Do you "save" the PCs?

[Fifth Element]

How about these apples - because they asked me not to tell them!

I kid you not. Because of these discussions, I explicitly asked my players if they want me to fudge or not. Nine out of nine questioned said they didn't mind if I fudged. All also stated a preference to not know if/when I fudged.

I'm quite sure my players are the same way. I've never said that I think my players don't know that fudging goes on - I'm 100% sure they do know. And yet, not one has ever complained about it.

 

[Janx]

Well, if I were a player in a game, and I used my in-game resources (divination, etc.) to learn about the setting, I wouldn't expect "GM Authority" to prevent me from doing so, either.

If I decided my character would go left, and the GM just decided to move whatever was to the right to the left, I would be a bit miffed were I to discover it (and if I went back, and tried to go right, there is some chance that I would!).

DM authority can also decide to have the Tarrasque teleported in to face 1st level PCs, but that doesn't make it a good idea.


RC

I think what's really being debated, are the GM's Rules of Engagement.

What is the DM allowed to do to craft an encounter, run an encounter?

What is the DM allowed to do to craft a story/create situations?


For me, when RC and others are wary of the GM influencing the outcome, I think that's inherent by virtue of there being a GM. Furthermore, I think it is Player Entitlement to assume that the players have more right to the outcome than the GM (fine line in there). Since the GM made the cake, he gets to decide the flavor, frosting, and who gets to have a slice. Don't like it, find a new GM. if it's bad cake, the GM won't have any takers. Unless you are paying the GM, players don't get control over what the GM does, because the player is not the boss.

The corollary to that is, the GM can't ram cake down the player's throats. And players won't eat another bite if it tastes bad. And players can certainly suggest and influence the GM to make a certain kind of cake, or size of serving.

So if I want to make cake that I can share with my friends, and my friends apparently have different tastes than RC's, what are the rules of engagement should I use?

 

[Raven Crowking]

How about these apples - because they asked me not to tell them!

I kid you not. Because of these discussions, I explicitly asked my players if they want me to fudge or not. Nine out of nine questioned said they didn't mind if I fudged. All also stated a preference to not know if/when I fudged.

Excellent.

If you are willing to continue to supply anecdotes, please ask them why they have a preference not to know.


RC

 

[Piratecat]

As Hussar said, the DM has authority over the game. You have drawn a firm line between the application of this authority in setting up the game (which you say is perfectly fine), and the application of this authority when the dice are being rolled (which you say is not only wrong, but harmful). I see no such clear line; it's pure fabrication.

This, in my mind, is the difference between playing with a DM and playing a computer game. If my DM didn't take into account good or bad party performance and tactics when running an encounter, in the long run I probably wouldn't consider them a DM I wanted to play with. I want accidentally easy encounters toughened up a bit, and I don't want a boring fight because the DM accidentally chose insubstantial, weakening creatures when he laid out the encounter three days ago.

 

[Janx]

The problem is that "natural target" is very subjective. There are any number of reasons a monster might switch targets - another PC being a greater threat, another PC attacking is more recently, etc. This seems to go back to the "DM purely as neutral arbiter" argument, which I think is flawed because the DM has so much subjective authority (such as complete control over monster actions) as to make it an impossible goal.

This is one of the reasons why I feel that what happens in the game is an illusion, and the GM is inherently biasing the game. Assuming perfectly balanced encounter, and open die rolling, I stiill get to make up what the monsters do.

And if that's the case, how do we trust what I decide the monsters do is fair?

What are some rules of engagement for running an encounter that some people seem to have?

 

[Umbran]

Driving through the red light is a bad idea. That is a generalization. It is also true that you might run through the red light without getting caught, hitting a pedestrian, or striking another vehicle. I would go so far as to say that this happens very, very often. But it in no way disproved the general claim. Driving through the red light is still a bad idea.

Wow. And you were complaining about people bringing up weak points? Do you imagine that if I break this generalization in my game, one of my players driven mad with despair will suddenly go careening through your session with a knife?

Please, find a more reasonable analogy, or describe to me how likening a fudged die roll to a situation where the risk is of death or horrible mutilating bodily injury is anything other than bald hyperbole.

