Guide to Adventure Writing

[sinecure]

Because you want to have fun (both for you and the players). If you feel like it would increase the fun, for any reason whatsoever, then why not?

BTW, I would do that only on very rare occasions, but I can think of a game where you fudge alot but is still alot of fun, a la Paranoia.

I guess, but I can't think of any game I've ever played where one player letting the others win made it more fun. Maybe a cooperative game where players let the other players get a prize instead of them, but a competitive one like D&D? That makes no sense to me.

Neither does your comment about Paranoia. Why wouldn't you openly roll kills on clones? That's what they are there for. You have six of them.

 

[wedgeski]

Enjoyed your post! I disagree with much of what you say though, especially on the referee's role in the ongoing game, because it seems to me that a game where the DM cannot exercise a value judgement on how much fun the players are having, and make adjustments accordingly, is a bit of a waste of a DM.

This only works if the referee is willing to realize that sometimes, all his work on an adventure is going to be wasted. The players are sometimes going to be unwilling or unable to see it all. The referee must contain his ego and resist the urge to introduce some way of being able to show all his work off.

Less "show my work off" than "Oh CRAP! The party just decided that the five hours of prep I did last night wasn't worth their time... why am I here again?"

Playing this way also means that the game can “stop” at any time because a battle wipes out the PCs, or some other disastrous result that means the mission will come to an abrupt end. Oh well. Of course success is always more fun than failure. But if failure is not an option, then the success is but an illusion, it’s fake, it’s a lie. And by taking the attitude that the end result determines the fun of the game, then suddenly the process of playing the game is not fun in and of itself.

I wonder how fun it would be to terminate a game after 15 minutes because a single die roll, or an unwillingness on the part of the DM to drop hints to the players, causes the session to end prematurely and everyone to go home miserable..?

 

[eric mcloins]

I guess, but I can't think of any game I've ever played where one player letting the others win made it more fun. Maybe a cooperative game where players let the other players get a prize instead of them, but a competitive one like D&D? That makes no sense to me.

Neither does your comment about Paranoia. Why wouldn't you openly roll kills on clones? That's what they are there for. You have six of them.

I never thought of playing D&D in terms of "winning" or "competitive". I always thought that the DM and the players should work together to have fun, and not against each other. When I DM, I want the players to have fun, and to create, along with the players, an exciting story. When I play as a PC, I want to have great roleplay and of course, the magic word, fun. I guess that's where the difference between our views stems from, because you view D&D as some sort of competition, and I view it more like a cooperative psychodrama. I'm not saying that one view is better than the other, mind you, just that it's a different attitude.

As for Paranoia, I was referring to (and I won't quote it because I don't have the book here) some passages in Paranoia XP that say "if you want something to happen, and the dice say it doesn't, ignore the dice".

 

[JimLotFP]

I wonder how fun it would be to terminate a game after 15 minutes because a single die roll, or an unwillingness on the part of the DM to drop hints to the players, causes the session to end prematurely and everyone to go home miserable..?

It's bad adventure design to hinge an entire adventure on a single die roll (do they find that secret door?), or to have such a choke point that there's nothing else to do if nobody knows how to get past that choke point.

Now if the players bring that doom-roll upon themselves ("I brush that moldy yellow stuff off the items and put them into my pack!") it's a different thing there, but in a well-prepared environment, a "We don't know how to go any further," situation is just an obstacle. That's when you can use sages or have other NPCs demand large fees for their knowledge or drop hints about this other location that may be relevant to the situation or place the players can't get past.

 

[Betote]

I guess, but I can't think of any game I've ever played where one player letting the others win made it more fun. Maybe a cooperative game where players let the other players get a prize instead of them, but a competitive one like D&D? That makes no sense to me.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Psion]

I disagree with what you say in almost everything.
(...)
My only suggestion to people who are reading this: don't worry about it. if you wanna fudge the dice, and it works for you and your players, do it, no one would arrest you for that.

