Balancing "RP" and "G"

[DonTadow]

One wonders how diceless games manage to adjucate fun at all...

<-- plays Amber diceless

*chuckles*

They are a world of fun. I played in one for a year. It takes a great DM and creative people as the players need to describe everything. The DM determines statistical failure rates with notes.

To touch on some more things that have come up since my last post.

There's still that camp that is attempting to define what cheating is in dungeons and dragons so that their house rules are safe but the fudging house rule is unsafe. This presumed argument is all based around "when" the fudging takes place (so fudging before the dice is good????). I wonder... how many times do these guys write tactics for your bad guys and stick to them script to script. Even if it means unfairely targetting one lone person round after round while the rest of the party lays bored or uninterested. If I am correct, you probably don't. Wouldn't changing a creatures tactics (in a situation that he otherwise wouldn't) is cheating. IF you're applying the same logic as fudging after things have already taken place, then yes it is.

Let us look at the Black Company setting which has several types of rolls that allow ranges instead of exact number. For instance, if you fail anywhere from -3 up you make the roll. I'm guessing you're accusing our good friends at Green Ronin of cheating.

As for the game designers creating hte perfect game, they obviously knew they didn't as there are severa pages in the dmg where they say so. There are also inclusions of house rules, circumstance modifiers and winging it which I doubt you'll find in a set game like monopoly or Life (in case of problems with the rules wing it...nah not there).

Action cards are not limited to specific incidients, as in use this card at this time. It is a PC determination and in some settings can alter a number of things. You will not find a guide that says (the right time to use action cards). Action cards is a house rule that is determined before the game.

Fudging is a house rule just like action cards allowed before the game but are not limited to specific incidents. Their the DMs little actions cards. It allows the DM to give players that little boost of luck after he's properly analyzed a situation and deemed that it is a good choice. 99.9 percent of the time it never is, but there are those RARE times it is. Figuring out when to fudge is an added dimensional skill for a DM that is not easy, as you have really analyze a situation to deem when it is neccessary.

RAven, your description of railroading is something I've never heard before. As, as you wrote it, it means that the players have full control over the game and anything else is railroading. Plots, difficult bbegs, traps... the players aren't controlling it, so its railroading.

Let's get a better defitnion

To rush or push (something) through quickly in order to prevent careful consideration and possible criticism or obstruction:

That's where hte skill comes in. YOu have to be objective when yo urailroad and look solely for the pcs enjoyement. What provides them teh best entertainment, not what makes for the best story (as is the biggest problem when dms railroad), not what doesnt kill them, not what is too dangerious. It is what is going to entertain these guys. Player groups opt for fudging because they want a DM whose going to consider anything that heightens their entertainment value. They don't want to play Talisman or Heroquest for an hour

Perspective: Covered already but basically the player is there to play his character, sees the game world thru his character and is vested in his character. Even a small amount of immersion in that character puts him at a radically different perspective from the Gm who has no character and no vested interest in those characters but who has the players as his focus.

Knowledge: The player and his character often, almost always, doesn't have the full knowledge of situation and circumstance the Gm has, and as such is not able to put the die roll in the full context. Even if he thinks he has the whole picture, one element he is probably lacking is the detail and background of the other PC plots and sub-plots. The player is simply not making an informed decision or maybe, as informed a decision as the Gm is.

Experience: Well, again, from the perspective of "me and mine" there is a reqson i GM most of the time and its because i am better at it by far than my players. over half of them have actual Gm experience and, frankly, most of them suck at it. The others are on their better days adequate at best. The best among them is the guy i used as an example of "bad fudging" pages ago in this thread.

Quoted for emphasis.

 

[Raven Crowking]

indeed it does but my decision to shift the odds in favor of what you decide should not be taken as "removing" your decision making power. if anything, it is increasing it, by reducing the likelihood of "random elements" making your decision result in failure, if success was your goal.

Yet, nonetheless, it does. Success is always my desire, with any given roll, but success is not satisfying merely for its own sake. Making the attempt, when there is a significant chance of failure, and succeeding anyway, is thrilling. For that matter, failing spectacularly can be pretty fun too. I have had a PC murdered by other party members in a game where I believed that, absolutely, they had done the right thing (and I told them so). I have had a PC (2nd Ed swashbuckler) make it through horrible traps by sheer innovation and a lot of lucky rolls only to be killed by a monster when he managed to swim out of the water outlet. It was terribly fun.

