Balancing "RP" and "G"

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

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 i should switch fonts?

Ok, one more time.

we dont fudge every crit rolled by a bad guy.

its not "he critted".

its "he critted and rolled so high on damage that a PC is dying for no good reason."

that may be when we fudge.

and we do so because we don't have to be "fair" to the orc because the loss of that orc is meaningless but the loss of that pc is vital.

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

and if you think cutting of the wild luck shot when it happens to be lethal and there is no good reason for it to occur, like say stupid pc decisions, "hobbling" the opposition, then your lack of understanding is understandable.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

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.

On the other hand, if the dice are all that matter, as opposed to plot, story and character, then why not just play Magic: The Gathering or the D&D Mini game. Same thing. It's just tactics and randomness.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

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.

not as i recall. remember, we keep saying, the need to fudge is RARE. I do not think i had to fudge in any of those critical scenes.

- at least any moreso than if the whole scene would have been completely narrated?

Ok, enough already.

one last time. you keep ignoring this but...

there is a huge gaping maw of a chams of difference between fudging away an improbable lethal result and deciding to toss out all die results ans just narrating the scene. Those 99% other results which come from the dice are just fine and add all the things we want dice to add.

Honestly, is the only reason you roll dice to get the once--in-a-blue-moon whacko pc kill?
Do you view the typical die results like "a hit for damage", "a miss", "saved for half", "failed save and take full" etc as a wate of your time and not worth even rolling?
if you ran an entire campaign in which you never had a fluke critical kill a PC in a non-heroic or unsatisfying way, would you feel the campaign was waste time or that you got nothing of benefit from the dice rolling?

If the answer to those is "no" and you are willing to admit there is value in those other 99% results then can you please, for ad infinitum's sake, stop with the jump from "fudge the rare result" to "might as well not roll and just narrate the whole thing"

cuz i am getting tired of having to answer that same point again and again.

the 100th time you try and tell me that trimming off the extreme rare case is the same as "might as well just narrate" it wont be any more convincing than the first time.

I'd go read a book. Same thing.

see above.

 

[swrushing]

For my part at least, if I knew that it didn't matter what I did or what the dice said,

one specific point, again, fudging the dice means that in some cases "what the dice said" doesn't matter.

that doesn't however in any way bring with it saying "what i did" didn't matter.

fudging, most often in my experience, is done when "what the dice say" runs in opposition to or conflicts with "what the character did" in a critical way and fudging errs on the side of "what the character did".

 

[Barak]

I know you "fudgers" don't like it when us "die-huggers" say this, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder why you play D&D.

One of you mentioned that "D&D's randomeness I dislike, but there's lots of other stuff to like about it".

No. No there isn't. Virtually -every single rule- in D&D is either about randomness (the dice-rolls), or way to affect said randomness (modifiers). That's it, really. You remove the randomness totally, and there really is no point in playing the game. Heck, it's not a game anymore, it's people cooperating to tell a story. Which is fine, but it ain't D&D.

Now, I understand that you don't fudge every dice-roll. So it's not really -all- that bad. But I sincerely fail to understand how fudging sometimes really improve the "game". Sure, it -might- improve the story. But, well, if I wanna tell a story,I'll write a book. And if I wanna tell it with others, I'll cooperate with other authors.

And for the "But.. I invested in my character! His story isn't done telling!". Yeah well, he'd say that I'm sure, but the goblin hit him in the kidneys, and.. Well yes, his story -is- told.

Edit: Oh and the more I read this thread, Shaman, the more I'm amazed Normand is still alive. To be honest, I had some small doubts you might have fudged some sometimes. Knowing you haven't make his survival that more meaningful and fun, and -that's- the point.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I know you "fudgers" don't like it when us "die-huggers" say this, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder why you play D&D.

I play it for nostalgia. D&D was the frist RPG I ever played back in 78.
I play it for the flavor of the world that comes through the rules.
I like to optimize characters.
Now, unlike others, I know that my playstyle isn't really suited to the core "dice hugger" type of play, so I don't ever play it in group play. The D&D I play is solo stuff between myself and my wife - a way to be together in a hobby we love, telling stories together.

Edit: Oh and the more I read this thread, Shaman, the more I'm amazed Normand is still alive. To be honest, I had some small doubts you might have fudged some sometimes. Knowing you haven't make his survival that more meaningful and fun, and -that's- the point.