Hmm. Well my advice to people reading this is that this goes a little far:

Do not fudge the dice. Ever.

But this is spot on the money (and really, the point AFAICT):

It's bad adventure design to hinge an entire adventure on a single die roll (do they find that secret door?), or to have such a choke point that there's nothing else to do if nobody knows how to get past that choke point.

Now, you might think you are doing alright fudging at will, but it's my experience/opinion that:
1) You are wasting your time and risk railroading if you insert rolls that don't mean anything, and
2) Even though your game is good, it'll be so much the better if you learn to make both failure and success interesting and make that part of your adventures.


Now no GM, adventure writer, or game designer is perfect, so that's why I don't quite go along with the "don't fudge dice, ever" bit. But I do believe that your games benefit if you strive towards that end and don't rely on fudging.

 

[JimLotFP]

RPGs in general and D&D in particular are a strange beast when it comes to "competition."

It really isn't a competition, because if it was, the referee wins. Every time. "Rocks fall, you all die." "A flight of red dragons attacks the tavern! What are your first level characters going to do?" "You're all dead. It seems the evil archmage you've never even heard of on a faraway continent cast a few wishes..."

But there is no "winner." The idea is to keep everyone coming back week after week. I don't think it necessarily has to be with the same characters (obviously!), but the players should be able to have a sense of accomplishment from playing the game (I'm not into "wish fulfillment" or "I had a hard week at the office, I just want to kill orcs!" gaming) so the referee has to come up with locations and situations (not plots, but that's part of the essay I really was getting trapped trying to explain) that are challenging and difficult, yet surmountable, if (and only if?) the players are good and/or lucky.

I think the ability to successfully juggle the paradox roles of opponent and impartial arbiter is what defines the quality of a referee (this usage is not to seem quaint or retro or anything; I think "Dungeon/Game Master" sends the wrong message about what the guy's job actually is... and "Storyteller" is the absolute opposite of what should be happening behind the screen).

 

[xechnao]

RPGs in general and D&D in particular are a strange beast when it comes to "competition."

It really isn't a competition, because if it was, the referee wins. Every time. "Rocks fall, you all die." "A flight of red dragons attacks the tavern! What are your first level characters going to do?" "You're all dead. It seems the evil archmage you've never even heard of on a faraway continent cast a few wishes..."

I disagree with the examples. Players definately have to accept some randomness. So does the DM. This means that players are constantly aware of the chance of dangers. Furthermore this chance must be following along an educative path of learning.
Certainly some surprises are less impropable than others. You must agree on how far you can go for the game's sake beforehand. If there is a chance in a million for something to happen you just not take it in consideration. The limit of what you take in consideration are single digits versus hundred.
So the DM cant do what you are talking about here. It simply cant work this way the game by default.

 

[eric mcloins]

Now no GM, adventure writer, or game designer is perfect, so that's why I don't quite go along with the "don't fudge dice, ever" bit. But I do believe that your games benefit if you strive towards that end and don't rely on fudging.

amen.

 

[arnon]

so the referee has to come up with locations and situations (not plots,...
snip

I'm sorry... huh?!?

So that all the referee/DM/GM has to do? come up with random locations and situations? Just a series of random encounters and fights?

Am I understanding you correctly?

What's the incentive to go on adventuring? What's interesting in coming back to a world that just throws encounters at you if there is no mystery to unravel?

As a player, I will never want to play in a game that has no plot, no story for my character to get messed-up in, and no reason for my character to evolve other than go up a level.

As a GM (I don't like the word referee; I'm not there to mediate between two teams) I'm there to create an interesting world for my players to get involved in, and that demands plots and stories. And yes, deep inside, I want my players to WIN, to foil the plan, to unravel the mystery... Sure, i'll do my damndest not to make it easy for them, and if some characters die in the process then fine, and if they act stupidly then they will have a very very hard time; but i will not make it impossible for them...

That's not fun to anyone.