Earlier, when we were talking about letting players decide when to fudge, you said that you see a sharp difference between the perspective and roles of DMs and players (my paraphrasing). Well, part of the "implied contract" I believe exists in RPGs includes that there is a difference as well between the role of DM and dice. In other words, once the dice are rolled, they are rolled. You may have in-game means of modifying this even after the roll (swashbuckling cards, action points, house rule to allow DM shifting target numbers), but if the means is in-game, then perhaps it is not what is meant by "fudging".

In other words, when you told your players you might change the outcome of die rolls in some circumstances, you gave yourself an effective house rule allowing (presumably limited by style and player preference) abilities to countermand the dice in game. Effectively, once you have a house rule in place, no matter what that house rule is, if you and your players are happy with it, it cannot be considered either "cheating" or "bad DMing"....or even "poor encounter design" since you are now designing encounters with your complete ruleset (RAW plus house rules, implied or explicit) in mind.

that you feel gets that far down to precise timing as to when GM discretion is allowed and when Gm discretion is not allowed such as you describe, ought not to be an "implied contract" at all, but stated up front and clearly delineated. if you really feel that as a player your GM deciding "no roll needed" is perfectly fine but once a dice is rolled him deciding "you cannot fall to your death here" is railroading, then that fine a slice ought not to be something "implied" but something you state up front, at least as much as a Gm who fudges keeps getting told he should warn his players.

A fine slice, indeed. However, it is a slice that is firmly conveyed by the rules.

D&D uses a core mechanic to resolve all actions in the game. This central game rule keeps play fast and intuitive.

Whenever you attempt an action that has some chance of failure, you roll a twenty-sided die (d20). To determine if your character succeeds at a task (such as attacking a monster or using a skill), you do this:

* Roll a d20.
* Add any relevant modifiers.
* Compare the result to a target number.

If the result equals or exceeds the target number (set by the DM or given in the rules), your character succeeds. If the result is lower than the target number, your character fails.

To me, this strongly implies that the result is compared to a target number that exists beforehand. Otherwise, there is no point to comparing the result to a target number. Instead, it should read

* Roll a d20.
* Add any relevant modifiers.
* That is now the target number.

Instead, the rules clearly show that you add relevant modifiers prior to comparing the result to the target number. There is no mechanic in the RAW that says

* Roll a d20.
* Add any relevant modifiers.
* Compare the result to a target number.
* Add any additional modifiers you might desire.
* Compare the result to a target number again.
* Continue until you get the result you desire.

The only definition I could find for fudging was as follows. Admittedly, my google-fu may be off this morning.

v 1: fake or falsify; "Fudge the figures"; "cook the books";
"falsify the data" [syn: manipulate, fake, falsify,
cook, wangle, misrepresent]
2: avoid or try to avoid, as of duties, questions and issues;
"He dodged the issue" [syn: hedge, evade, put off, circumvent,
parry, elude, skirt, dodge, duck, sidestep]

Again, if you and your players are happy, and you are upfront about it, I read this as a case of rules changing rather than fudging in a prejorative sense. It is not, however, within the scope of the rules as written (as some have tried to imply, and you have wisely not), nor is it the type of game which I would enjoy playing in.

It's unfortunate that we have a room full of DMs here. I would be interested in the opinions of players as well, particularly those players who have been RPGing for a while and are not often called upon the DM. Any of you lurking? What do you think?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

there is another case you are missing. Since i haven't gotten it across in ganmespeak let me try tech support.

there is a error in the system output. It is producing bad data.
fixing the problem in system would be difficult, as tracking down the cause would be difficult or an attempt at a change of system would be likely too unspecific or it might just be difficult to implement.
there is an easy user side "workaround" which handles the issue.

Except that the premise of "a system must be prefect to produce only acceptable results" is not a given. In fact, I don't buy into it all. In my view, a perfect system would have to produce the best possible results at all times. It isn't going to happen. Neither the "best possible results" or (apparently) "acceptable results" are objective terms.

It isn't that I don't understand your arguement. I understand it, and I don't agree with it. "4 + 1 = 6" is bad data; the input and the result do not match. "The orc got lucky and decapitated me" is unfortunate, perhaps, but the input and the result match. What remains is whether or not the result can be accepted, which is the user end, not the system end.

In other words, if you say "I do alter some die results, and I tell my players that I am going to do so, because it produces the type of game we want to play" then I have to say, "okay, that's your house rule then" (understanding that you may not like the terminology of "house rule" for your fix, though I believe it is applicable in this case). If you do the same but do not tell your players, then, while that is between you and your players, I would at least strongly suspect that there are very good reasons why you don't tell your players (i.e., their reaction would not be "acceptable"). If, however, you tell me that you alter some die rolls because of system error, then I have a problem because it isn't the system that is at fault.

