DM Cheating

[rowport]

I don't roll.

My players make all the rolls, so AC and spell DC are now active rolls. Every thing else I simply take 10 and add the '+' adjustment.

So to hit +7, is simply a DC 17 for player to 'defend' against

Warbringer-

I really like this option-- I like the idea of having the players being 'active' for both attack and defense. I might try it in my next turn at the GM seat.

 

[Zimri]

Zimri-

Oh, how will you overcome this dilemma? Wait-- I know! You can just get together around the table and tell campfire stories (compelling ones, natch)! That will save money on buying those pesky dice and rules books! Who needs games statistics, when you have pure imagination and Cheetos? You go, girl!

Because the rules frame the story. They provide the backdrop, and the framework. The skeletal structure if you will. Now skeletons are cool and all but they are quite disinteresting (unless you happen to be a forensic anthropologist and even then just the "odd ones" will be interesting after a while)

Bone needs flesh, flesh needs bone. Besides in campfire stories there is little to no interaction

 

[buzz]

Because the rules frame the story.

But if you're fudging die rolls in order to make a better "story," doesn't that mean that you've already pre-determined how the story will end? Why not just write a novel?

 

[Zimri]

But if you're fudging die rolls in order to make a better "story," doesn't that mean that you've already pre-determined how the story will end? Why not just write a novel?

Because you can never really tell what those Wacky PCs will do. It makes the story interactive, and go off on all sorts of wierd directions. Gotta go wife is dragging me out the door to go bra shopping

 

[buzz]

Because you can never really tell what those Wacky PCs will do.

That's what I love, though! For me, story is the end result, not a plan I use to guide play.

Enjoy the bra shopping.

 

[rowport]

Because the rules frame the story. They provide the backdrop, and the framework. The skeletal structure if you will. Now skeletons are cool and all but they are quite disinteresting (unless you happen to be a forensic anthropologist and even then just the "odd ones" will be interesting after a while)

Bone needs flesh, flesh needs bone. Besides in campfire stories there is little to no interaction

There seems to be two different thoughts here.

You seem to be saying that one-way storytelling (e.g. my wink/nod example of campfire stories) is not a good result, since it is not interactive. Your follow-up post to buzz about 'not knowing where the PCs might go' also implies that. I agree with you completely-- that sort of GM-driven game is not fun from my POV, since it really makes the players redundant.

But, you also seem to be saying that "rules frame the story" but imply that the story should overrule (heh) the rules when they get in the way. But, I would ask, what are the rules really getting in the way of achieving? If the GM has a predetermined outcome that he expects to see and bends or breaks the rules to ensure that outcome, that really bugs me, but I can understand it in the context of telling the GM's story (i.e. railroading). Since you acknowledge that the players have a part in dicatating events, then why not also let fate/chance (via dice rolls) dictate outcomes? If the GM does not know the predetermined outcomes since the players might go in unexpected directions, then would the game not be more interesting for everybody (including the GM) with the randomness of dice rolls added?

Put a different way: why avoid dice and rules in favor of "the story", if the story is not already written? And, if it is already written, then why play a role-playing game at all?

 

[Zimri]

There seems to be two different thoughts here.

You seem to be saying that one-way storytelling (e.g. my wink/nod example of campfire stories) is not a good result, since it is not interactive. Your follow-up post to buzz about 'not knowing where the PCs might go' also implies that. I agree with you completely-- that sort of GM-driven game is not fun from my POV, since it really makes the players redundant.

But, you also seem to be saying that "rules frame the story" but imply that the story should overrule (heh) the rules when they get in the way. But, I would ask, what are the rules really getting in the way of achieving? If the GM has a predetermined outcome that he expects to see and bends or breaks the rules to ensure that outcome, that really bugs me, but I can understand it in the context of telling the GM's story (i.e. railroading). Since you acknowledge that the players have a part in dicatating events, then why not also let fate/chance (via dice rolls) dictate outcomes? If the GM does not know the predetermined outcomes since the players might go in unexpected directions, then would the game not be more interesting for everybody (including the GM) with the randomness of dice rolls added?