For me, getting away from the drudgery, survival oreinted, claw your way to the top real world, escaping from a world where being brought up short by a bad circumstance (die roll), worrying about survival being a major thing of what it is all about- that is what I play RPGs to escape from - into a world where I can play a mover and shaker, someone who can shake the pillars of heaven - and change the world. Who cares if some dice get fugded along the way... -that- is the point to me.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I know you "fudgers" don't like it when us "die-huggers" say this, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder why you play D&D.

because we enjoy it. because enjoying every little piece of it "as written in the book" isn't necessary to enjoy DnD.

don't worry tho, plenty of people ask the same sorts of questions of house rulers. "Why if you feel you gotta change the rules don't you just go play some other game."

One of you mentioned that "D&D's randomeness I dislike, but there's lots of other stuff to like about it".

No. No there isn't. Virtually -every single rule- in D&D is either about randomness (the dice-rolls), or way to affect said randomness (modifiers). That's it, really. You remove the randomness totally, and there really is no point in playing the game. Heck, it's not a game anymore, it's people cooperating to tell a story. Which is fine, but it ain't D&D.

the classes aren't about randomness. The massive spell lists aren't about randomness. The settings of greyhawk and forgotten realms aren't about randomness. Most of the rules AREN'T about randomness.

you really must try and realize "having a random element" and "being about randomness" aren't the same thing.

Now, I understand that you don't fudge every dice-roll. So it's not really -all- that bad. But I sincerely fail to understand how fudging sometimes really improve the "game". Sure, it -might- improve the story. But, well, if I wanna tell a story,I'll write a book. And if I wanna tell it with others, I'll cooperate with other authors.

see, i don't separate the game from the story and all that event parsing. it improves the event. it makes the enjoyment more for those involved. I don't need to subdivide it any further than that.

and, once more we see, a failure to see the difference between accepting 99% of the dice (tossing maybe 1%) and having none of them and just writing a book.

And for the "But.. I invested in my character! His story isn't done telling!". Yeah well, he'd say that I'm sure, but the goblin hit him in the kidneys, and.. Well yes, his story -is- told.

that really sounds like fun to you? OK. Maybe so. But, you know, other might find it not so fun. That doesn't make them bad people. That doesn't make them dirty stinkin' little cheaters.

really!

Edit: Oh and the more I read this thread, Shaman, the more I'm amazed Normand is still alive. To be honest, I had some small doubts you might have fudged some sometimes. Knowing you haven't make his survival that more meaningful and fun, and -that's- the point.

i have had games where survival was the point, but i have also had games where other things were the point, like say restoring family position or even getting revenge. I tend to prefer games where different things than survival is at stake. YMMV of course.

 

[The Shaman]

..."die-huggers"...

Awesome!

Oh and the more I read this thread, Shaman, the more I'm amazed Normand is still alive. To be honest, I had some small doubts you might have fudged some sometimes. Knowing you haven't make his survival that more meaningful and fun, and -that's- the point.

I'm really glad to hear that - that's exactly why I think it's so important to play it straight. I believe it's integral to a "quality gaming experience," though I've been told I'm wrong about that.

And on that note...

Regardless of how you like to word it, or make yourself feel good about it, you cheat everytime you change a rule.

Excepting the part of the rules that says the GM is free to change the rules and offering pages of guidance on how to do it in ways that aren't game-breaking, of course.

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....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.

Attempting to redefine fudging as a house rule is a weak semantic trick, nothing more.

It also misses the point, as the core rules specifically address the question of fudging already - it's described as "bending the rules." House rules don't bend the rules - they change them, or expand on them. Fudging is not a house rule - it takes place outside the rules of the game.

The book has this to say as well:

However, you might not feel that it's right or even fun unless you obey the same rules the players do. Sometimes the heroes get lucky and kill an opponent you had planned to have around for a long time. By the same token, sometimes things go against the heroes and disaster befalls them. Both the GM and the players take the bad with the good. That's a perfectly acceptable way to play, and if there's a default method of running a game, that's it.

The book goes on to warn about pitfalls of fudging, saying, "With no element of risk, victory will seem less sweet," which seems to echo many of the concerns raised by other posters in the thread.

Fudge at your peril, but please don't try to sell it as something it's not.

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.

You're right, of course.

I never learned that arbitrarily ignoring the rules and lying to the players about the results of their actions was the "best" way to provide a "quality gaming experience." I mistakenly believed that came from effective encounter and adventure design, world-building, and roleplaying - in my misapprehension I thought it came from playing fairly, using the rules, and thereby ensuring that success or failure was authentic, the experience genuine.

What a silly goose am I.

By the way, DonTadow, contrary to what you may have been told, calling other people stupid does not actually make you look smarter.

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.

Good for you. Me too.

