D&D 5E Fudging: DM vs player preferences

[EzekielRaiden]

I, too, have no problem with death flags. I might not always keep mine flying though. I get really attached to my characters...

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I, too, have no problem with death flags. I might not always keep mine flying though. I get really attached to my characters...

It will likely sound insane to others, but me being deeply attached to my characters is why I'd keep their death flag flying.

It's better to burn out than fade away, and other cliched sentiments and such.

 

[Noctem]

"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy." -Tyrell

 

[Skyscraper]

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 not in favor of fudging (I prefer to say it that way instead of saying I'm an anti-fudger, which I don't believe I am); and I like the idea of the red flag rule. However, in D&D in particular, I think that the possibility of PC death is a rare element that forces the players (not the PCs) to be honest, from not going all-out gung-ho. Players, even ones with strong RP inclinations, often use "lighter" RPGs such as D&D as an exhaust for real-life constraints, in that in the RPG there is little consequence for doing XYZ and in the heroic RPG that is D&D the paradigm of real life is replaced by a paradigm of often fighting for stuff, of wounds not meaning anything. PC death is a rare consequence that keeps the players in reign, even though most players I play with usually have an intrinsic honesty towards the game in that respect. But there comes a time, where many players will still decide that their PC will steal stuff, loot treasure that is not theirs, and even go as far as kill creatures for a perceived insult when facing an antagonizing NPC (and sometimes, even an antagonizing PC!). Removing the possibility of death in the RPG IMO would require that the players try to RP in a more conservative fashion if the game is to maintain some degree of balance, and often players are not looking for that kind of restricition in a heroic fantasy game such as D&D.

 

[Rhenny]

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.

Well, for me and my table, I like to ensure that each player feels that his or her death is somewhat meaningful. I really don't like when a random encounter or a freak roll kills a PC (unless of course the player is ok with that). Sometimes my players will let me know either explicitly or through implication if their PC is ready to accept the "freak" death or not.

But, now that revival, raising dead, etc. is pretty easy to come by, most of the players I DM don't mind dying, even when it is a freak occurrence...so to tell the truth, I'm much more likely to let the dice tell the story now than I was 10 or 20 years ago.

 

[Rhenny]

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'.

This is a great idea. In a way, as a DM, I get to know my players and monitor their reactions so that I can kind of feel out if their Death Flag is up even though I never really heard about this mechanic until you brought it up. I like the idea of making it a more formal part of the mechanics.

 

[Lanliss]

Or do you do it in secret, without input from the other participants, based on what you and only you believe is in the best interest of everyone else or the game? And if this is the case, why not do it in the open? Why hide it? I think we both know the answer to that question if it applies...

I think any party would dislike hearing "By the way, you should have died there, but I saved you. Happy to be holding your hand like you're a child." Just as much as they hate to hear "haha, full party wipe. Good job everyone.", so I think that is a valid reason to hide it.

On a different subject, you repeatedly discussed the fact that every Fudging DM you have had was doing it against the party, for their own selfish reasons. Outside of fudging, did they seem like good DMs? If they had not fudged, would they have been perfect? Or were they just bad DMs in general? I am seeing a lot of people saying they only fudge FOR the party, and they have had sound DM advice in other threads. Perhaps your experience with fudging is caused, not by the fudging itself, but by a string of Bad fudging DMs?

On another unrelated note, are there really DMs that are attached enough to their NPCs and Plot that they will cause BBEG to auto save against various things? I am not experienced, but I do not think I could ever put a fictional villains life ahead of the fun of my friends, or even random real people I happen to be playing with.

 

[iserith]

I think any party would dislike hearing "By the way, you should have died there, but I saved you. Happy to be holding your hand like you're a child." Just as much as they hate to hear "haha, full party wipe. Good job everyone.", so I think that is a valid reason to hide it.

Both are examples of poor delivery though. I think a good solution is to prepare for characters to die ahead of time and then, if it happens, a good story is told and play can continue. There's no need to fudge.

On another unrelated note, are there really DMs that are attached enough to their NPCs and Plot that they will cause BBEG to auto save against various things?

Yes, absolutely. Of course, I'm not against the DM making such a ruling - after all, there's very little point in having Redscale the Black Dragon make a saving throw against an acid splash spell. I would be against the DM bringing the rules into play and then ignoring a result he or she doesn't like. (I would also be annoyed if the DM did not telegraph the villain's immunities in some way.)

 

[abirdcall]

I think any party would dislike hearing "By the way, you should have died there, but I saved you. Happy to be holding your hand like you're a child." Just as much as they hate to hear "haha, full party wipe. Good job everyone.", so I think that is a valid reason to hide it.

I don't feel this way.

I would highly dislike the former, but be happy with the latter. Those exact words might even be said at my table after a TPK.

I want my actions and the actions of the party to mean something. I want there to be a real possibility of consequences up to and including the whole party being wiped out, even with random encounters.

I think this attitude has huge ramifications on the game. There is another recent thread that asks about how much of a 'murder hobo' your party is. Mine work a lot in the exploration and social pillars to avoid combat because they don't want to get wiped out by the scary monsters that are out there. If that couldn't happen then the game would be very different and for me not as fun.

 

[Lanliss]

Both are examples of poor delivery though. I think a good solution is to prepare for characters to die ahead of time and then, if it happens, a good story is told and play can continue. There's no need to fudge.

My example is assuming the DM did fudge, as Noctem was talking about telling players you fudged, as opposed to not fudging to begin with.