Do you "save" the PCs?

[Ariosto]

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

Well, if good old D&D --
- contending for possession of treasure with monsters, traps, etc. (and possibly other players)
- specific set of rules
- clear object (score XP)
-- is not in the same ballpark, then neither is pinball or Pac-man. So, obviously both of those (and all other games of the ilk) need some "fudge" to "save" the players.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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

D&D is just as competitive. You compete against the monsters, the traps, and most importantly, yourself, much like other games or sports. The rules are for the most part clear, as is the object (stay alive at the end of the day).

 

[Reynard]

Because you want them to understand how a NORMAL game goes, and experience that, rather than get a completely inaccurate impression of what gaming involves?

If you're playing paranoia or similar, where dying is a major part of a normal session, fudging it is silly. If you're playing D&D, and normally have a death every 20 sessions or so, then fudging it is sensible, because they're going to get the wrong end of the stick otherwise.

I'm not so sure this is a "normal" game. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that if you go 20 "typical" sessions with only 1 character death, your game is atypical. Either it isn't geared toward dangerous adventuring type activity, or the DM avoids difficult challenges or, more likely, you're already fudging (which then makes fudging with a newbie a "normal" session). The dice alone are going to demand a sacrifice every few sessions, IME, if not more often.

Away from the subject of new players, the issue of fudging is always an interesting one because arguments about it inevitably -- and usually quickly -- tackle the question of whether it makes the game less fun for those that were fudged for. But in my OP I specifically was asking the DM, because it is quite possible -- perhaps even more common -- to save the PCs without their knowledge. A few adjustments or changed dice rolls behind the screen and all's well that ends well. Taking the player -- who may be enraged or appreciative, depending on his perspective -- out of the question still leaves the DM.

Also, one other thing I notice having cropped up here and there in this discussion: There's a difference between fudging and house ruling. Ignoring a crit or halving the bad guy's hit points mid combat is fudging; removing crits by "un-named" villains and giving enemies low hit-points-per-die are house rules. In my experience, if one is hoping to achieve a certain style and.or tone of game, judicious use of house rules can nearly eliminate the need for fudging.

 

[Reynard]

D&D is just as competitive. You compete against the monsters, the traps, and most importantly, yourself, much like other games or sports. The rules are for the most part clear, as is the object (stay alive at the end of the day).

More to the point, even if D&D lacks the sort of head-to-head competetiveness of chess or baseball doesn't mean that it is without "victories" or that mastery of the game and its rules can not or do not provide participants -- players and DM alike -- with fun.

 

[pawsplay]

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?

I think some of the problem may be confusing earning respect for your position with earning agreement. I can understand and respect a viewpoint while still disagreeing with it. If, however, you take my disagreement as a sign of disrepect, unproductive arguing ensues, aside from any other complicating issues in the discussion.

 

[pawsplay]

Like Pawsplay, I too started off with characters with a half-life measured in minutes. That's exactly what I took from the experience. It took YEARS before I grew out of that and started actually spending any time engaging in the setting or with NPC's. Again, why should I possibly bother if I'm just going to have to do it all over again a couple of sessions down the line?

I feel it would be worthwhile to state that i'm in the process of wrapping up a 3.5 -> Pathfinder game after four years, playing from level 1 to level 19, involving an epic quest to defeat an eldritch evil. One of the PCs has been with the group since the beginning, and all have a substantial history within the campaign, to say nothing of the thick, thick folder I have of campaign notes. Challenges have ranged from roving packs of fiendish worgs to assaults on powerful dragons to court cases. If you think my philosophy is antithetical to good stories, continuity, or long-lived campaigns, I urge you to set that misconception aside.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, if good old D&D --
- contending for possession of treasure with monsters, traps, etc. (and possibly other players)
- specific set of rules
- clear object (score XP)
-- is not in the same ballpark, then neither is pinball or Pac-man. So, obviously both of those (and all other games of the ilk) need some "fudge" to "save" the players.

Are pinball or Pac-man comparable to baseball? I wouldn't say so. They're more like golf, where you try to beat other people's scores but don't compete directly against them (ie, they can't do anything to prevent you from accomplishing your goal).

But still, nothing like D&D. There is no winner in D&D. The player with the most XP does not win. The other players are not hoping they beat you. It's just not remotely comparable.

D&D is just as competitive. You compete against the monsters, the traps, and most importantly, yourself, much like other games or sports. The rules are for the most part clear, as is the object (stay alive at the end of the day).

The monsters and the traps are 100% imaginary. The object is to have fun, regardless of whether your imaginary PC stays alive or not. It's not an accomplishment to defeat imaginary opponents in your imagination, regardless of whether you use dice to do it or not.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think some of the problem may be confusing earning respect for your position with earning agreement. I can understand and respect a viewpoint while still disagreeing with it. If, however, you take my disagreement as a sign of disrepect, unproductive arguing ensues, aside from any other complicating issues in the discussion.

True. That's probably why I'm still arguing. I perceive several on the "other side" to be stating not only that they do things differently than I do, but that the way I do them is plainly wrong. Even harmful in some way.

Since it's clearly a matter of personal preference, that's plainly disrespectful.

 

[Ariosto]

But still, nothing like D&D. There is no winner in D&D. The player with the most XP does not win. The other players are not hoping they beat you. It's just not remotely comparable.

There is no more a winner in pinball, Pac-man, or any similar solitaire game.
As in those games, players might indeed be hoping to beat you.
Unlike in those games, they might take steps to have their pieces literally beat yours, even to death or worse.

In any case, how on Earth do you imagine this to be an argument for the necessity of "fudging"?

What have you got against, for instance, the rule I proposed that directly answered the problem you expressed?

It's not an accomplishment to defeat imaginary opponents in your imagination, regardless of whether you use dice to do it or not.

Or a joystick, eh? Playing Chess against a computer doesn't count, even if it can beat the world champion? Solving a Chess, Go, Sudoku, crossword, or other puzzle is no accomplishment?

In other words, all of us who take such pleasure in playing a game without "fudging" are "plainly wrong?"

 

[pawsplay]

True. That's probably why I'm still arguing. I perceive several on the "other side" to be stating not only that they do things differently than I do, but that the way I do them is plainly wrong. Even harmful in some way.

Okay, I'm with you here.

Since it's clearly a matter of personal preference, that's plainly disrespectful.

... and this is where you take a long leap I cannot follow. Surely they can think you are wrong, if you are allowed to think you are right.