Do you "save" the PCs?

[pawsplay]

Umm, no it's not. It's a 1 in over seven THOUSAND chance that it will be fatal.

So, I'm perfectly happy with 7775 different results. I'm just not happy with one.

Now, why didn't I cap it before I rolled? Well, the fact that it's such a remote chance means I likely never thought about it.

See, I would never want to disturb such a remarkable result. If I rolled all 6s on damage, right in front of my players, I think it would be a scene to remember.

 

[Fifth Element]

See, I would never want to disturb such a remarkable result. If I rolled all 6s on damage, right in front of my players, I think it would be a scene to remember.

I'm very much with you on that one. I was once rolling monster damage on 4d6 plus something-or-other. It was going to be a big one. I rolled four 1s. I had to show the players that one, even though I don't normally show them my rolls.

 

[Umbran]

Honesty and dishonesty are what they are. People can put different values on these depending on context but that does not transform them into something else.

Which is exactly the point.

Linguistic communication is rarely, if ever, perfect. But that doesn't mean you shoud go asking for trouble. If you know ahead of time that certain word choices are apt to read differently than what you really intend to get across, why on Earth would you use those words? Use words that are less-apt to be carried away on the sea of connotations!

 

[ExploderWizard]

As DM it's your job to come up with imaginary adventures in an imaginary world, where the players do not have all of the information that you do about what's going on in said world. In another thread, Raven Crowking admitted that making an event appear random when it is actually planned is okay (a time-honoured technique, even); even though this would fall under the broad definition of "dishonest". We're talking about a game here. Would you call bluffing in poker "dishonest"? It fits the dictionary definition. But a much more accurate term is "playing the game."

Poker is very adversarial. In D&D the game can be won or lost by the players. The DM cannot do either. The DM's only victory is the players
having a good time playing.

Part of the DM's job in playing the game is having all kinds of secrets from the players. You could call that dishonest if you like, and it fits in some sense. But it's a completely inappropriate use of the word in this context, when we're talking about games where different parties have different access to information.

Having information unavailable to the players is not being dishonest. Even fudging isn't dishonest if the players are aware of it.

Umm, no it's not. It's a 1 in over seven THOUSAND chance that it will be fatal.

So, I'm perfectly happy with 7775 different results. I'm just not happy with one.

Now, why didn't I cap it before I rolled? Well, the fact that it's such a remote chance means I likely never thought about it.

Agreed.

But, this ignores the main point. The ENTIRE purpose of fudging is to fix a problem. If you've already fixed the problem beforehand, then you would never, ever need to fudge.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

OK. I'll buy that for a dollar. Now, how do we define "problem"? In a game laden with consequences that can depend on a random result, what constitutes a problem when a possible result of chance comes up?

If we have defined for certain what we want (or more accurately DON'T want) then why employ methods which could bring about that which is undesired?

What I do disagree with is that I must be this super computer DM capable of calculating and taking into account all possible outcomes before I decide something, because, once I've decided something, despite the fact that I'm EXPLICITLY entitled to do so in the rules, I CAN NEVER TAKE IT BACK.

Nobody needs to be a super computer. The exact odds of any occurance need not be known before determination of a roll. Heck, I didn't even know exactly how remote the chances of a 30 on 5d6 were until they were discussed here. The task at hand isn't about precise number crunching. All one has to do is look at the proposed possible outcomes and decide: are there any of these that are completely unacceptable? If the answer is yes and you roll anyway then YOU are creating the problem that needs fixing.

This discussion keeps circling back to this.

- You should not fudge, it's dishonest. You're lying to the players.

- But, the rules specifically empower me to do so. The GAME and the Game Designers both tell me that it's ok.

- You should not fudge. It's dishonest. You're lying to the players.

- How can following the rules of the game be considered dishonest. Presumably the players know the rules as well. The rules say I can do this.

- You should not fudge. It's dishonest. You're lying to the players.

On and on and on. How is it dishonest to use mechanics that everyone at the table knows exists? The players know I'm entitled to change rolls. The rules say so. The game designers say so. When I actually use this power, how is it dishonest?

It's not at all as long as the players are aware of it. The rules also detail how combat is run, hit points are determined for PC's, and the nature of any ressurection mechanics available. Players might deduce from this that their PC's can be wounded or even killed during adventures.

Since the players know I am entitled to change any roll at any time, it comes down to a trust issue. Do they trust my abilities to change the results of a roll in such a way that it results in a better game? If they don't, then they should probably get a DM that they do trust.

If the players know going in that they can only lose to a degree that the DM feels is appropriate and this is satisfactory then there are no problems.

