Balancing "RP" and "G"

[The Shaman]

uh, well, how many tpks are needed to bring a game to a screeching halt?

I've only been party to a handful of TPKs, so I don't have a huge data set to draw from, but in each case there was one common feature...

We rolled up new characters and resumed playing.

In one case that meant the adventure we were playing was over and we switched GMs when we introduced our new characters. In another we started playing another roleplaying game altogether. In a third we continued the same adventure with new characters, starting from a different point of view.

In my experience, GMs who are too heavily invested in "what should happen" handle TPKs badly. I've been fortunate enough to play with gamers who take it in stride for the most part.

if by fudging a critical longshot out-of-whack result once in a great while i can help my game be more enjoyable or not come to a premature end, I do.

That "premature end" bit really bothers you, doesn't it? Care to discuss why?

 

[Lord Mhoram]

.That "premature end" bit really bothers you, doesn't it? Care to discuss why?

Without answering for him but for myself....

I almost think of games as comic books or movie serials... "The continuing adventures of superman" as it were.

I find that what character I play has a lot to do with how much fun I have... some characters I just don't like to play as much, because I play primarily to get into the character's head. My group, in general, is this way. Having a TPK with this mindset is like going to a movie, and halfway through, a nuke goes off, kills the characters and the movie credits come up, with no resolution of character's personality growth, plot or story. It is very unsatisfying.

 

[The Shaman]

When I read these kind of thread, with there being fairly standard ways for characters to come back, when someone talks about dying/dead, I read it as "dead, can't come back, out of the game" because worriyin about "basic death", fi you will, in a place where it isn't permanent is just whining.

I play mostly d20 Modern, and as my games are either low- or no-FX, death is quite final.

To me the rules are not rules to a "game" that a group can win or lose, but merely the defintion and structure by which the players interact with thier world.

I agree - rules and dice are there to resolve the element of chance when a character (player or non-) takes an action for which there is a threshold for success.

 

[The Shaman]

I almost think of games as comic books or movie serials...

Fair enough.

I play roleplaying games specifically because they're not movies or graphic novels - precisely because no one knows the outcome in advance, because it develops from the interaction of players and GM through the medium of the game. As Barak noted in his post earlier, I like the uncertainty of not knowing the ending before I begin.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Fair enough.

I play roleplaying games specifically because they're not movies or graphic novels - precisely because no one knows the outcome in advance, because it develops from the interaction of players and GM through the medium of the game. As Barak noted in his post earlier, I like the uncertainty of not knowing the ending before I begin.

Makes sense to me. Everyone games for different reasons.

I game for escapism from the real world, and I get enough of "not knowning the outcome" in real life. I game to get away from that. So I know, in general that I, in the form of my character, will win - the fun is the how, and trying to overcome the obsticles or get the joy of beating up the annoying bad guy getting there. And if this approach was done as nothing but a mechanical mode I would likely be called mucnkin/monty haul (depending on which side of the screen I am on). Dunno for a term would be for that when everything is about character immersion.

And I do have to say it has been really cool to discuss this kind of thing, without it degenerating into a flame war. Guess I spend to much time on other boards and have lower expectations.

 

[DonTadow]

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

See, I thought you said the following back in post no. 59:So advocating fudging a dice roll was just a hypothetical exercise, then?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.

Obviously my one paragraph response in post 59 was vastly misinterpreted by you.

Not going to take the time to respond to every nuance and line item veto your "points", (which are really just line item vetos of my points).

Regardless of how you like to word it, or make yourself feel good about it, you cheat everytime you change a rule. Allowing DM fudges is the same as me allowing player action cards. Both of which are house rules like any other that I've chosen to elect. Just because you can't figure out how to master an art like when to fudge, is not a reason to knock the art. Every post you respond to is the same old tune. Essentially you don't do it because you can't figure out how to do it without taking your player's choice and experience away. Whereas some DMs have learned to use it to enhance their players gaming experience. Fire can either burn or it can build. But don't knock fire because you havn't figured out how to wield it.

If you hate a rule, don't use it. But don't condemn it on the fact that the players can't do it, when there are house rules that are designed for players as well as dms.

Some house rules aren't for everyone. I use that stunt technqiue (which honestly I"ve been doing without a name before the Iron Heroes) because it makes for a more interesting battlefield. A campaign should be living, not set to waht the book allows and doesnt allow.

As for the Solitaire reference, I dont have time to go through 100 posts to find out whom brought up the Solitair reference, but it was from the anti-fodge camp, which you're the lead advocate of. I'd call a sidebar with the rest of your defense team if you're going to down posts written to help out the other side.

By the way, since you're reading earlier posts, I explain the difference between a weapon and a tool early in the thread. A weapon is a type of tool but should be used soley very carefully and only in specific unique sitiations. It is not a common tool and should not be used often.

The thought process when you fudge a dice is not, is it going to benefit the player, it's does this enchance the gaming experience. Does it matter any. Is it believable. Am I preventing an inevitable death or an accidental death. Or am I causing one. Fudges can happen in benefit or in contempt of the players. But, I don't think you're seeing that whole picture.

