Do you "save" the PCs?

[Umbran]

It is so obviously untrue that one wonders why it continually rears its head as the last, false hope of "fudging" not being a damaging choice for a Game Master to make.

I think I understand why.

In a debate such as this, when one side seems to categorically refuse to accept any argument as valid, the other side will run through every possibility it can think of to find some foothold. They will, eventually, be left with poor alternatives, but they are the only ones left to try.

So, the question isn't why one hears that argument repeatedly. We instead have a pair of questions:

1) Why does one side seem to be refusing all arguments?

2) Why does either side continue to engage in the discussion when loggerheads have been reached?

 

[billd91]

2) Why does either side continue to engage in the discussion when loggerheads have been reached?

That one's easy. In a 1 on 1 conversation, there's no point in continuing. A message board, almost always with a substantial number of participants and lurkers, is not a 1 on 1 conversation. There may be other people who will be convinced by your argument.

 

[Janx]

I think I understand why.

In a debate such as this, when one side seems to categorically refuse to accept any argument as valid, the other side will run through every possibility it can think of to find some foothold. They will, eventually, be left with poor alternatives, but they are the only ones left to try.

So, the question isn't why one hears that argument repeatedly. We instead have a pair of questions:

1) Why does one side seem to be refusing all arguments?

2) Why does either side continue to engage in the discussion when loggerheads have been reached?

Answers to those questions in no particular order or assignment:

because we're stubborn.

because we're not listening

because we're not trying to understand the other side

because we don't want to be wrong

because we want people to do it our way

because nobody can kick out/split the thread to people who derail or get in the way of discussion.

Because even though we don't use X, we still have to jump in on the how to use X thread and talk about how we don't use X

 

[Ariosto]

I wonder if the divide in "yes fudge, or no don't" is also fed by a desire for "realism/simulationism".

Not in my case.

Villains & Vigilantes has falling damage that is IMO way too deadly for the superhero genre. Apart from that, and maybe a handful of powers, though, "accidental" death even of the Norman Schlubs of the world (much less the powered-up PCs) is not going to happen unless you get careless with nuclear bombs -- and even Schlub has a 40-50% chance of surviving the blast from a "small" one.

It's easy to keep characters alive in a comic-book game. It can be even easier than V&V's Power Points. Giving each PC one or more "lives" to spend, basically a way for the player to "fudge" without fudging, is one way to go. Renew those periodically, but let the players know that pressing on without one is playing without a net. (Of course, trademarks in comics are rarely allowed to lapse, and so a good character seldom stays dead!)

The original Dungeons & Dragons was, quite simply, designed to be deadly to low-level characters and to present a risk of "permanent" death even to the most powerful and longest-played. That was just the game, not any kind of universal statement about anything.

I can see "fudging" as part of an approach that comes from seeing the business really as "collaborative improvisational theater" or the like, but that's not where I'm coming from. I don't want the mere appearance of a game, as some sort of aid to story-telling. I just want to sit down and play an actual game. If it's a game about telling a story, then I want the same thing.

If I want my character "saved", then I will take the resources to do it myself, thank you very much!

 

[Fifth Element]

I can see "fudging" as part of an approach that comes from seeing the business really as "collaborative improvisational theater" or the like, but that's not where I'm coming from.

Can you also see it from the "not wanting to be frustrated by a pastime that's supposed to be fun" angle?

 

[Ariosto]

Either you've done a poor job in the setup (as GM) or the player has had a really poor run of luck, or the player has done something phenomenally stupid.

It depends on what game you're playing. In OD&D, none of the above need go any further than giving a monster a chance to make an attack. Sure, it's more likely to kill ya the first time if you're a magic-user with no armor and just one hit point -- but you can get killed just as dead just as quick with plate and shield and six hit points.

Random factors are sometimes, well, random; that's what they are supposed to do. The idea in OD&D is that you take a fresh character and the game goes on.

 

[Ariosto]

Can you also see it from the "not wanting to be frustrated by a pastime that's supposed to be fun" angle?

I can see a lot more easily going for a game I actually consider fun in the first place. That might include one "fixed" with the addition of any one of the many other ways to reduce character mortality without depending on GM fiat.

I mean, it's not as if "critical hits" and other stuff going the other way have to be done that way! People can write down rules, and apply them.

Here's a really, really simple rule:

Your character shall not die unless you consider that fun.

I would call that done and done, but hey -- what matters in your thing is your idea of fun.

 

[Janx]

It is so obviously untrue that one wonders why it continually rears its head as the last, false hope of "fudging" not being a damaging choice for a Game Master to make.

I think the core foundation to your opposition to fudging and "saving" the PCs, is that you think damage is being done.

Whereas, I, and I suspect all of the people I have regularly gamed with do not think any damage is done, let along give it any thought.

Right or wrong, it isn't giving us cancer, making us stupid or lazy, or addicted or impacting or invalidating the results of your game.

We are having fun. Heck, according to Doug's quote, we're playing the way Gary intended (which is nebulous and varying)

That seems good enough

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Can you also see it from the "not wanting to be frustrated by a pastime that's supposed to be fun" angle?

I can't. Because I love baseball, I'll use another baseball analogy here. If I can't strike out, then getting a hit is no fun. Striking out is frustrating, but without the frustrating moments, the exciting moments lose their luster.

 

[Fifth Element]

I can't. Because I love baseball, I'll use another baseball analogy here. If I can't strike out, then getting a hit is no fun. Striking out is frustrating, but without the frustrating moments, the exciting moments lose their luster.

Once again: competitive game, specific set of rules, clear object (score more runs than your opponent). Not in the same ballpark.