Do you "save" the PCs?

[Ariosto]

Continuing the concept of rules of engagement, which I think lead up to "will your PCs need saving":

Some basic assumptions of a set of later games, especially of WotC-D&D, look to me prominent here. If one has in the first place given something to the DM to dictate, then of course "with great power comes great responsibility".

In the game I expect to play this weekend, the DM is pretty firmly of that school. Either we follow his "plot line", or he's got no game. When we get into a fight, it's because he has decided that's the next thing on the program.

A lot of stuff makes a sort of sense in that context, provided one accepts the initial premise as to what the DM decides. I think the initial premise is a drag, but not as much as it would be in the other games going -- and I like a break from being DM.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

I used an obvious example to show where you logic was at fault -- nothing more, nothing less. You said (effectively) that one can disprove a generalization via anecdote. I demonstrated that this doesn't follow.

As I asked before, if you are willing to continue to supply anecdotes, please ask your players why they have a preference not to know when you fudge.


RC

 

[Reynard]

If the players want to save the hard-luck PC, it is up to them to do something. It is not up to the GM.

This, a lot. A lot of times, these discussions veer toward the extreme sort of examples that never happen at an actual table. We forget that there are about a half dozen individuals around the table and every one of them has a decision point somewhere in the chain that leads to the "to fudge or not to fudge" choice. (Of course a singular crit or whatever can lead to doom, but to me that's a feature and not a bug, but if it is a big, I think it is better to change the rules of play than to fudge during play.)

If the fight is going poorly for the PCs, they need to act, to change their strategy or suffer the consequences of their decisions. If that means going to support a comrade rather than continue to hammer the BBEG, or to flee to fight another day, or whatever, so be it. It should not be incumbent upon the GM to make sure everyone has a rollicking good time regardless or in spite of whatever decision the players make.. They bear some responsibility for their own fun and the outcome of the game.

 

[Fifth Element]

It should not be incumbent upon the GM to make sure everyone has a rollicking good time regardless or in spite of whatever decision the players make.

Speaking of veering to extremes...

(No one is suggesting this.)

They bear some responsibility for their own fun and the outcome of the game.

Of course they bear some of the responsibility. The DM also bears some. As such there's nothing wrong with the DM using some of his game-given authority to fulfill this responsibility.

 

[Fifth Element]

As I asked before, if you are willing to continue to supply anecdotes, please ask your players why they have a preference not to know when you fudge.

I would suspect it has something to do with breaking their immersion in the game, similar to what would happen if the DM said "oops, can we start again?"

 

[Eloi]

Have any of the characters gotten their hands on some "I really don't want to use this, but.." items, like a little glass sphere that can summon a Demon, if you are willing to "pay his price" afterward? The characters may have all the tools they need to change the situation from hopeless to "survivable, yet more complicated."

Here's how I'd see a situation like this turn from one "We're all gonna die" mode into another "Uh.. maybe not. Maybe." mode, with the GM playing fast and loose:

Monster lair. Major baddie, Jar-Snapper. Party has been fighting him a few rounds, Jar has big nasty friends, and he is demonstrating that he can probably win this one all by himself. Handily. It's clear that something drastic needs to be done.

A conscious PC pulls out (Rent-A-Demon) sphere, says to it, "All right, I need your help, come forth Krexus and fight my foes!"

The earth rumbles. (The GM gets a crazed look in his eye.) A previously less-noticed NPC, one of the uninvolved guards at a further-away tunnel entrance to the lair suddenly goes pale, and yelps,

"No. No! Crap!"

..and bolts away down an unexplored tunnel.

The big baddie is frozen, seeming suddenly shocked and deeply, deeply disturbed. A head suddenly erupts from the side of Jar-Snapper's neck.. a head which is larger than the baddie's. Much larger. The new head's sudden appearance arrests the attention of all the NPCs. (Combat ceases.)

The warty yet horrified face of Krexus, meanwhile, is frantically shaking itself from side to side in the sphere. He half-moans, "I'm not fighting *him*! You're on your own!"- and the sphere shuts down.

How do the conscious characters take advantage of the situation? And later: What exactly happened there?

--and that's just one way a GM can "save" the PCs. Unexpected consequences, holdout items, disturbing new revelations, and opportunities to bluff or run - good times.

But it does rely on the characters to realize when it might be a good time to use the item "they'd rather not." Give the GM something to work with, people. When you have the chance to obtain that new, experimental "Wand of Greater Wonders", do it. Don't sell the Enigma Device.. hang on to it a while. Yes, it sometimes cries at night. Keep it anyway.

And for the love of wonder, doesn't anyone in the party have a maxed out Bluff skill? Preparation needs to meet Opportunity wearing a freshly-pressed suit with a rose in the lapel sometimes, it helps quite a bit.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would suspect it has something to do with breaking their immersion in the game, similar to what would happen if the DM said "oops, can we start again?"

Ask.

 

[Umbran]

I used an obvious example to show where you logic was at fault -- nothing more, nothing less. You said (effectively) that one can disprove a generalization via anecdote. I demonstrated that this doesn't follow.

I feel I addressed that. If pure and honest logic were the only factor, nobody here on either side would be making the generalizations, as they'd admit that their sample size was too small for such.

We are thus already in a realm of less-than-pure logic. In that realm, i think my statements stand pretty well.

As I asked before, if you are willing to continue to supply anecdotes, please ask your players why they have a preference not to know when you fudge.

They already told me.

Most of them feel that such an announcement would serve to break suspension of disbelief, and generally throw a monkey-wrench in dramatic tension.

A couple of them recognize that occasional adjustment on the GM's part should not impact their tactical decisions. The best way to ensure that it doesn't is that they not know the adjustment ever happened.

I should add - I also made my guesses as to what the answers were going to be before I asked the question. All my guesses were spot on. A couple even commented that they thought the question was a bit silly - that if they didn't trust me to deal with GM's stuff, they'd not play with me at all.

 

[Kingreaper]

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!).

If you decided based on actual evidence (ie. you looked at the paths, saw one was more worn, etc.) then I could understand that. The choice should have been meaningful.

But if you're going "Hmmm, I pick a direction at random, and I expect the GM to have decided what's in each direction already"
No.

The choice wasn't meaningful. You might as well have flipped a coin.

Meaningless choices shouldn't be put on that kind of pedestal, above the needs of GM, players, story, and gameplay.

 

[Reynard]

Of course they bear some of the responsibility. The DM also bears some. As such there's nothing wrong with the DM using some of his game-given authority to fulfill this responsibility.

Perhaps true, but that doesn't change the fact that discussions of fudging center almost entirely around the GM making that decision and, more importantly (as is very well evidenced by this thread), bearing the primary responsibility for the outcome of the fudging or lack thereof. My points were simply these:

1) If the rules ask you to fudge too often for your tastes, use different rules. Eliminate crits or save or dies or whatever, or otherwise modify things so that the unexpected TPK or even individual character death cannot occur. I can't for the life of me figure out why one would play with these options on the table if they were not permissible in play.

2) Whatever rules are in play, the Players are responsible for knowing them and using them. If crits are a possibility and the big, raging orc in front has a falcion,PCs aught figure out a way to deal with him that avoids being within swinging distance or accept the possibility one of them is going to get split in twain.