Professor Phobos
First Post
skeptic said:
Not at all. I feel sorry if that is your experience, but it is by no means a guarantee.
Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind
- Thread starter Kwalish Kid
- Start date
Not at all. I feel sorry if that is your experience, but it is by no means a guarantee.
Rel
Liquid Awesome
Professor Phobos said:
My sentiments precisely. However I think what I'm hearing from skeptic (and I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that while Rule 0 may help protect the GM and the group from a bad Rules Lawyer that it may also promote an Abusive GM. All the more reason that everybody in the group be open and communicative about their preference in playstyle in my opinion.
buzz
Adventurer
Keep in mind that Forge-GNS are each player agendas that you observe over time. Saying an RPG is GNS-Gamist is a bit of a bastardization of the terminology, since the terminology applies to people and not the RPGs themselves. But, obviously, we talk about what agendas different RPGs support best, and the Forge school of design does generally aim to have G, N, or S in mind and then design to support that. Hence the "razor-focus" of a lot of indie games.Professor Phobos said:
That said, I admit that I have bought into the indie perspective, so when I look at D&D, I see a game that supports GNS-Gamism more than anything else. Ergo, I usually don't look to drift D&D from that perspective. I also notice that most of the people in my group are happiest when we stick to that route while playing D&D.
So, I am no way saying that you can't pursue one of the other GNS agendas while playing D&D; people have been doing so for decades. I just don't really enjoy doing it any more, because I usually end up having more fun playing a game that embraces GNS-S or -N out of the gate. I also get frustrated investing the effort into D&D's inherent tactics-crunchiness, and then spend a session not rolling any dice all night, or doing things that have no bearing on the numbers on my character sheet.
The 3.5 DMG is actually pretty explicit about sticking to the rules-as-written. Despite the passage on p.18 that talks about fudging, p.14 advises the DM to be very cautious about changing any rules, and definitely to avoid doing so mid-game.Professor Phobos said:
I think the design and development staff, admittedly out of necessity, assume that DMs will be following the RAW when they create adventure and supplement products.
The DMG doesn't actually dictate this. The random town generators, e.g., are labeled as optional. I also don't think these parts of D&D are the primary focus of the discussion here.Professor Phobos said:
Well, in Forge thinking, that early world-building advice in the 1e DMG is full-on GNS-Sim, not G. If anything, it's the prototype for GNS-Sim design in RPGs.Professor Phobos said:
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Rel said:
In fact, you need rule zero, as already pointed out. If you have a DM who likes to bully his players around, just don´t play with him. In general you need cheating. Why? because a critical hit with an axe does tripple damage... it will kill a seriously wounded character...
why not saying: he hits you on the head and you are down to -8 hp... you need not do it secretly... I usually ask my players how much hp they have if I think they are very low... and if I hit them with a crit, I may subtract 1 or two points of damage that he will not be dead instantly.
And if you let your BBEG survive (very badly wounded) a very very lucky something while he was just showing himself... it is (sometimes) ok too...
...or it shows out, that it was just his 1st officer in disguise...
I can´t imagine a worse scenario than your BBEG dying in the first minutes of your gaming session...
I also had good very good adventures, both as player and as DM, where I decided that no matter what direction my group goes, they will find something (if they do it because of good reasoning)... when that´s not cheating... but sometimes it turns out, that the reasoning of 5 players is a lot more logical than your approach, and not adapting to this situation will definitely ruin your game...
Professor Phobos
First Post
Eh, I stick to the RAW for the most part anyway, but I'm not bothered by selectively applying them, introducing exceptions and such. Comprehensive as they are, the stuff that happens in games often has no clear answer in the rules.
And for the sake of time, I'll skip over stuff that would normally require some rolls. Instead of looking up a chart of modifiers, I'll just eyeball something. Stuff like that.
And for the sake of time, I'll skip over stuff that would normally require some rolls. Instead of looking up a chart of modifiers, I'll just eyeball something. Stuff like that.
WARNING: Large amount of text ahead. Contains personal bias.
I'd like to present an example of what can happen when everyone goes by the dice, without any discretion whatsoever.
Many years ago, I was in a game (not D&D) inspired by a popular fiction series all the players and the GM were fans of. One aspect we particularly enjoyed was when we interacted with certain characters from the series, as the GM was very good at playing them. He really brought them to life, and kept them to character. We had ties to some of these characters, and one was actually our PCs' day-job employer. ( If she knew of our sideline, she never spoke about it. )
Thus when our characters' employer was kidnapped, they of course went to save her.
At the pivotal, do-or-she-dies moment, I rolled a fumble. The system had a luck point system, but it couldn't turn a fumble into a success - just convert it to a normal failure.
Our GM (No, I don't mean DM - this wasn't D&D) went strictly by the book back in those days. No fudging. No exceptions.
As I said, it was the pivotal moment - we'd all acted that round, the next action was the villain's.
The GM took a break for a few minutes trying to think of an out. We weren't meant to fail. He'd awarded luck points mid-session to ensure we had some up our sleeve, so nothing short of a fumble could have stopped us. Unfortunately the villain's declared action didn't require a dice roll since the hostage was in his hands and unconscious.
In order for us to prevail, either that fumble would need to be somehow re-interpreted as a success that carried a drawback, or someone would need to be somehow granted an extra action on the spot. Neither was allowed for in the RAW.
So, when play resumed, my attempted action failed and the villain executed the hostage - a central character from the setting, and a major person in the PC's lives.
We played out the session, including the funeral, and despite a heroic effort by the GM we all, GM included, went home feeling quite dissatisfied with how things had gone. And we never played another session of that campaign, or that system, again.