"The logic is the same" is a defense valid on the planet Vulcan - a planet on which we do not currently sit. To a reasonable person, levels of proof required should be in line with the risk involved. The proof required to reject the red-light generalization needs to be proof we are willing to bet lives on. The proof required to reject the fudging is bad generalization needs to be enough to bet... what? That someone in someone else's game might have a bit less of a fun time?

If I may add - there are some decent solid statistics in place about the correlation between running traffic lights and traffic accidents. That's a basis for a risk assessment leading to a generalization. In this debate, I'm betting you've got nothing better than your own assertions and anecdotal evidence - the same thing as your opponents. So how is your risk assessment any better than theirs?

My point is this - If you want to stolidly take your own personal assessment over that of others, that's your choice, and I'll defend your right to make it for yourself. But if you do it publicly, preachily and repeatedly to their faces, don't expect them to feel like you respect them when you do it.

By the way, I only address this to RC because he stepped up as the example at hand. It goes for lots of others - both sides of the edition wars, and any other "game style wars" running around among them.

 

[Piratecat]

As in, "Oh, I didn't realize that sleep could take out this monster, so guess what? Your one spell, which I gave you, doesn't work!"

As in, "I can't believe you took out so many so quickly. Well, guess what? They're, uh, fanatics who never check morale. That's the ticket. Same with the horde of reinforcements that suddenly appears!"

No. Both of those smack of punishing the PCs for being successful, and I don't like that. I want the PCs to win, and I want them to be heroic.

Whether it ends in death or glory, I play to write
My own darned story.

This? This I absolutely understand and agree with.

Problem is, it's not really your own story. It's the story of everyone who is playing. If the DM can make your story cooler by giving you more opportunities to be heroic, or by making the fight more tactically interesting, I have trouble seeing that as a bad thing. (Assuming you trust your DM; if you don't, and I've definitely had some like that, all bets are off.)

Why??

I mean, why are they sticking around?

What ever happened to role-playing?

Well, the last time this happened to me we were fighting ambulatory plants; not great tacticians, and they suck at diplomacy. Your point is a good one, though. My PCs used intimidate just this week to shut down a battle early after they took out the leader of their foes.

 

[Ariosto]

If I wanted a DM to fudge, then I probably would not want to get told about it. As it is something that I do not appreciate, having it above the board merely takes away some of the sting. I can easily see where in fact I have played well or poorly, and when minor tactics are all the choices I've got left that means a lot to me.

However, in that case I am already at a remove from role-playing, having to act in "meta-game" constraints for the sake of the "plot line".

If I happened to like the arrangement, then I would not want to add such a distraction as the DM drawing attention to "fudging". Heck, I would probably prefer that all the DM's rolls be hidden, to minimize the chances of noticing.

I am not big on spending "joss factors" or the like, either -- but that is especially true in D&D, because that's not what D&D has ever meant to me. It's not what I want when I want D&D, any more than playing a planter in Puerto Rico would be what I want when I get a hankering to play Rail Baron.

The "karma" rules are a key part of Marvel Super Heroes, though. Moreover, I can't help but be a bit less "in the shoes of" a crime-smashing crusader in tights in a world of comic-book physics and identities kept secret by wearing glasses. I guess I play it more like She-Hulk than like The Watchmen.

 

[Nagol]

How about these apples - because they asked me not to tell them!

I kid you not. Because of these discussions, I explicitly asked my players if they want me to fudge or not. Nine out of nine questioned said they didn't mind if I fudged. All also stated a preference to not know if/when I fudged.

That is an excellent reason. Kudos for asking.

 

[Ariosto]

Problem is, it's not really your own story. It's the story of everyone who is playing. If the DM can make your story cooler by giving you more opportunities to be heroic, or by making the fight more tactically interesting, I have trouble seeing that as a bad thing. (Assuming you trust your DM; if you don't, and I've definitely had some like that, all bets are off.)

In that doggerel, I was not saying "story" with a straight face. It's a game. I don't want the GM pulling that stuff in Diplomacy, or in a Napoleonic miniatures campaign -- and it's no different in D&D.

A DM earns my trust by not pulling stuff like that.