I don't get this slavish adherence to die rolls. Why are you stripping the authority from the DM that is EXPRESSLY granted by the rules? Do you take this further? Is a DM no longer allowed to apply any rule without player permission? If I want to add a template to a monster, is that dishonest? After all, I'm changing the stats of that monster into something else.

How is that any less dishonest?

Slavish adherence to the dice would mean giving up decision making to a random roll. As long as the DM decides if and when the dice roll at all then there is no slavish adherence to anyhing except the DM's own judgement.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's not at all as long as the players are aware of it.

If it's part of the rules, then the players should be aware of it. Now, do you mean that the players should be made specifically aware each time you do actually fudge, ie announce "I'm gonna fudge that one!" when you overrule the dice?

 

[Raven Crowking]

In another thread, Raven Crowking admitted that making an event appear random when it is actually planned is okay (a time-honoured technique, even)

I apologize in advance for responding to this, because I intended you to have the "last word" viz-a-viz you and I; I will try to make my Will save in the future.

I just wanted to agree with you that I did, indeed, say that this is okay, and in order to make the apparent dichotomy comprehensible, I thought I should explain further.

There are three things involved here, and all involve honesty and information flow on the part of the GM:

(1) The GM has a responsibility to be honest about how he is implimenting the rules, as far as he is capable of so doing.

(2) The GM has a responsibility to portray the campaign world as it would appear to the player characters, so that the players may make rational, meaningful choices within the context of what their characters would know.

(3) The GM has a responsibility to portray NPCs within the scope of their personalities, so that the players can make rational, meaningful choices about whether or not they are trustworthy, as well as how trustworthy they are.

In the case of (2), above, the GM may be forced to conceal information about the randomness of information.

EXAMPLE 1: Bob's character searches for traps where there are no traps. The GM knows that Bob will find no traps, but makes a die roll anyway, because if he does not, he knows that Bob will gain information (either there are no traps, or there are no traps Bob's character can find) that his character could not reasonably know.

EXAMPLE 2: The King sends assassins to waylay the PCs on the High Road, because the PCs have irked the King. The assassins do not announce themselves as such, so the GM rolls dice as though this were a wandering (random) encounter. Again, this is specifically to prevent the players from having immediate access to information that their characters could not reasonably know. Follow-up may, or may not, reveal that the encounter was not random.

EXAMPLE 3: Everyone in town is talking about the Giant Hamsters recently seen on Hampstead Heath. The GM has given each player a number of rumours that their characters know, as well as where they heard them from. The GM has used random rolls to determine the rumours, except the giant hamster ones. If the players compare notes, or keep asking around, they can discover that everyone has heard of the giant hamsters, but the GM doesn't believe that the PCs would necessarily know this upfront.

This is acceptable even though this would fall under the broad definition of "dishonest" because of its relationship to responsiblities (2) and (3) above. I would agree that a GM capable of covering all such instances without relying on dishonesty would be superior to myself in this respect, were that GM equally capable of dealing with (2) and (3). As previously described, this is the lesser of two evils.

And, yes, bluffing in poker is dishonest. Contesting your ability to deceive and see through deception is a large part of what poker is about.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

All one has to do is look at the proposed possible outcomes and decide: are there any of these that are completely unacceptable? If the answer is yes and you roll anyway then YOU are creating the problem that needs fixing.

This.


RC

 

[Umbran]

OK. I'll buy that for a dollar. Now, how do we define "problem"? In a game laden with consequences that can depend on a random result, what constitutes a problem when a possible result of chance comes up?

I don't think there's a single general answer. We are not all looking for the same thing out of RPGs. What constitutes a problem for one group may not be an issue for another group, and vice versa.

It would be for the GM and players of a particular campaign to decide who ultimately ought to decide what is a problem, and what isn't. It seems to me that archetyically, that decision ends up in the GM's hands. You may choose to put it where you will.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If it's part of the rules, then the players should be aware of it. Now, do you mean that the players should be made specifically aware each time you do actually fudge, ie announce "I'm gonna fudge that one!" when you overrule the dice?

Not really. As I already pointed out, yes the rules outline the possibility. The rules also cover the mechanical operations and possible consequences
of adventuring activity. Disclosure comes from the very start. The players should know:

1) Are mechanical operations going to run open ended? When the dice are rolled do they count? Is the story of the campaign dictated by the actions resolved therein?

or:

2) Are mechanical operations going to be sometimes results oriented? When the dice produce an unwanted outcome will they be ignored? Are campaign events edited or modified to better fit with the desired story?

IMHO players who are playing in game #2 after knowingly signing up for it shouldn't be inquiring about specific acts of fudging and the DM is under no obligation to tell them when it happens.

Dishonesty comes about when a DM advertises game #1 and delivers game # 2.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Especially if the rules say Game #1 is the default.