Do you "save" the PCs?

[Raven Crowking]

For simple grind I've always had dice rolling stop at the table with mutual consent. "Guys, the last few aren't going to surrender, but don't pose a real threat. Do you plan on hacking them down? OK. It takes about another 30 seconds, but the last one falls."

Absolutely fine.

I'd amend this to state It is unacceptable to spot those pieces after the first move has occurred without mutual consent and knowledge.

If about 5 moves in, it becomes obvious one person is a grandmaster and the other is not, the granddmaster can offer the reduction and the other can agree if it is acceptable.

It is unacceptable for the master to simply place his pieces into jeopardy and let the other player take them and gain a feeling of unearned accomplishment.

Agreed.

What is the motive for characterizing this as "dishonest"?

Are you telling the players you are changing the die rolls? Or are you declaring the die rolls to be one thing when they are another?

The first is honest; the second is dishonest.

When you come up with a house rule during play, is that dishonest or not? You are changing the rules agreed upon at the outset of the session, or even the rules agreed upon at the outset of the campaign. How is this not "bait and switch"?

Do you change the rules, but tell the players that the rules are as they were? That would be dishonest.

Otherwise, yes, there is an element of "bait & switch". If your new house rule or ad hoc ruling sucks, then the players certainly may say so. Unless you are somehow hiding your new house rules and ad hoc rulings.

To me, the end result is what matters, not how you got there.

Then why not roll the dice in the open, and tell the players when you are going to change the results?

For that matter, why roll the dice at all?


RC

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

Is this fair or not? After all, the GM here has changed the rules to suit the narrative of the game. Is this different from changing the result of a die roll?

To me, the end result is what matters, not how you got there. If spotting me a queen or allowing take backs or whatever, will make things more enjoyable, then by all means do it.

Yes it is difference is one of mutual knowledge and consent. With a house rule, the players have agreed to the change. With fudging, the players has made no such decision.

I would have no objection to fudging if the DM called out what was rolled and then called out his substitution to the result.

I wouldn't do it myself, but I would have no objection to that happening at a table I played at.

I do object to the DM attempting to deceive the players as to the result and his covert editorial control.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, when teaching someone to play chess, I should checkmate them as fast as I possibly can, because this will make them a better player? That helping them out, pointing out possible moves they could make, asking them if they really want to do stuff, and yes, occasionally tossing a piece their way is never a good idea?

Easily answered:

So, when teaching someone to play chess, I should checkmate them as fast as I possibly can, because this will make them a better player?

Bad idea. Remember that "newbie area" mentioned upthread? No one advocates squashing newbs that I know of. This is a strawman.

helping them out

Yes. Good idea.

pointing out possible moves they could make

Yes. Good idea.

asking them if they really want to do stuff

Yes. Good idea. Further, you could point out the consequences of the move.

occasionally tossing a piece their way

No. Bad idea.



RC

 

[Nagol]

So, when teaching someone to play chess, I should checkmate them as fast as I possibly can, because this will make them a better player? That helping them out, pointing out possible moves they could make, asking them if they really want to do stuff, and yes, occasionally tossing a piece their way is never a good idea?

You can point out options for their if you wish, but otherwise correct. I often discuss tactical choices before, during, and after battles with the players out of character and in-character.

If you want to give the other player a chance to win as opposed to simply teaching hem then you should arrange an even playing field prior to starting play -- i.e. spotting the queen and rooks.

 

[Janx]

I'm finding that I adhere to the philosophy that Hussar explains just up-thread in post #329. I'm the one who knows what's fun and challenging, and who knows how to pace a fight, and not my dice. While I prefer to run an encounter as originally planned, I reserve the right to tweak any number of factors on the fly to make the game a good one.

