Do you "save" the PCs?

[Fifth Element]

It therefore follows that (1) you are probably the best DM in your group, and (2) that you are probably the one who enjoys DMing most.

Probably, on both counts.

It does not therefore follow that your game is the best that it could possibly be.

Not in argument. My point was that if my players don't actually enjoy my fudging, they have ample recourse to other DMs. Which is silly, of course, because it's because they prefer it that I do it.

(Aside: You keep going on with that "about a game of make-believe" stuff. Sure, it's a game of make believe. All games are make-believe.

Not in the sense that I mean it. You posited before that baseball is make-believe, which means you are not using the term in the way that I am. Baseball is not make-believe, becuase things actually happen. Real people throw the ball and hit the ball and run. Chess is not make-believe, because things actually happen. It's a very abstract real thing, but things actually happen according to the rules of the game. Pieces are moved and captured, etc according to the strict rules of the game.

In RPGs, things only happen in your imagination. Things happen only because the DM or the players say they do.

 

[Fifth Element]

So, (a) your players know you fudge, (b) you sometimes fudge to save a PC and other times don't do so, and (c) it's possible for that to happen so that it corresponds with whomever the DM likes more that night? Right?

In theory, yes. Correspondence not implying causattion, of course. My wife is one of my players. She complains that I don't fudge for her enough, even though I do like her best.

If, to keep a PC from dying, you have a choice of:

(1) Having it attack another target or otherwise do something less dangerous to the threatened PC, or,

(2) Roll and ignore any result that would kill the PC ...

... which would you prefer to do? If you have a preference, why?

If those are my only choices, I don't think I have a preference. I prefer to be mindful of the combat as a whole, to catch problems when they crop up rather than waiting for it to be a live-or-die decision.

And you choose to do this in the seconds after you roll the die and the result is undesirable, right?

No. If I were going to fudge a die roll, I would think before rolling the die "if this result comes up, I'll change it to that."

Would it be possible to read the players and gauge their reactions to a potential PC death in the seconds before rolling the die? If not, why not? If so, why do you choose to wait until after?

It's never possible to really know how the players will react, but if they're really into the battle and it's intense, then a PC death will go over much better than if they consider the fight unimportant or uninteresting.

 

[Rekka360]

Save the PCs? Yes and No.

If it is possible that the foes in question might actually be interested in taking prisoners, then yeah, I might...I think that can put a twist on the narrative and it allows the campaign to continue and it puts me on my toes to be inventive and adapt to this new thing.

Being a DM to me isn't just me writing up what's going to happen and then playing it out, I think it needs to be a living process that the players can affect.

That being said, if everyone came to negative hp and wasn't actually dead yet, then they could be taken prisoner. If one person in the party was dead dead, then that's it, others might be locked up but he's gone. Plus being captured might end up being a fate worse than death.

Torture, maybe getting used in an evil wizards experiment? Hope your god doesn't hate undead things if you got taken by a cabal of vampires. I think the idea of players losing a fight opens up a lot of possibilities for taking the campaign in a new direction.

Sometimes though, you need a TPK to keep the players keen to the idea that things don't always work out.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

No. If I were going to fudge a die roll, I would think before rolling the die "if this result comes up, I'll change it to that."

That's not fudging. You and I win the thread.

 

[Fifth Element]

That's not fudging. You and I win the thread.

Yay team!

 

[Raven Crowking]

My point was that if my players don't actually enjoy my fudging, they have ample recourse to other DMs. Which is silly, of course, because it's because they prefer it that I do it.

Imagine, if you would, that there are 3 potential DMs. On a scale of 1 to 10, they are ranked 4, 5, and 8. The "8" DM has an annoying habit that prevents him from being a "9" or "10".

Wise players choose "8", even if they dislike the annoying habit, because "8" is still better than "4" or "5".

That your players continually choose you indicates that you are the best choice among the choices they have. That is a good accomplishment. Probably the best any of us can hope to attain.

It does not mean that property X of your DMing is what they want.

In RPGs, things only happen in your imagination. Things happen only because the DM or the players say they do.

No. Things actually happen. Real people roll real dice. Real marks get put on real character sheets. Real rulebooks are used to resolve real decisions made by real people. Things actually happen according to the rules of the game. Real minis might be used on a real battlemat.

There is no difference.


RC

 

[Jeff Wilder]

There is no difference [between baseball and an RPG].

Except that one is way more worthwhile and interesting than the other, of course.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Except that one is way more worthwhile and interesting than the other, of course.

Of course!

 

[billd91]

No. Things actually happen. Real people roll real dice. Real marks get put on real character sheets. Real rulebooks are used to resolve real decisions made by real people. Things actually happen according to the rules of the game. Real minis might be used on a real battlemat.

There is no difference.

There is most definitely a difference. Real people are involved and real dice may be used (though not in games like Amber) and other real tools may be used but the process is really different, particularly in the participation of an arbitrator who adjudicates the results of player decisions, in the nature of the game's interactions, in the relatively boundless environment, and in the product of the game itself.

The games (all games) themselves may fit along intersecting continua of structure and scope and be measurable against each other, but that doesn't mean we can really treat them as not being different when it comes to being "make-believe" or not. I'd be particularly careful to point out that just because what a sportsman does is fairly arbitrary as a test of relative skill (hitting a fast ball and running bases), that doesn't make it make-believe in the way that an RPG is make believe. Nor does pushing real tokens around a megamat as placeholders for avatars for players conform to the same reality as picking offensive plays on a football field.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Imagine, if you would, that there are 3 potential DMs. On a scale of 1 to 10, they are ranked 4, 5, and 8. The "8" DM has an annoying habit that prevents him from being a "9" or "10".

Wise players choose "8", even if they dislike the annoying habit, because "8" is still better than "4" or "5".

That your players continually choose you indicates that you are the best choice among the choices they have. That is a good accomplishment. Probably the best any of us can hope to attain.

It does not mean that property X of your DMing is what they want.

RC

I don't think we have enough information to make that call. Based on this thread and numerous others I can easily believe that there are groups out there who prefer storytelling to the more gamist aspects of play. These folks might have different reasons for playing than we do (other than generally to have fun of course)