See, some common ground, right there.

A campaign should be living, not set to waht the book allows and doesnt allow.

It's not an either/or proposition - a game can be played by the rules and still be 'alive'.

As for the Solitaire reference...blah, blah, blah...

If you don't want to make the effort to actually respond to other posters, why not just bow out gracefully, instead of misrepresenting people's opinions?

The "leader of the anti-fudging crowd" was funny, by the way - people who see 'factions' on the Internet are always good for a chuckle.

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.

Then please, by all means, educate me. How about offering two examples of how you fudged and how it "enhanced the gaming experience" for your players? Please, I'm always eager to learn new GMing techniques - dazzle me with your acumen.

 

[The Shaman]

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?

That's it exactly, thank you.

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.

The difference here is that I don't see a character's story half-written - ending up on the slab is the end of the character's story, whatever plans the player may have had in mind when the character was created (or that you wrote out as plots for your game).

As the GM, at most I know what the adventurers may encounter - a character's story is a blank page until the encounter takes place.

On the other hand, if the dice are all that matter, as opposed to plot, story and character, then why not just play Magic: The Gathering or the D&D Mini game. Same thing. It's just tactics and randomness.

The dice only give answers to specific questions in the context of roleplaying and adventuring - did I hit or not? did I fail the save or not? They cannot tell a story, but they can contribute to plot points based on the answers they provide. This is why I don't see the 'G' as separate from the 'RP' - the mechanics inform the roleplaying.

 

[DonTadow]

I know you "fudgers" don't like it when us "die-huggers" say this, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder why you play D&D.

One of you mentioned that "D&D's randomeness I dislike, but there's lots of other stuff to like about it".

No. No there isn't. Virtually -every single rule- in D&D is either about randomness (the dice-rolls), or way to affect said randomness (modifiers). That's it, really. You remove the randomness totally, and there really is no point in playing the game. Heck, it's not a game anymore, it's people cooperating to tell a story. Which is fine, but it ain't D&D.

Now, I understand that you don't fudge every dice-roll. So it's not really -all- that bad. But I sincerely fail to understand how fudging sometimes really improve the "game". Sure, it -might- improve the story. But, well, if I wanna tell a story,I'll write a book. And if I wanna tell it with others, I'll cooperate with other authors.

And for the "But.. I invested in my character! His story isn't done telling!". Yeah well, he'd say that I'm sure, but the goblin hit him in the kidneys, and.. Well yes, his story -is- told.

Edit: Oh and the more I read this thread, Shaman, the more I'm amazed Normand is still alive. To be honest, I had some small doubts you might have fudged some sometimes. Knowing you haven't make his survival that more meaningful and fun, and -that's- the point.

You overestimate the amount of randomness in the game. If there was that much randomness in this game, there would be NO way to made diceless modules. I'd estimate maybe less the 20 to 33 percent of this game (as far as pages dedicated to them in the PHB, DMG and MM are about randomness). To further the point, there are few if any books (wotc or other) that are dedicated to the randomness of d and d.

The game is 66 percent story (Role Playing) and 33 percent game (Game). How can you not care about the story. I think a lot of rpgers do but don't realize it. If you didnt care about the story, you'd go in there with a vanilla character, with a vanilla weapon fighting vanilla monsters for no reason. Everyday session would be like an rpg demo. No story just a long mini competition.

I suspect few games are like this, thus you have to care about the story in some ways.

Attempting to redefine fudging as a house rule is a weak semantic trick, nothing more.

It also misses the point, as the core rules specifically address the question of fudging already - it's described as "bending the rules." House rules don't bend the rules - they change them, or expand on them. Fudging is not a house rule - it takes place outside the rules of the game.

The book has this to say as well:

My arguement has always been from my first post that Fudging is a house rule elected by the DM. It is no different than a house rule. TO attempt to define house rule is comical. A house rule, is anything yo uwish. It can be a bend, a total break, a slightlty alternative version. To say (a house rule is this) is to attempt to limit the VAST amount of house rules created itn things that either change the game or grow on the game, when often, they only slightly bend the game rule.

But lets talk about weak arguments, for instance, a suggestion by one of the authors of the DMG is NOT SRD. The statement first starts out with "however" which means that it is going to contradict something previously stated. There's also that nice little conditional statement "IF" there, which also backs up that this is just another way to play the game.

But the book does have really gooood rules about allowing dms to put in circumstance bonsues whereever they see fit, and sorry there's nothing there that says when they have to do it. I don't stop analzying the situation after the battle, I analyze during every hit and magic spell. There's not a time i fudged that it didnt make sense from a circumstance point of view.

