Do you "save" the PCs?

[Fifth Element]

So I can make you an abuser by deciding I don't like your behavior?

No, this means that "abuse" in this case is completely subjective. Using the term "abuse" at all here is a bit sketchy, because the DM's authority only exists in an imaginary world.

It does not intend entirely on the group preferences. It depends substantially, but it also depends on what the group's best interests are, whether they understand them or not, and also on what is real.

What do you mean by a group's "best interests"?

If the group likes it, then it's not abusing them. If the group likes it, but they introduce a new player who finds something abusive, then it can be called into question whether the behavior is abusive.

Because that's effectively a new group. As I said, arriving at a group consensus as to what is and is not abuse can be complicated and needs to consider everyone in the group.

That's a facile response. The fact is, such a fight is going to be fun only as a vicarious exercise in absurd destruction.

Possibly, but if that's what the players really want then the DM should do it. If that's how the players want to have fun, it would be a bad idea to force some other form of play on them.

It is an abuse of authority, unless the GM is prepared to follow through with what was promised. If I did this as a practical joke, very well, but it falls on me then to be funny, and probably also to supply the game or an acceptable equivalent at some point. It is always an abuse in a (presumably) serious game, period, because it's non-serious.

There's the presumption. And that does explain your objection. So to further the point, whether or not something is abusive depends on the group's preferences and the particulars of the game they're playing at the time.

My point was that it is not inherently abusive, because there are situations where the players would desire it. If they have a reason to not desire it (such as it being a serious game), then it can be called abusive. But that doesn't change my point, because that falls under the umbrella of a group's preferences.

 

[pemerton]

But why do you need PC death in order for a campaign to be considered a game? This is the part I don't get. If loss conditions exist along side victory conditions, and you play in order to determine the outcome --ie opposed to having a predetermined outcome-- then it's a game, right?

This is the part I have been curious about also.

Quite correct. Victory and loss conditions that are known to the participants along with a chance of either being achieved through play is enough to have a game. No one dies in Monopoly but it is still a game.

This can be the case even in a game that features combat but which doesn't really put death on the table. Because even though in the typical fight loss and victory conditions for the PCs might be death/survival, for the players it can be something else altogether (as per my samurai/monk example upthread).

 

[pawsplay]

My point was that it is not inherently abusive, because there are situations where the players would desire it. If they have a reason to not desire it (such as it being a serious game), then it can be called abusive. But that doesn't change my point, because that falls under the umbrella of a group's preferences.

But I didn't claim it was inherently abusive. I just said abuse would occur if something was inflicted on someone that they have a legitimate objection to based on the game format.

Again, discharging a firearm during a game isn't inherently absuve or wrong, it just immediately becomes wrong every time it's done because of the consequences.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This can be the case even in a game that features combat but which doesn't really put death on the table. Because even though in the typical fight loss and victory conditions for the PCs might be death/survival, for the players it can be something else altogether (as per my samurai/monk example upthread).

Umm. Of course it will be something else for the players unless they have to die along with the character. That's harsh.

Death doesn't have to be a possible consequence of failure as long as the players are aware of this. Losing is losing, not dying. It would be very clear and not the least bit dishonest at all.

Trying to make the players believe that character death could result when in reality they are protected from such a fate is where the dishonesty creeps in.

 

[Hussar]

Agreed.

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


RC

Umm, who's objecting to a fudge chip pool? It's a good idea. I would say that if your fudge chip pool has 50 or 100 chips in it, and they all get used in three sessions, you may want to examine why you're having to over rule the mechanics so often, but, the basic premise is perfectly sound.

In fact, that's why I rather prefer player fudging mechanics - Action points and the like. Makes an excellent balancing mechanic and keeps everyone involved.

That doesn't make DM fiat rulings always bad though.

/snip


EDIT: If anything is being "attacked" in this thread, it is the right to use critical thinking, or to hold a viewpoint that includes any form of valuation.


RC

Pssst. Earlier upthread you asked for an example where you were being dismissive of anyone who disagreed with you? Here's one. You're basically saying that everyone who disagrees with you is no longer using critical thinking or is capabable of giving valuation to an idea. Whether you put an IMO in front or not, that's pretty damn dismissive.

-----------------

Been thinking a bit on the idea of player fudging. I don't like it, but I wasn't sure how to articulate why. Then it came to me. Excuse me a moment while I go into gaming story land.

When I ran the World's Largest Dungeon, one of the features of the WLD is a LOT of traps. And very, very lethal traps at that. So, the party rogue was kitted up the wazoo to deal with this.

So fine, he wanders along, trips a massive damage AoE trap. Boom. He sees the damage roll and the DC for his Ref save. Makes his save, and takes no damage due to his improved uncanny dodge. It's a resetting trap, so, he figures he's going to disarm it.

In the process, he discovers three things:

1. He can only fail his save on a 1.
2. The trap will do enough damage on average to kill him outright.
3. The DC of disarming the trap is quite high and he needs about a 16 to disarm it and will trip it every time he rolls 12 or less.

Player proceeds to try to disarm anyway. Fails. Fails. Fails, boom, makes save. Boom, makes save. Fails. Boom... rolls a 1, and dies.

Now, here I would 100% never think to fudge any of this. Why? Because the player has all the information. It's an unusual situation, but, at this point in time, the player has all the facts in hand and chooses to gamble anyway.

((That and the death was just uproariously funny to boot ))

But, bring this back around to player fudging. Very few times do the PC's actually have all the facts on hand. Unlike the DM, who does, they have no real idea of what comes next if they fail. They might die, they might get captured, anything might happen. And players trust their DM (or should anyway) to provide a scenario which everyone will enjoy.