Me, I'm currently working on a set of house rules that now numbers over 200 pages. Yes, you read that right. I expect that it will be about 600 pages when complete. It includes rewrites of all races, classes, and most mechanics. This is not because D&D 3.X doesn't work (sytem error), but rather because D&D 3.X doesn't do what I want it to do (user error).



RC


EDIT: This is also why your Coke machine analogy doesn't do it for me. D&D provides the results it is meant to provide. The broken Coke machine does not. A closer analogy would be that the Coke machine works, but you wanted root beer. Obviously, you should dump the cup and refill, but it isn't the fault of the machine.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There's still that camp that is attempting to define what cheating is in dungeons and dragons so that their house rules are safe but the fudging house rule is unsafe.

As I said before, "The DM reserves the right to change your roll or the target number after the fact" is a valid house rule. Moreover, I said that if you're honest about your fudging, it isn't cheating. In another thread, which I would be happy to point you to, I even went so far as to say that the DM can do whatever he or she so desires (though he or she is not guaranteed players if he or she does so ) So, clearly, what you do in your game is fine with me. Your table, your rules.

Fudging is a house rule just like action cards allowed before the game but are not limited to specific incidents. Their the DMs little actions cards.

As swrushing said earlier, back to the dirty little secret approach...

RAven, your description of railroading is something I've never heard before. As, as you wrote it, it means that the players have full control over the game and anything else is railroading. Plots, difficult bbegs, traps... the players aren't controlling it, so its railroading.

Obviously, then, my google-fu is better than your google-fu.

If my definition of railroading is foreign to you, then swrushing's must be as well. His defintion of railroading is "not allowing the players to make choices (or not allowing their characters to succeed when they make those choices) which will not fit your preconception of where events will unfold." Is this too broad a definition for you?

My definition of railroading is "the DM taking decision-making power away from the players. To me, removing the results of decision-making is the same as removing the ability to make decisions. It doesn't matter whether those results are good or bad." Who the BBEG was, plots, traps, etc., were never within the power of the player, and thus cannot be removed. Making a decision based on known factors is in the power of the player, and when you remove that ability, you are railroading. Big difference. Easy to see.

That's where hte skill comes in. YOu have to be objective when yo urailroad and look solely for the pcs enjoyement.

DonTadow's quote, above, offers a pretty good example of why "fudging" can be such a problem. Being objective, and looking solely for the PCs enjoyment, are mutually exclusive goals. The dice are objective; you are not.

When I examine swrushing's responses and arguments (once past the defensive aspects brought on by the fairly adversarial nature of the very question of the thread), I can see that he has given thought to both the strengths and weaknesses of his DMing style. While I would ask him to let the dice fall where they may for my character (and, since he is honest with his players, one must assume he would honor that), I would at least be willing to give his DMing a try.

Anyone whose rationalization is, in effect, based upon his consumate skill in pulling a fast one on his players leaves me cold.


RC

 

[RedWick]

I think people are rightfully concerned about the breaking of trust between DM and player when the DM decides to fudge rolls, as I hear that same underlying theme in just about all of the anti-fudging posts I've read (even when it delved into the category of describing what railroading is). If a player can't trust the DM in all aspects of the game, then the player won't be enjoying the game to the fullest, as they'll be wondering whether they succeeded because they rolled well, or because the GM decided arbitratily to grant them a success.

I can also see that there are two sides to this argument which all into a kind of "RPGs as cooperative play" vs. "RPGs as competitive play" (friendly DM vs Player, essentially). In the first instance, fudging dice does nothing to diminish the game since everybody's good time rests on making sure the story, or whatever, progressess forward. People become interested in exploring their characters, the game world or the plot and use the system as a means of doing so. In the second instance, since it's competitive and the DM is setting up situations for the players to overcome, fudging die rolls diminishes the player's accomplishments in besting the DM. It's like saying either "Nyah nyah! If you didn't have my help, then you never would have succeded!" or "Ha ha! You couldn't even overcome that simple thing?". In competitive play, if there's *any* chance that one side is abusing the trust of the other (calls of DM or player cheating come to mind...), then you're just going to end up with a lot of disgruntled and quite unhappy people. No?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I can also see that there are two sides to this argument which all into a kind of "RPGs as cooperative play" vs. "RPGs as competitive play" (friendly DM vs Player, essentially). In the first instance, fudging dice does nothing to diminish the game since everybody's good time rests on making sure the story, or whatever, progressess forward. People become interested in exploring their characters, the game world or the plot and use the system as a means of doing so. In the second instance, since it's competitive and the DM is setting up situations for the players to overcome, fudging die rolls diminishes the player's accomplishments in besting the DM. It's like saying either "Nyah nyah! If you didn't have my help, then you never would have succeded!" or "Ha ha! You couldn't even overcome that simple thing?". In competitive play, if there's *any* chance that one side is abusing the trust of the other (calls of DM or player cheating come to mind...), then you're just going to end up with a lot of disgruntled and quite unhappy people. No?