Put a different way: why avoid dice and rules in favor of "the story", if the story is not already written? And, if it is already written, then why play a role-playing game at all?

Okay see this post I like because it seems like we are leaving the trenches a tad.

No everything isn't pre-determined. Yes bad things will happen to the characters as will good things. The characters will do some brilliant things, and perform some really bonehead moves. These and other things will determine HOW they get to the end, and how they grow and change on the way there. We play heroes. What fun is it if we all get cdg'd while sleeping, or if a wave/turbulence pushes us to our watery , or splattery demise.

As buzz has mentioned we seem to be playing two totally different style of games (and that is okay) using the same system. You appear (and please correct me if I am wrong) to be playing a more battle driven, statistical, war-gamey kind of thing where death happens alot and new characters are easily swapped in, have likely been pre-gened (by the player or game master) and have no real attachment.

I tend to play and run more story driven arcs, and make unique characters I put alot of time into the personality of, and backstory for. I want to see them grow and change from the concept I started off with. Each of them have a motivating factor and inner conflicts I want to see them resolve.

Death by BBEG, sacrifice to save someone, being dominated and sabotaging the party, Exiled for doing the rigth (or stupid) thing, jumping into a pilar of flame in occipitus, etcetera all great and noble ways to go, heck even swimming into the belly of a dire shark trying to rescue a warforged wasn't so bad. Death by random orc36520 or trap25642 doesn't seem like something that should happen to a "hero"

 

[rowport]

Okay see this post I like because it seems like we are leaving the trenches a tad.

Cool. I moved from kinda snarky (but kidding-- seriousy!) into seeing where you were coming from.

No everything isn't pre-determined. Yes bad things will happen to the characters as will good things. The characters will do some brilliant things, and perform some really bonehead moves. These and other things will determine HOW they get to the end, and how they grow and change on the way there. We play heroes. What fun is it if we all get cdg'd while sleeping, or if a wave/turbulence pushes us to our watery , or splattery demise.

...
I tend to play and run more story driven arcs, and make unique characters I put alot of time into the personality of, and backstory for. ...

Death by BBEG, sacrifice to save someone, being dominated and sabotaging the party, Exiled for doing the rigth (or stupid) thing, jumping into a pilar of flame in occipitus, etcetera all great and noble ways to go, heck even swimming into the belly of a dire shark trying to rescue a warforged wasn't so bad. Death by random orc36520 or trap25642 doesn't seem like something that should happen to a "hero"

I hear you. I was equating 'fudging out of bad stuff' to 'cheating out of *all* bad stuff', and could not see the point. You are not saying to avoid all bad dice rolls for the party-- just the ones that seem to diminish them. I still would not agree, but would certainly be more sympathic to that POV. And, you are dead-on correct that...

As buzz has mentioned we seem to be playing two totally different style of games (and that is okay) using the same system. You appear (and please correct me if I am wrong) to be playing a more battle driven, statistical, war-gamey kind of thing where death happens alot and new characters are easily swapped in, have likely been pre-gened (by the player or game master) and have no real attachment.

Yup! I do like to write elaborate backstories, too, but since I enjoy creating new ones all the time, I still have no real sense of loss-- more of a "cool, I get to try that new idea I wanted to play".

Cool conversation-- thanks!

 

[buzz]

As buzz has mentioned we seem to be playing two totally different style of games (and that is okay) using the same system.

Yup, and that's cool. I would probably use a different system for the kind of play you prefer, but if D&D is workin' for you and your group, then rock on.

 

[Zimri]

Yup, and that's cool. I would probably use a different system for the kind of play you prefer, but if D&D is workin' for you and your group, then rock on.

DnD is working just fine for us ... with an occasional nudge here and there to keep the train on the track we happen to prefer. I mentioned picking up Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and one player looked at me and groaned about it being a "victim" campaign. Said something about it not being a question of if but rather a matter of when you go insane/get possessed/ become part of the mist / die.

Now that is a little more hand wringing than I would do over it. If I know going in madness is inevitable then the fun part (for me) would be the journey down the dark spiral. But if everyone wouldn't have fun with it .... no room at the table. Though I may still try to convince them.