Balancing "RP" and "G"

[Flyspeck23]

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.

My sentiment exactly.

It's not "DM vs players", or else the PCs won't stand a chance. What'd be the point?

well, unless he is using wandering monsters a lot.

OTOH not using "wandering monsters" (aka "random encounters") at all is IMHO bad GMing. It'd be a game where every encounter is meaningful and advances the plot. What kind of world would that be?

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".

Saying the ogres are drunk isn't fudging. Heck, saying there are no ogres isn't fudging. That's setting a stage.
Saying the ogres are drunk if they're beating up the party - that's fudging.

Fudging is changing the world after the fact. "Changing" the world before the players get to see it isn't.

 

[Flyspeck23]

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).

Win, lose - or flee. IMHO not every encounter should be designed to be "difficult-but-not-impossible".
So my job as a player is not to see if the GM was wrong, but rather if I stand a chance or not. GM erring or not doesn't matter (that's metagame thinking).

Apart from that, I agree

 

[Raven Crowking]

My sentiment exactly.

Thank you, Flyspeck. Now please go back and take my name off those other quotes. Swrushing deserves credit for his own words.


RC

 

[DonTadow]

My sentiment exactly.

It's not "DM vs players", or else the PCs won't stand a chance. What'd be the point?



OTOH not using "wandering monsters" (aka "random encounters") at all is IMHO bad GMing. It'd be a game where every encounter is meaningful and advances the plot. What kind of world would that be?



Saying the ogres are drunk isn't fudging. Heck, saying there are no ogres isn't fudging. That's setting a stage.
Saying the ogres are drunk if they're beating up the party - that's fudging.

Fudging is changing the world after the fact. "Changing" the world before the players get to see it isn't.

Saying the ogres wern't drunk and then saying two minutes later they were, is not fudging, but just completely screwing up the description of that scene. I'd hate that to happen in any game.

However, if you never mention that hte ogres were or weren't drunk, and it makes the scene more interesting if as the ogres got closer, you smelled the foul stinch of dwarven ale on their breath, I dont see how that is wrong, even if the original design didn't call for it. If you judge that the original scene would be more interesting if you insert "X" why not. Especially if the players enjoy it (I.E. the dwarf figures that hte ogres got druk off the ale they stole from his family brewery).

I believe in the wizard behind the curtain. What the pcs don't know won't hurt them. In my earlier example the pcs didn't know if or not the handrail was there. there was no previous spot check so it wasn't crazy that this handrail didn't apear. It comes down to hte fact that with a good DM only the dm knows if anything is ever fudged.

 

[Flyspeck23]

However, if you never mention that hte ogres were or weren't drunk, and it makes the scene more interesting if as the ogres got closer, you smelled the foul stinch of dwarven ale on their breath, I dont see how that is wrong, even if the original design didn't call for it. If you judge that the original scene would be more interesting if you insert "X" why not. Especially if the players enjoy it (I.E. the dwarf figures that hte ogres got druk off the ale they stole from his family brewery).

Sure, the GM doesn't have to tell the players that the ogres are drunk, so they'd have to figure it out themselves.
I'm talking about making the ogres drunk 5 rounds after combat starts, though - if it has a sudden negative effect on the ogres' combat prowess, and if the PCs are losing. In that case the ogres are drunk because the GM thought it might be a more interesting encounter, but because the GM doesn't want his players to die ("fudging").

Thank you, Flyspeck. Now please go back and take my name off those other quotes. Swrushing deserves credit for his own words.

Whoa, sorry. Blame it on copy'n'paste and Firefox not being able to insert the quote tags correctly
Changed it.

 

[DonTadow]

Sure, the GM doesn't have to tell the players that the ogres are drunk, so they'd have to figure it out themselves.
I'm talking about making the ogres drunk 5 rounds after combat starts, though - if it has a sudden negative effect on the ogres' combat prowess, and if the PCs are losing. In that case the ogres are drunk because the GM thought it might be a more interesting encounter, but because the GM doesn't want his players to die ("fudging").




Whoa, sorry. Blame it on copy'n'paste and Firefox not being able to insert the quote tags correctly
Changed it.

Fudging should be logical and make sense. Again, I equivate fudging to circumstance modifiers (which for me is what they are). Saying the ogres are drunk after 5 rounds of combat doesn't make a ton of sense if there was no previous mention of it and that's not what non of us pro fudgers have been saying . It reminds me of a billion scenes from War of the Worlds were you're forced to suspend your bleief a bit too much.

The art of fudging is providing luck bonuses for circumstances that make sense. First why do the pcs need to be saved against hte ogres? If the ogres are beating them that bad and their not smart enough to run away then oh well, they maybe should die. that's not a situation I'd fudge any dice or situation with. If its one pc whose taking a bad hit by these ogres, I'd justh ave the ogres drag him off unconscious and torture him a bit about why the party have evaded their fotress. A series of will saves, vs intimidate torture tactics to see if the orgres divulge any info about the pcs. Fudging should be a lst resort if creativty can get you out of it.