A single dice roll had ended the campaign.
So, for those taking a strict no-fudging policy, who insist that GMs should stick strictly to the rules no matter what: I hold this up as an example of how that can be a bad thing for a campaign.
Nowadays, we'd probably rule that the fumble meant that we saved the hostage, but the roller of the fumble would have suffered a serious injury (as in surgery and hospital time required) in the process. The fumble would still have weight, but in a way not spelled out by the rules. Some people will arguing that this is cheating. My question to this is: "Who, exactly, is having their enjoyment of the game diminished by this?"
You see, I think that the previously-stated definition of cheating is missing a critical component. For me, cheating is an act of deliberately breaking the rules of a game at the expense of another player. Exercising a power of discretion explicitly granted by the rules is not breaking them, and a good GM will use it to enhance his (or her) player's enjoyment of the game, not diminish it.
So yes, I am in favour of a mechanic that grants players a limited ability to overrule the dice. I don't regard it as cheating. I regard it as a necessity to prevent a bad dice roll at a critical moment from derailing an evening's fun. And I firmly believe that any GM/ST/DM/Ref should always be able to override game mechanics.
You see, I've seen what can happen when they don't.
I'd like to present an example of what can happen when everyone goes by the dice, without any discretion whatsoever.
Many years ago, I was in a game (not D&D) inspired by a popular fiction series all the players and the GM were fans of. One aspect we particularly enjoyed was when we interacted with certain characters from the series, as the GM was very good at playing them. He really brought them to life, and kept them to character. We had ties to some of these characters, and one was actually our PCs' day-job employer. ( If she knew of our sideline, she never spoke about it. )
Thus when our characters' employer was kidnapped, they of course went to save her.
At the pivotal, do-or-she-dies moment, I rolled a fumble. The system had a luck point system, but it couldn't turn a fumble into a success - just convert it to a normal failure.
Our GM (No, I don't mean DM - this wasn't D&D) went strictly by the book back in those days. No fudging. No exceptions.
As I said, it was the pivotal moment - we'd all acted that round, the next action was the villain's.
The GM took a break for a few minutes trying to think of an out. We weren't meant to fail. He'd awarded luck points mid-session to ensure we had some up our sleeve, so nothing short of a fumble could have stopped us. Unfortunately the villain's declared action didn't require a dice roll since the hostage was in his hands and unconscious.
In order for us to prevail, either that fumble would need to be somehow re-interpreted as a success that carried a drawback, or someone would need to be somehow granted an extra action on the spot. Neither was allowed for in the RAW.
So, when play resumed, my attempted action failed and the villain executed the hostage - a central character from the setting, and a major person in the PC's lives.
We played out the session, including the funeral, and despite a heroic effort by the GM we all, GM included, went home feeling quite dissatisfied with how things had gone. And we never played another session of that campaign, or that system, again.
A single dice roll had ended the campaign.
So, for those taking a strict no-fudging policy, who insist that GMs should stick strictly to the rules no matter what: I hold this up as an example of how that can be a bad thing for a campaign.
Nowadays, we'd probably rule that the fumble meant that we saved the hostage, but the roller of the fumble would have suffered a serious injury (as in surgery and hospital time required) in the process. The fumble would still have weight, but in a way not spelled out by the rules. Some people will arguing that this is cheating. My question to this is: "Who, exactly, is having their enjoyment of the game diminished by this?"
You see, I think that the previously-stated definition of cheating is missing a critical component. For me, cheating is an act of deliberately breaking the rules of a game at the expense of another player. Exercising a power of discretion explicitly granted by the rules is not breaking them, and a good GM will use it to enhance his (or her) player's enjoyment of the game, not diminish it.
So yes, I am in favour of a mechanic that grants players a limited ability to overrule the dice. I don't regard it as cheating. I regard it as a necessity to prevent a bad dice roll at a critical moment from derailing an evening's fun. And I firmly believe that any GM/ST/DM/Ref should always be able to override game mechanics.
You see, I've seen what can happen when they don't.
Lurker37 said:
If I get the feeling that the DM is fumbling his die rolls and/or finding ways to turn my fumbles into successes it diminishes my enjoyment of the game. It always leaves a kind of bitter "undeserved victory" aftertaste. Of course it's not as bad as having your character die, or a whole campaign end, but it still sucks.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I agree with buzz... rules should not be changed midgame, but sometimes you should be lenient when you are executing them...
if the DM is good, you won´t ever have an undeserved win. My rule as a DM can be described as following:
If the PCs don´t act as complete fools, they won´t die because of a very unlucky roll. If they do, bad luck hits them mercilessly... if they have particular good ideas they may get get some bonuses, which account for their good roleplaying.
Call it cheating or fudging or conditional bonuses of a different sort.
The fumble in the example above could have just hit the unconsciuos employer, and the luck bonus spent could have meant, that the enemy was so surprised, that he lets him go, or is even also hit by the arrow which shot right through the hostage...
and instead of a funeral, you could have brought him to a healer etc...
Jinete said:
if the DM is good, you won´t ever have an undeserved win. My rule as a DM can be described as following:
If the PCs don´t act as complete fools, they won´t die because of a very unlucky roll. If they do, bad luck hits them mercilessly... if they have particular good ideas they may get get some bonuses, which account for their good roleplaying.
Call it cheating or fudging or conditional bonuses of a different sort.
The fumble in the example above could have just hit the unconsciuos employer, and the luck bonus spent could have meant, that the enemy was so surprised, that he lets him go, or is even also hit by the arrow which shot right through the hostage...
and instead of a funeral, you could have brought him to a healer etc...
Similar Threads