It's a well-prepared game when I enter it with anything more than a half-page outline of what might occur. I definitely don't specify monster placement and quantity ahead of time. RC states his belief that it's fine to adjust monsters in scenario design but not once play starts; I disagree. I don't do scenario design per se and handle most of that on the fly, at the table. I see real advantages to deciding on the fly whether a second wave of monsters enters. I think those advantages - in tension, tactical challenge, and pacing - outweigh any consideration that this wasn't in my original plan for the attack.

But I still don't like fudging dice!

That means I lean far more towards cinematic gameplay than simulationist play, and I'm comfortable with that. I'm very aware that other people find different play-styles more satisfying, but this one works very well for my players and me.

Interestingly, one thing that I've never had any interest in tweaking at all is skill challenges. I allow the players to be creative in skill use and aid another, but I really don't like the idea of fudging dice rolls or DCs. I think the trick there is to always have skill challenges that the PCs can legitimately fail without derailing your plot.

A lot of great points here.

It's easy to say run it like it's writ, when it's written down. When the GM ad libs, it's more nebulous. Furthermore, nobody audits the DM. There's no IGMS to review your GM notes and game logs to determine that you've been running a clean game.

Also, though PC used the phrase "derailing your plot", I don't think he meant that in a railroady kind of way. If the PCs are trying to find the culprit (Prof. Moriarty) and the next skill check they need to make means they can continue the hunt, or they are totally stuck, and can't continue at all ever again on this case, that's a bad challenge design. I think that's what he's saying he tries to avoid. That's not the same as a skill challenge where if they fail, the PCs will have to think of a new approach to continue the case.

It doesn't mean a predetermined ending guided by the GM that the party WILL solve the case, simply that they get lots of opportunities of varying kinds to solve it, or fail to. Not that 1 die roll blocks everything.

This might be another reason to "save the PCs", as being dead is the ultimate dead end (no pun intended).


I also wonder where RC blames "DMs who save PCs" for transitional problems for players who switch games, if it's not a STYLE issue. After all, you don't know if the GM is fudging. But what you do know is the GM rewarded cinematic risk taking (PC's game) and the new game is more simulationist and gritty.

As I said before, I look out for rules and style differences when I meet other groups of players. I'm surprised that other players would be totally blindsided when they join another group.

 

[billd91]

For that matter, why roll the dice at all?

It's not usually about deciding the outcome completely, it's about tweaking it here and there. That's why you'd roll everything but, from time to time, adjust a roll for a better fit of the circumstances and pacing of the situation.

 

[Fifth Element]

My opinion is unchanged.

Harder, easier; both are the GM fudging die rolls to make the encounter resolve in accordance to his wishes.

What do you think about a player fudging die rolls?

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.

You have said that it would be alright for a DM to "start again" if it turns out that his planning was way off of what he intended. I see very little difference between that situation and an on-the-fly adjustment when the dice are being rolled ("fudging"). Certainly not enough of a difference to take it from "okay" to "harmful". I prefer the fudging method, if it's needed, since "starting over" would be far too metagamey for my tastes.

 

[Fifth Element]

For that matter, why roll the dice at all?

Because, (once again with feeling), we're discussing fudging on occasion, when the DM considers is necessary/desirable. No one has suggested that the DM simply decide the results of a battle. You seem to want to debate something that no one has actually said. I would suggest a new thread for that topic, since it's not what's being discussed here.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think the idea is that a GM's power is so easy to abuse, it's a good idea to restrict oneself with some rules, such as "Prepared written material is fixed once the session starts". Lines that even the GM can't cross, for fear of sliding down a slippery slope.

That's a fair comment, but "slippery slope" is generally considered to be a logical fallacy. If you have trust issues with your DM, that's typically not going to be solved by the ruleset.

If you trust your DM to not put you up against beholder liches at 1st level, can you not trust him with making on-the-fly adjustments in battle?

 

[Ariosto]

What do people think about fudging dice to make an encounter harder?

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!"

I do not like it in a house, I do not like it with a mouse.
I do not like it in a tree, being robbed of strategy.
Whether it ends in death or glory, I play to write
My own darned story.