If the player over rules the dice by fiat, he does so with imperfect knowledge most of the time, and it would be very difficult, without the DM actually handing the player his notes, for the player to ever be in possession of more than a fraction of the information. Thus, the player's judgment of the situation is based on limited information.

IMO, not enough to make that sort of judgment call.

I do love the idea of Action point style mechanics though. They make me happy. Because they're limited beforehand, you can apply them without having full knowledge. And, again, they make great balancing mechanics as well - see something like the Buffy RPG.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Pssst. Earlier upthread you asked for an example where you were being dismissive of anyone who disagreed with you? Here's one. You're basically saying that everyone who disagrees with you is no longer using critical thinking or is capabable of giving valuation to an idea. Whether you put an IMO in front or not, that's pretty damn dismissive.

Not at all. That was not meant to paint with a broad brush, and I am sorry you read it that way.

All sorts of people are contributing to the conversation, on both sides, with interesting and thought-provoking material. I've said as much, upthread. There are only one or two people who are, AFAICT and IMHO, "attacking" anything in this thread, and they are specifically attacking reasoned argument and dissenting opinion.

If Opinion A and Opinion B are mutually exclusive, and the person who holds Opinion B accepts that others hold Opinion A (although he thinks they are wrong), but the person who holds Opinion A not only believes that the other person holds Opinion B, but cannot accept that the other person holds Opinion B, then it is the person holding Opinion A who thinks his opinion should be adhered to by all.....or, perhaps, that persons holding Opinion B should just shut up.

It is clear that smoking isn't good for you, or for the people around you, right? Yet we know that some people smoke, some people like to smoke, some people don't mind others smoking around them, and some people like to get together to smoke. That some people smoke, some people like to smoke, some people don't mind others smoking around them, and some people like to get together to smoke doesn't change whether or not smoking is a good idea or not. It isn't wrongbadfun to enjoy smoking, but there is a price that has to be paid. Saying that smoking is a bad idea, and that you will not be as healthy if you smoke as if you don't, is valid observation.

But some smokers and manufacturers of tobacco products might take offense at that observation. And they might try to twist it into something it is not.

I was looking this morning at pages 17-18 in the 3.0 DMG, penned by well-known bully, egoist, and wrongbadfun guru Monte Cook. While I'm not going to quote the entire passage, I will distill it:

* The DM can't cheat. If you want to fudge, no one can tell you no.

* If there is a default method of playing D&D, it is not fudging.

* If you do fudge, don't tell the players (he emphasizes this with italics), because if they know you fudge it will hurt the game. How will it hurt the game? Well, if you go upthread, you'll find the same reasons given.

The fudge chip pool is designed to ameliorate those reasons.

The only difference between Monte's opinion and mine, AFAICT, is that Monte believes that the DM can successfully conceal his fudging. I think that's a poor gamble at best. YMMV.


RC


"Given the choice between a truth they can appreciate and a lie they can live, most people will take you-know-what." -- James Morrow, Only Begotten Daughter

 

[Raven Crowking]

If the player over rules the dice by fiat, he does so with imperfect knowledge most of the time, and it would be very difficult, without the DM actually handing the player his notes, for the player to ever be in possession of more than a fraction of the information. Thus, the player's judgment of the situation is based on limited information.

IMO, not enough to make that sort of judgment call.

At the time the player chooses to fudge, the roll is made; a hit is turned into a miss, damage is reduced, whatever. All the necessary information is there -- the player wanted one outcome, and got another.

There is, admittedly, an informational disparity between DM and players, but unless the DM can read the players' minds, no one knows more than a fraction of the complex interaction going on.

If that is a good reason for the players not to fudge; it is a good reason for the DM, too.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

But I didn't claim it was inherently abusive. I just said abuse would occur if something was inflicted on someone that they have a legitimate objection to based on the game format.

I'd say that's self-evident. And doesn't dispute my point that it depends entirely on the context and the players.

 

[billd91]

The only difference between Monte's opinion and mine, AFAICT, is that Monte believes that the DM can successfully conceal his fudging.

Actually, that's not true. There is a difference between Monte's opinion as expressed in the DMG and yours. His is authoritative as far as the recommended rules go, just as Gygax's was as the writer of the 1e DMG. Yours is not. The authoritative voice of a game cannot, by definition, be badwrongfun because the game defines the baseline assumptions and expectations of the game - the rules and basic practices.

That said, you're putting a spin on Monte's comments. Monte doesn't make any kind of blanket statement that fudging hurts the game. Rather, he says:

It's important to the game that they believe their characters are always in danger. Consciously or subconsciously, if they believe you'll never let bad things happen to their characters, they'll change the way they act. With no element of risk, victory will seem less sweet. And if thereafter something bad does happen to a character, the player may believe that you're out to get him if he feels you saved other players when their characters were in trouble.

I would submit that his statement is not incompatible with letting the PCs suffer the consequences of their own decisions but ameliorating strings of bad luck when the players are, otherwise, playing quite prudently based on what the DM knows behind the screen. After all, a bit further up the page he also says:

A good rule of thumb is that a character shouldn't die in a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Monte doesn't make any kind of blanket statement that fudging hurts the game.

If you accept that removing something that is "important to the game", changing the way they act, making victory seeming less sweet, and the player believing that the DM is out to get him do no harm to the game, I concur.

After all, a bit further up the page he also says:

He says that, please note, when describing the reasoning behind some DM's choice to fudge. He does not say that it is a good idea, or advocate it himself. He says, rather, (1) you may if you wish, (2) it is not the default way to play the game, and (3) here are some very specific problems it may cause if the players catch on.

Oddly enough, the same ones described upthread.


RC


(Oh, and having the same opinion as Stephen Hawking doesn't mean that I am a world-renowned cosmologist, or that you should accept Hawking's opinion because it comes from me; it does mean, however, that our opinions are the same.)