extent that I'm willing to accept any of those emotions, rather than manipulating the players toward one outcome and one outcome only, then yes, I'm okay if the game isn't 'fun' sometimes.

It helps that I play with adults who understand that a roleplaying game doesn't follow a script, that success and failure are both possible, that sometimes the heroes lose. The fact that there is a chance of failure, of meaningful consequences, makes their successes sweeter, makes the challenges more intense.

My goal isn't to create a good story - it's to provide an exciting experience. If I succeed, a good story is the inevitable byproduct.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Here is a tangential question.

What kind of game/campaign lengths do you usually run.

I tend towards the fugding side of things, and part of the reason is that my games run long, and everyone expects them two. My last three games lasted soemthing on the order of 8 years (or more) each. In general with the same characters throughout the entire run. At that point a bad die roll causing death (and when I say death, I mean not coming back at all) isn't a good game, it is irritating to the player who has spent so many hours, months and years with that character. And when someone spends 20 hours fiddling with a character to make him just right, with the idea that this guy will be the players alter ego for the next 5 years, killing that character early on has the same problem.