Do you "save" the PCs?

[ExploderWizard]

I infer from this experience that whether dying counts as a failure or not - let alone the ultimate failure - is heavily context dependent.

True enough. At times, meaningful victory can be found in death.

It could even involve combat - lots of it - provided that the combat didn't result in PC deaths that are meaningless rather than interesting. To achieve this depends upon either (i) encounter building guidelines that minimise meaningless but life-threatening encounters, or (ii) action resolution mechanics that minimise meaningless PC deaths, or both (or maybe other options I haven't though of)

This is where I disagree.

The excitement that comes from playing adventures as a game rather than a story is basedon not knowing if the eventual outcome will be an epic story about mighty heroes conquering the villian or a tragic tale of a handful of nobodies who got dissolved by green slime while trying to seek their fortunes.

If a game does feature life or death combat within the context of the game world then I see no point in running such combatunless those stakes are meaningful. If only a handful of combats were deemed interesting enough to be considered potentially lethal then I guess I would only run a handful of combats for the entire campaign.
Rolling the dice for combat under any other circumstances is like filming the walk-through. Whats the point?

When Fifth Element and other talk about fudging, I see them as talking about tweaking (ii) - ie the action resolution mechanics - because something has gone wrong with (i) - ie a PC's life turns out to be threatened by a relatively meaningless encounter.

When playing the game, death as a possible result of engaging in combat (any combat) is part of the decision making process that helps define the choice of joining combat as meaningful. If the players are aware that the mechanics and the tweaking will generally see them through the "regular"
combats then how is their decision to engage in the activity meaningful?

If the DM has determined that an encounter is relatively meaningless then why play it out?

I don't think it hurts a game if the participants know that the ultimate outcome will be an awesome story. That is, I don't think the chance of boredom or triviality needs to be on the table in order for the game to be fun. I prefer, both as player and GM, to find out what that story is by helping to create it at the table - if the story is already known in advance, what's the point of playing? I know some people are happy simply to play through a story the GM has already written, but I'm not one of them (and I don't have any interest in GMing in that way either).

This is where understanding other reasons for playing comes in. If the primary purpose of playing is to explore the ongoing story of the adventurers instead of playing the game to determine if there will be a story then the issues being discussed here have no meaning. If telling the story is more fun than playing the game for a given group then have at it.

 

[pawsplay]

Ok, let's expand that a bit. Why is dropping an ancient red wyrm on a 2nd level party a good thing? Well, because it's not fun.

Because it's an abuse of authority. If the GM thought it was funny, and a couple of the players at least snickered, but one player felt cheated out of the promised campaign, I think that one player is entitled to feel poorly used.

Fun is the object; that does not mean that every means of achieving that goal is itself "fun." Whatever the heck fun is, anyway.

Obliterating PC's is no fun for everyone.

I think many people have seen it done. That it's a sign of immaturity does not mean it doesn't happen, people are immature--all of us, if you go back far enough, thought we may not all have the natural talent for spite.

So, basically, the judgement criteria is "What's fun for this table"? If something is not fun, then it's bad.

That is true, but it's not all that is true.

I can totally understand that people might find fudging to be not fun. 100% understand that.

But, since the judgement is "what's fund for this table", then can we really say that fudging is never good for the table? It's not good for your table. It probably isn't good for mine either. But, I'm not about to completely write it off as always bad either.

It's utterly futile to talk about whether a red popsicle is better than a green popsicle, but it's easy to argue that a frozen popsicle is better than a melted popsicle. I do not deny that some people might prefer melted popsicles, or that some people will choose to classify a popsicle at that moment it is eaten. However, I can say without reservation that, for general purposes, a melted popsicle is not as good a popsicle. If someone asked for a good popsicle, I would not recommend a melted one.

EDIT:

Exhibit A:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Melted-Popsicles-are-Better/191836691407

 

[Benimoto]

You may not have the time or the inclination to do so, but as discussed at length earlier in this thread, not having the time or inclination to fix a problem in no way makes not fixing the problem best practice. To quote from earlier in this thread: "I have no time or inclination" may be a reason for suboptimal performance, but that reason doesn't somehow make that performance optimal. Choosing the lesser of two evils is better than choosing the greater, but it is still not as good as choosing no evil at all.

Ultimately though, I'd hope you agree that time and inclination are some of the most important constraints upon DMing. If you fail to view those as valid limits, then you can take the pursuit of optimal GMsmanship to absurd heights. ("Have your notes professionally reviewed by Wizards or Paizo staff." "Develop a playtest group with a psychological profile as similar as possible to your normal gaming group.")

So practically... "find some numbers that sound right, and adjust them during play, preferably with a minimum of disruption to the session" might actually be a best practice.

 

[Nagol]

Because it's an abuse of authority. If the GM thought it was funny, and a couple of the players at least snickered, but one player felt cheated out of the promised campaign, I think that one player is entitled to feel poorly used.

