D&D 5E Fudging: DM vs player preferences

[iserith]

If I were to make that same mistake, I would handle it by not changing anything except being sure that I convey to the players and their characters that they are facing overwhelming odds - letting the players work out their own solution - and by having the brigands consider not killing a priority because the punishment for murder is more severe than the punishment for robbery, hostages might mean ransoms, and any other way to naturally change the failure result of the encounter to something besides "everyone died."

Yep. Telegraphing and stake-setting is an easy fix here.

 

[Rhenny]

Very good responses Ezekiel. I certainly don't believe that it is an either or one-side or the other side argument, although I was lazy and did phrase it that way.

Your points are all very interesting and persuasive.

As to your question: "Alright, here's a question then: Would you prefer a DM that fudged unobtrusively to satisfactorily address those problems, or one who addressed them satisfactorily without any fudging at all (obtrusive or not)?" -

I would definitely prefer the DM that didn't have to fudge, but since DMs are human (and players too), invariably (at some point over years and years) even the best will have something go wrong (wrong enough to derail a session or make a player feel left out or unfairly punished for his/her actions). In these cases, I'd rather keep the door open for the DM to fudge unobtrusively if possible. Personally, if there is ever a moment of Deus Ex Machina, I would rather not see it...I want it to work invisibly, behind the scenes.

 

[n00b f00]

I think a large part of the difference is in the amount of time between topics. I answered slightly differently, and it's because I felt slightly different when the second one was posted.

 

[abirdcall]

Personally, I'd enjoy playing with a DM that could fudge unobtrusively when it makes the game more interesting (or saves a PC from a stupid or undeserving death).

Is there such a thing as a stupid death?

What is undeserving? If a character can only die when they 'deserve' it that is making quite the judgment.

I think all deaths, if they occur as part of the story are interesting and 'deserved'. Even if it was just part of a random encounter. It will certainly be a memorable one.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is there such a thing as a stupid death?

I believe there is. Hence why, although I am open to the possibility of death, I prefer to keep a variety of other failure conditions in play, and reserve death for when it is an especially meaningful consequence. E.g. Spock's death, in Star Trek II, was a deep and meaningful consequence, and although he was revived, doing so was also a deep and meaningful consequence. I like that kind of stuff--and believe it can be done without any fudging, for a sufficiently-prepared, sufficiently-adaptable GM.

What is undeserving? If a character can only die when they 'deserve' it that is making quite the judgment.

It's an argument that's been made more than once in favor of fudging, though: the idea that deaths due to risk-management alone are undeserved, but deaths due to "bad plans" or "foolish mistakes" or the like (not sure those are exact words, but they capture the essence) are deserved. The line between the two is never really clarified, beyond "I build encounters for X luck, but sometimes X+N luck occurs and that's when I intervene." (Definitely not exact words, but that's more or less how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] has presented it--though I would prefer him presenting it in his own words, as I am unlikely to do it justice.)

I think all deaths, if they occur as part of the story are interesting and 'deserved'. Even if it was just part of a random encounter. It will certainly be a memorable one.

You and I have...rather different definitions of "interesting," "deserved," and especially "memorable," it would seem.

 

[Nytmare]

Not quite random tangent: How many anti-fudgers are opposed to rules like Death Flags?

[bq]The death flag is designed to get rid of random lethality without eliminating death altogether as a possibility. This is done with a change in the social contract between players and GM. Whereas in standard D&D the player is at the mercy of the DM and the rules, with the death flag the player decides when the stakes of a conflict are life and death.[/bq]

This is normally accomplished by saying that characters just don't die according to the normal rules governing death and hit point loss during a fight. If you hit 0, you're knocked unconscious, and that's that. But, the player has the option of deciding when a conflict is important enough for their character to put their life on the line. They "raise their death flag", usually gain some kind of mechanical benefit, and their character can die by whatever the normal dying rules are.

It has the same effect of what I've always assumed the majority of the fudging being done is trying to do, but it takes it out of the DM's hands and puts it into the players'.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Not quite random tangent: How many anti-fudgers are opposed to rules like Death Flags?

Any form of stake-setting or difficulty adjustment that the players actually get to be involved in, I am not opposed to - though I would personally keep my character's Death Flag flying at all times whether there is a benny for doing so or not.

 

[Nagol]

Not quite random tangent: How many anti-fudgers are opposed to rules like Death Flags?

[bq]The death flag is designed to get rid of random lethality without eliminating death altogether as a possibility. This is done with a change in the social contract between players and GM. Whereas in standard D&D the player is at the mercy of the DM and the rules, with the death flag the player decides when the stakes of a conflict are life and death.[/bq]

This is normally accomplished by saying that characters just don't die according to the normal rules governing death and hit point loss during a fight. If you hit 0, you're knocked unconscious, and that's that. But, the player has the option of deciding when a conflict is important enough for their character to put their life on the line. They "raise their death flag", usually gain some kind of mechanical benefit, and their character can die by whatever the normal dying rules are.

It has the same effect of what I've always assumed the majority of the fudging being done is trying to do, but it takes it out of the DM's hands and puts it into the players'.

I'm fine with death flags as a player. I'll just tend to leave it up,

As a DM, certain types of campaign already have limited death rules -- I don't use D&D for them. I choose the game engine that gives the closest approximation to the feel I looking for at the table.

 

[iserith]

Not quite random tangent: How many anti-fudgers are opposed to rules like Death Flags?

I'm not opposed to it - it's just a way to set the stakes. I think lots of DMs forget that there are many ways to fail even in a combat challenge. It doesn't have to always be life and death.

Though in D&D, I get around the problematic issue of character death - that is, the player's primary mode of participation in the game removed for a period of time - by having players create backup characters that we write into the emergent story. If a character dies, we bring the backup character into play seamlessly, as fast as the player wants. No rolling up PCs during game time or sitting out until the dead PC can be raised or the like. I have found if one prepares for death ahead of time, then killing a character is no big deal (at least in terms of impact to play) so the desire to fudge is diminished. It's just another twist in the emergent story at that point, not an issue of player participation.

 

[Noctem]

I'm not against death flags either. Some players can be extremely attached to their characters, this just seems like a way for the players to protect a character they particularly enjoy from a random death that doesn't have the qualities they would prefer.