D&D 5E Do you want your DM to fudge?

[Maxperson]

What do you mean by prizing drama in this situation?

Personally I don't like fudging because it disrupts the story (and the dishonesty part).

Dying in a TPK is pretty dramatic.

It's no more or less dishonest than keeping stat blocks and puzzles secret, and not showing maps

 

[Maxperson]

it totally won.

What could've been a deadly encounter where a player was challenged, died, and came back knowing their DM pulled no punches and bears are ALWAYS deadly and they had to be on the lookout became an encounter where the player learned bears are deadly sometimes but not to the PC unless the DM wants to allow that possibility so sOMETIMES they have to pay attention and SOMETIMES they can just coast. Though it may be hard to tell when.

Essentially you made the player go "oh that was a cut scene, maybe other encounters will be secretly cut scenes".

That is 100% Prioritizing story. Or prioritizing 'making a thing happen that you planned instead of letting the full tactical possibilities play out". Same thing.

The player was still challenged. Challenge doesn't go away because you say so.

 

[Zak S]

Due to extreme bad luck which breaks the game.

We already went over this and for some reason you ignored it:

This is what I actually do, though.

I fudge in order to disallow a possibility the rules allow, but which breaks the game,

You have already stated but not described this "break the game"--the example you gave was not "breaking the game" it was..

and the stated reason to disallow it was to create a situation where death from what your players considers a "minor" encounter is less likely than death from what your players considers a "major". It is done because they dislike dying to what they consider to be minor encounters and it's not fun for them.

...which is the very DEFINITION of prizing drama over challenge.

That is exactly what that phrase means.

So you say you fudge to avoid "breaking the game", but you define "break the game" as: "creates a situation that fits the dramatic/story situation arc that I and my players like less". i.t "Fails to serve our story/drama-based values."

 

[Zak S]

The player was still challenged. Challenge doesn't go away because you say so.

No, it doesn't "go away" at all. It is just _reduced_ when the player is aware some die rolls will be nullified.

There is challenge. Just less challenge.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

it totally won.

What could've been a deadly encounter where a player was challenged, died, and came back knowing their DM pulled no punches and bears are ALWAYS deadly and they had to be on the lookout became an encounter where the player learned bears are deadly sometimes but not to the PC unless the DM wants to allow that possibility so sOMETIMES they have to pay attention and SOMETIMES they can just coast. Though it may be hard to tell when.

Essentially you made the player go "oh that was a cut scene, maybe other encounters will be secretly cut scenes".

That is 100% Prioritizing story. Or prioritizing 'making a thing happen that you planned instead of letting the full tactical possibilities play out". Same thing.

OK, I think we've both beat this horse quite enough. But one thing that gets under my skin is when people presume to tell me what I think, or what my intentions are.

Yes, in the situation that I described, the story possibly changed because of the decision I made (or really would have made).

But my intent was entirely on the situation at the gaming table. The players sitting in front of me, and the fact that we had just started this and I was not going to kill a character in the first encounter. There are a great many things that will end in the same result. But just because the result is the same, doesn't mean that the intent behind it is.

The plan was simple - the first character separated from the party in the woods might be attacked by a bear. The Stealth and Perception rolls played out. The attack was made, and the bear ran away. The only 'planned fudge' was that the single initial attack would not kill the character (really, would not be a critical). If they decided to chase and engage with the bear, then everything else is in play. That is, with the exception of a single killing blow, all of the tactical possibilities were in play.

The player had no such reaction. There only reaction was, "wow, I didn't know that this would be so deadly." The others agreed. "This will be tough" etc. They mentioned that in the first few fights they had, which were mock combats, seemed to be pretty easy. No fudging occurred, period. They just did well. Their expectations were set by the dice alone. And their expectations were wrong.

So no, it wasn't "100% prioritizing the story," and no I didn't "make the player go" anything. You continue to speak in "100%'s" and "facts" when neither of these apply.

Yes, I had an agenda. And that agenda had nothing, 0%, to do with the story. That it potentially affected the story was irrelevant to my agenda. The story would have been unchanged if that character died, except perhaps in regards to that character, and even that was irrelevant. It was all about that practical effects that it would have on the game and the players at the table. Period.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Maxperson]

We already went over this and for some reason you ignored it:





So you say you fudge to avoid "breaking the game", but you define "break the game" as: "creates a situation that fits the dramatic/story situation arc that I and my players like less". i.t "Fails to serve our story/drama-based values."

No. No that wasn't how I defined it. That's just the reason that I don't correct the break for major villains. The definition, though, was broken game. Major villain/minor villain had nothing to do with the definition.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it doesn't "go away" at all. It is just _reduced_ when the player is aware some die rolls will be nullified.

There is challenge. Just less challenge.

Then it isn't drama over challenge. Drama over challenge implies that drama comes first and challenge second. Lessening the challenge slightly once every 6 months to a year isn't even remotely close enough to put drama ahead of challenge.

 

[Zak S]

So no, it wasn't "100% prioritizing the story," and no I didn't "make the player go" anything. ..
Yes, I had an agenda. And that agenda had nothing, 0%, to do with the story... It was all about that practical effects that it would have on the game and the players at the table..

1) There was an in-story event (the death of that PC) that (for whatever reason) you were attempting to prevent.

True or False?

2) You fudged in order to prevent this in-story event from occuring.

True or False?

 

[Zak S]

No. No that wasn't how I defined it. That's just the reason that I don't correct the break for major villains. The definition, though, was broken game. Major villain/minor villain had nothing to do with the definition.

Then define "break the game". Because so far the definition you gave was "make it less fun for the players I have who are players who don't want to die in minor fights" (which is totally a story-based value).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

1) There was an in-story event (the death of that PC) that (for whatever reason) you were attempting to prevent.

True or False?

True.

2) You fudged in order to prevent this in-story event from occuring.

True or False?[/QUOTE]

False.

Ilbranteloth