On that same note, this statement says nothing about fudging dice rolls though a broad interpretation may certainly attempt to bottle this up into this statement. A strict statement goes to say as to not flip out everytime the pcs do something you don't expect. Even the second thing you found the book says nothing about changing dice rolls, only that games that have wins and losses are fun. IF I'm correct, SWrushing nor myself have both said that fudging is rare and does not take away from the pcs risk factor. If anything, it increases the risk factor.

I"m glad you're willing to learn young padawan let me go through my memories ah seeing

Example 1: The Iron Keep- Instance: A massive chasm stands between the party and reaching their destination. The Forged had just reuinted with his brother whom he spent quite a bit of time to find. They need to repair his brother whom was effected by the gearwell virus. Whatever the cure was it was in the keep. The Forged jumps first. Then his brother. His brother misses the jump roll by 1. And the Forged reflex roll to catch him was flubbed. The only person in the area who could have made another reflex save was a pc whom did not like the brother. She rolls the dice and rolls one below DC.

OPtion 1: The brother forge falls to his death, with the forged pc cursing the hated player for not saving his brother. The reason for visiting the keep is gone and the pcs head back to the elven village and try to protect it from a threat the pcs opted not to protect it from. Or they head to the Elven kingdom to negotiate a treaty with the king.

NOthhng wrong with it. I could see some more tension between the pc characters but that was going to happen anyway regardess. It doesnt take anything from the game or add anything to the game considering the quest they were on had nothing to do with the plot anyway and was something I was surprised the party opted to go on (instead of protecting the elven village which was the home of oneo f the pcs).

Option 2: The hated pc (spot 5) finds the remnants of a handrail in the area which gave her a plus 1 on her roll she hangs on to it with her foot, grabs the brother forged hands just before it was out of his reach. SHe pulls him to saftey.
"The player then tells the npc "You now owe me one tin man".
Now the forged (lawful) finds himself in debt to the scoundral he hates. They continue on to the keep. The scene was a lot more dramatic than if he had fell.

A flubbed jump roll missed by 1 shouldn't be the end to a 2 day journey by the pcs. That would have sucked hte life out of the session. I know my players. Syxen , the forged, spent 7 game months looking for his brother, and the pcs hoped that curing him could provide them valuable info. If the roll had been missed by 3 or more maybe that handrail wouldn't have been seen and option 1 isn't that bad. But option 2 was better for the party and didn't take a anything out of the believablity of the game. The party traveled on to the iron keep, Syxen's brother fource was still killed deeper into the keep and the death in battle was a little more honorable for the PC. The role playing about the debt was awesome as was the diagolue inside of the keep. The innicident is still brought up between the Forged and the hated PC as the debt carried on to him. Gaming experience enhanced and the party is not let down. (which you never want to end a session on).

Example 2

The PCs have traveled into the hell dimension to retrieve the fabled Masamune. They've finally reached hte BBEG and his minions. The messageboards from the combat oriented pcs had been very busy as the pcs had been looking forward to a massive battle with them. I borrowed the cinderspawn from the Libris Mortis thinking that it would be ahard challenge at cr +3. However, the rolling was horrible and the PCs found the challenge quite easy as it lasted a measily 3 rounds. The disappointment was almost visible among the combat oriented pcs whom hadnt had much combat in this dungeon by design.

Option 1:
Move on with the adventure. Not a bad option, they still receive the masamune and there will always be more combat that could happen. Could I have designed the encounter wit hthe BBEG better, in hindsight yeah, but I see now the cr of the creature vs the smarts of the mages (whom used different tactics and a different spell list than she's used before). The mage is rewarded for being smart enough to use different tactics.

Option 2:
The party celebrates pulling the Masamune from the sword from the magma. However, as one of them pulls the hande one of the walls starts to shimmer and out emerges another Cinderspawn, this one much larger than the previous one. His face is obviously frustrated as he comments that no one has ever killed one of his spawns before. He especially applausds the wizard as he had not seen a display of wizardry from a human like that in some time. He provides the wizard with some background info that he came upon in the hell dimensions that the pc may not have received for some time if not for his magnficient display. (i make sure to play up the dioaglue so that hte pc knows that he wouldn't have received the info if not for his great tactics)

He vows to the party that it will never be that easy again. I fudge the cinderspawns ac by +2 this time, adding 1 to his damage. The fight lasted an hour, several pcs and a key NPC priest were killed but the pcs prevailed. The level of satisfaction was overwhelming. Itturned an OK session into an excellent session.