 

[swrushing]

swrushing, would you also fudge a player character's "wacky" result in the interest of "what should have happened?" Would you take a critical away, or allow a monster to 'save' against a spell, because the results are "way out-of-proportion?"

well, no. the question itself is baffling.

NPCs & monsters are not PCs. The PC critting them is a woohoo highlight for the PC. It will go down in "things that i did that were cool!" for the PC. taking that away from the PC won't increase the enjoyment of the game.

NPCs and monsters, they don't have a player, a person, sitting at the tabel whose enjoyment is of interest to me. they aren't "my characters" and i don't "have fun" when they do well. I don't "enjoy the game" based on how well they do or how good their plans are, but on whether or not my players are having fun.

Now i can see, but haven't had to do this in practice IIRC, if the scene was say "an initial encounter" where a big bad blows thru to setup a plotline (like you see often in story, myth, movie, or comic) maybe fudging a roll or event so that the villain make his getaway. If i am running supers and the PC drops a building on the super-villain, I don't actually roll dice to determine "when they clear the rubble is the supervillain's body gone with the artifact he stole" because that was the purpose and in genre reason for the scene.

is that the kind of thing you are referring to?

 

[swrushing]

That "premature end" bit really bothers you, doesn't it? Care to discuss why?

Well as i have described, over 90% of my campaign design is done after i get the characters and is tied into their characters backgrounds. I am really telling "their story" not "the story of group number 12". the possibility of just "rolling up new guys and keeping at it" doesn't exist for the games I run and prefer. Like i said, when i play, i want to know my character is important to the going's on, not that "if you fall, we just roll up another and move on".

running, or GMing for, interchangeable/disposable PCs is not something I want to do.

So, given the player spend a lot of time and effort bringing their characters and their stories to life, and so have I, having that just stop before we get to conclude those stories is rather unsatisfying. Imagine stopping star wars before you find out if luke turns vader to the good side and if han gets released from the carbonite? imagine if star wars ended at Empire's end. Would that have been as satisfying as seeing all three movies?

Most of the people i game with like to watch the whole movie, read the whole book not get about 2/3s thru and have it stop there.

In my last DND campaign:
The barbarian princess-in-exile got to return to her kingdom, kill the doppelganger usurpers, set her brother back up on the throne.
The druid got to find his lost brother, rescue his insane mother from the tharizdun cult, and pull his family back together.
the dwarf got to get revenge on the scum who betrayed the dwarf and left him as incubator for larvae abominations, hunt down and kill the treacherous scum who let drow in to ransack his homeland, and even had the opportunity to go back and save his wife from said drow.

thats just three. all of these plots spawned from their character bios and were played out during the game and once all was done, sure, they were setup for "more adventure" but their main personal stories were resolved, and they could all move on.

Stop the barbarian princess before she gets to the doppelganger or before she restores her kingdom and its like not quite done bread, or unset jello its edible, just not as enjoyable.

of course i imagine some people like runny jello.

 

[Reynard]

it seems like what you are describing is not "the extreme result" but the "expected result".

you are a low generation vampire who has just ticked off a edler with 6th tier powers and he uses his clan focused power on you.

"wow, the orc cirtted and did 40+ damage with his axe swing" being fudged away by the GM?

you don't fudge, or don't fudge well, if you take away the likely, expected result. You don't fudge to take away "the system works". you fudge to take away the blow outs" the whacky way-out-of-proportion results, the ones which look more like a system breakdown than a "what should have happened."

I guess this is the part I don't get. The orc has the same chance of critting in combat as the PCs do (or less, depending on attack bonus for the confirm). Everyone playing the game knows this. How is the orc critting an extreme, out-of-whack instance when it is a standard aspect of the rules?

Maybe it's just me, but hobbling the PCs' opposition doesn't seem like it would make the game more fun for the players.

 

[Reynard]

In my last DND campaign:
The barbarian princess-in-exile got to return to her kingdom, kill the doppelganger usurpers, set her brother back up on the throne.
The druid got to find his lost brother, rescue his insane mother from the tharizdun cult, and pull his family back together.
the dwarf got to get revenge on the scum who betrayed the dwarf and left him as incubator for larvae abominations, hunt down and kill the treacherous scum who let drow in to ransack his homeland, and even had the opportunity to go back and save his wife from said drow.

That all sound spretty cool, but let me ask you: when any one of these characters went into their final encounter to resolve their personal plot lines, did you fudge. if the doppleganger usrper critted the barbarian, or the tharizdun cult leader made his save against one of the druid's spells, or whatever, would you let it stand? If not, if you 'made sure' the PC got a satisfactory conclusion, do you really think it would be that satisfactory -- at least any moreso than if the whole scene would have been completely narrated? And this extend backwars in the character's career, too. For my part at least, if I knew that it didn't matter what I did or what the dice said, i was going to make it so I could get to the finale and 'win', I wouldn't bother. I'd go read a book. Same thing.