Sorry, but not fudging does not require the DM to be competing against the players. In fact, the DM competing against the players is bad DMing, pure and simple. The real question is whether or not fudging damages cooperative play.


RC

 

[Peter Gibbons]

I can also see that there are two sides to this argument which all into a kind of "RPGs as cooperative play" vs. "RPGs as competitive play" (friendly DM vs Player, essentially).

You're close, but not quite there, RedWick. I'm one of the anti-fudgers, yet I would never consider myself a "DM vs Player" type. It's actually more of a "player vs. the game system" thing. The game system presents challenges for me as a player to overcome. If I start to suspect that the DM is surreptiously helping me overcome those challenges, it cheapens my "victory" over the system--and thus reduces my enjoyment of the game.

I hope that helps clear things up for anyone who doesn't understand the anti-fudging point of view.

 

[swrushing]

It's actually more of a "player vs. the game system" thing. The game system presents challenges for me as a player to overcome.

the game system isn't proviing you with challenges, the Gm is. he is setting the stage for every encounter and making dozens of decisions about things which matter a whole lot more to the "chance of success" than that fudged die roll once in a while.

well, unless he is using wandering monsters a lot.

If I start to suspect that the DM is surreptiously helping me overcome those challenges, it cheapens my "victory" over the system--and thus reduces my enjoyment of the game.

this really just comes down to trust. If the Gm keeps every roll ever made, he can still "help you" or "hinder you" thru those challenges. After he selects the adversaries, after he selelcts their resources, afterhe selects the flow of info and plot that sets the stage, after the battle is engaged he still makes many decisions with nho dice whatsoever which impact "do you achieve victory?" a hundred times more than his die fudging ever will.

If he rolls all the dice in front of you, or adopts a "player rolls" system like I did, that doesn't mean he isn't "helping you" achieve your victory over the challenges he provides. It may just mean he has figured out that thats one of the least effective means of doing so.

IIRC, on this thread or the other, some of the anti-fudgers even described "scenario editing" such as "well maybe the ogres down the hall are drunk" as "not fudging".

trust your GM or if you must, distrust the GM, as you like, but the dice won't tell you whether or not you should.

 

[Gentlegamer]

For my part, I think the story comes out of the game. When the session is over, that chapter is complete and only then do you know 'what happened'. There never is a 'supposed to happen'. A dramatic fight is one that is fun and complex and makes everyone around the table get involved. A dramatic scene is one in which the players and the GM find themselves immersed in what's going on and who is involved. And if a character dies uncermoniously, for example, it is another part of the larger, ever-unfolding story, not a undramatic or anbticlimactic event.

I agree completely.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

the game system isn't proviing you with challenges, the Gm is. he is setting the stage for every encounter and making dozens of decisions about things which matter a whole lot more to the "chance of success" than that fudged die roll once in a while.

You misunderstand me. The challenges I'm speaking of are things like "how to increase my chances of hitting high-AC opponents" and the methods of overcoming them are things like "make sure I don't multiclass into poor-BAB classes, cast bless at the start of difficult battles, and take the Mobility feat so I can more easily maneuver into flanking position." A DM who is going to make sure I hit that high-AC opponent when I really need to (or "the story" really needs me to) regardless of whether I've made those choices diminishes the pleasure I get out of mastering the game system.

I'm not talking about challenges such as "whether we will face 5 or 500 orcs in a given encounter" or "whether that encounter will take place on difficult terrain where half of my character's feats will be useless," which is what you're referring to. I'm assuming, for purposes of this discussion, that the DM in question is doing his best to set up difficult-but-not-impossible challenges for his players to overcome. My job as a player is to see to it that even if said DM errs and sets up a challenge that proves to be unexpectedly difficult, I overcome it anyway--or fail. Either result is okay with me, as long as it's on my own merit (given a fair, impartial, and reasonably competent DM, of course).