<snip>

The easiest way to control abuse of authority is to have the use of authority audited. That's what happens when the players become aware of DM fiat.

The players become aware of the amount of fiat and its use in the campaign -- saving people, driving tension, whatever.

The players can then give informed feedback as to their preferences for fiat both amount and variation -- something that is not possible when covert fudging occurs.

 

[Benimoto]

If a game does feature life or death combat within the context of the game world then I see no point in running such combat unless those stakes are meaningful. If only a handful of combats were deemed interesting enough to be considered potentially lethal then I guess I would only run a handful of combats for the entire campaign.
Rolling the dice for combat under any other circumstances is like filming the walk-through. Whats the point?

The fact is that Dungeons & Dragons is a game and some people find the mechanics of combat themselves fun. Is it that you don't find any part of D&D fun unless character death is on the line, or is it just combat?

 

[pawsplay]

Ultimately though, I'd hope you agree that time and inclination are some of the most important constraints upon DMing. If you fail to view those as valid limits, then you can take the pursuit of optimal GMsmanship to absurd heights. ("Have your notes professionally reviewed by Wizards or Paizo staff." "Develop a playtest group with a psychological profile as similar as possible to your normal gaming group.")

So practically... "find some numbers that sound right, and adjust them during play, preferably with a minimum of disruption to the session" might actually be a best practice.

Within the limits of time and space, anything might be a best practice. In some theoretical situation, firing a real live pistol at the game table might be optimal, but even if that seemed to be the case, I am not taking responsibility for knowing the future. I think it's hard to go wrong with

1. Be honest, trusting, and trustworthy
2. Trust the process, not the outcome
3. Be content with whatever happens

and pretty easy to go wrong with

1. Presume to know better than your players what is good
2. Rely on your own preferences and prejudices
3. Be dissatisfied with perceived anticlimax

Now, that is not formulaic for not fudging. Some GMs have already chimed in that they rely on empathy with their players, try to provide a good shared experience, and enjoy gaming and story-making even though they may intervene in some areas. Nonetheless, I feel fudging the dice is a move away from the first set of maxims and toward the second. YMMV

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ultimately though, I'd hope you agree that time and inclination are some of the most important constraints upon DMing. If you fail to view those as valid limits, then you can take the pursuit of optimal GMsmanship to absurd heights.

If we are to pursue this line of reasoning, I would suggest that we seperate time and inclination, because they are constraints for different reasons. A DM with a time constraint may well wish to prep better, but be unable to do so. A DM with an inclination constraint may well know that doing X is better, but choose to do Y because it is easier (or whatever).

So practically... "find some numbers that sound right, and adjust them during play, preferably with a minimum of disruption to the session" might actually be a best practice.

If the alternative is absurdist, it might be. In general, though, the alternative is not.

We could also differentiate between "best practice" on a temporary basis, and "best practice" overall. For example, if Racer X was of the opinion that not fudging was best practice overall, then any temporary fudging would, presumably, be a stopgap until the root problem could be cured. If, OTOH, Racer X believed fudging was no problem, any given incidence of fudging is not a stopgap, and the root problems are unlikely to be resolved.

In either case, there is a problem of deception with fudging (again, assuming we are talking about a game and not some other form of recreation), which something like the Fudge Chip Pool were introduced.


RC

EDIT: IMHO & IME. YMMV.

 

[SteveC]

Ok, let's expand that a bit. Why is dropping an ancient red wyrm on a 2nd level party a good thing? Well, because it's not fun. Obliterating PC's is no fun for everyone.

So, basically, the judgement criteria is "What's fun for this table"? If something is not fun, then it's bad.

I can totally understand that people might find fudging to be not fun. 100% understand that.

But, since the judgement is "what's fund for this table", then can we really say that fudging is never good for the table? It's not good for your table. It probably isn't good for mine either. But, I'm not about to completely write it off as always bad either.

For me, this is the crux of the argument: I've played in games that were fudge-heavy, and didn't enjoy them. Does that mean that all fudging is bad? No. Some players don't prefer it in a game, but again, does it make it universally bad? No.

A GM has many tools in their arsenal to make the game more interesting, more entertaining, and more fun. Fudging a die roll is just one of those tools. It also happens to be a tool that a GM who's game I would enjoy might employ every so often.

This sort of attitude works very well in a campaign that's more focused on story, which is the sort of game I've come to enjoy. Suggesting playing an entirely different game because the GM might be called on to fudge a die roll every so often is just silly.

So fudge or don't based on your play-style and the style of the game you're running...and with the right group of players you'll have a good time.

--Steve

 

[Mallus]

The players can then give informed feedback as to their preferences for fiat both amount and variation -- something that is not possible when covert fudging occurs.

This is an excellent point.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Agreed.

I suspect that, in some cases, the objection to a fudge chip pool arises from exactly this.


RC