D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[robus]

To turn a question back on you: Why is it you seem to think that an opposition to fudging means putting a collar on GM creativity? Surely deceptive practices are far from the only tool in the GM toolbox. Indeed, I would hope that such a tool (as nearly everyone agrees, even very pro-fudging folks) would be used very sparingly if it is used at all. And if it is used so rarely, then opposing it can't be that much of an imposition on the creative GM. This isn't telling someone to paint without using any form of blue; it's telling someone not to use fluorescent yellow-green, a color that would rarely be needed and where its absence can be worked around without losing much of anything.

I guess I don't understand why my coming up with something 5 hours ago or 5 seconds ago makes any difference. For me this is a very fuzzy game where the adventure is the thing that is most important to sustain and by adventure I don't mean "my story" I mean the fun being had at the table. The players understand that everything that's happening on my side of the table in this session is coming out of my head. There is no underlying reality. At any moment I can just TPK the party after all.

 

[robus]

The challenge with telegraphing difficulty is that difficulty starts changing the moment the players make meaningful decisions and the dice start rolling. I think it's better to telegraph specific things the enemy can do rather than just say "tough" or "pushover" or whatever. Let the players decide if they find those things to be potentially difficult. For myself, I do not hold to any expectation that a fight should be one way or another. It is what it is and however it turns out is just how the story goes. So I really have no incentive at all to mess about with stats midstream.

Sure and you're a very experienced DM. I was fudging the HP as I tried to figure how to get the game to perform at the expected level for my table and I guess I wasn't willing to let a disappointing encounter (and potential climax to a chapter) just fail to deliver due to my lack of experience/skill.

Perhaps my table was just more interested in the "drama" of the moment than the combat minutiae?

 

[iserith]

Sure and you're a very experienced DM. I was fudging the HP as I tried to figure how to get the game to perform at the expected level for my table and I guess I wasn't willing to let a disappointing encounter (and potential climax to a chapter) just fail to deliver due to my lack of experience/skill.

Perhaps my table was just more interested in the "drama" of the moment than the combat minutiae?

I guess what I don't share is why it is necessarily a "disappointing encounter." My experience is that the players never seem to mind that they smashed some villain or another to bits easily.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sure and you're a very experienced DM. I was fudging the HP as I tried to figure how to get the game to perform at the expected level for my table and I guess I wasn't willing to let a disappointing encounter (and potential climax to a chapter) just fail to deliver due to my lack of experience/skill.

Perhaps my table was just more interested in the "drama" of the moment than the combat minutiae?

I used to fudge HP a bit too. But I've since stopped - and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this is notably since the health bar is showing on our VTT which we started using around, oh, March 2020.

This actually has helped me realize a few things:
1. worrying about "balance" in combat is a waste of my energy... sometimes the foes will be really tough, sometimes they will be pushovers, sometimes they'll be more or less evenly matched. That makes for a more "living" world.
2. regardless of tough/even/easy, enemies should always have a goal which is where the real prep comes in. Morale rules are good here, too.
3. chase rules exist for a reason... and, as in 2 above, not every enemy will pursue if it isn't part of their goal.

 

[soviet]

I guess what I don't share is why it is necessarily a "disappointing encounter." My experience is that the players never seem to mind that they smashed some villain or another to bits easily.

Yeah. This is the difference I'm seeing in the thread:

Most of us think it's the GM's job to create hopefully exciting encounters.
Some of us also think that it's the GM's job to stage manage those encounters to make sure they actually are exciting.
Some of us prefer to just let it play out, even if that means an anticlimax, a draw, a TPK, a turn one victory, whatever.

 

[pointofyou]

Yeah. This is the difference I'm seeing in the thread:

Most of us think it's the GM's job to create hopefully exciting encounters.
Some of us also think that it's the GM's job to stage manage those encounters to make sure they actually are exciting.
Some of us prefer to just let it play out, even if that means an anticlimax, a draw, a TPK, a turn one victory, whatever.

And some of us have a sense that if we overtune an encounter in ways the PCs can't prepare for then we should maybe adjust something somewhere. My own preference is for dubious-but-defensible tactics because my experience is that if you give the PCs a chance they'll figure something out.

 

[robus]

I used to fudge HP a bit too. But I've since stopped - and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this is notably since the health bar is showing on our VTT which we started using around, oh, March 2020.

I used to as well until I figured out the problem was the HP was just way to low So it's not like I'm saying this is how I play. I'm just saying that I don't see the harm in tweaking things on the fly as you're learning how to dial in the right challenge level for your table.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah. This is the difference I'm seeing in the thread:

Most of us think it's the GM's job to create hopefully exciting encounters.
Some of us also think that it's the GM's job to stage manage those encounters to make sure they actually are exciting.
Some of us prefer to just let it play out, even if that means an anticlimax, a draw, a TPK, a turn one victory, whatever.

I stopped worrying long ago if the players stomp all over my carefully (or not) planned encounters. They're going to do it sometimes. It's only ever an issue if I screwed up and I'm about to kill all the PCs (assuming it wasn't their fault) or if there has been a string of too-easy encounters.

 

[robus]

Yeah. This is the difference I'm seeing in the thread:

Most of us think it's the GM's job to create hopefully exciting encounters.
Some of us also think that it's the GM's job to stage manage those encounters to make sure they actually are exciting.
Some of us prefer to just let it play out, even if that means an anticlimax, a draw, a TPK, a turn one victory, whatever.

Yeah I guess my table made their disappointment very clear when a boss encounter was an anticlimax.

 

[robus]

I guess what I don't share is why it is necessarily a "disappointing encounter." My experience is that the players never seem to mind that they smashed some villain or another to bits easily.

It's my understanding (and I may be wrong, so apologies in advance!) that you run very much beer & pretzels type of games (most of which don't run for very long?) So I can understand your not really worrying too much about the dramatic weight of a particular encounter, there'll be another one around the corner after all?