The best laid plans of mice and DMs

[Storm Raven]

Fact?

Not in my game.

Anything you can do in combat, you can initiate combat with in my game.

"What do you mean I can ready an action to disrupt his spell in combat, but not out of combat?"

Stupid rules belong in the "stupid out bin".

You mean, apparently, "rules that don't allow you to circumvent the initiative rules when starting combat" are, in your opinion, stupid. Which basically means that you are being very generous to the PCs, and shouldn't wonder why they have an easier time defeating your villains. If you want to disrupt another person's spell casting, start with initiative, if you beat his initiative, you can ready an action to disrupt his spell casting. Otherwise, you were too slow to catch your opponent.

 

[Shallown]

Well Perhaps Storm Raven they were in Combat. Who decides about initaitive starts GM or Players if the players wantto ready they start combat and remain ina round by round with readied actions until the Wizard decided to go. Makes sense to me. There are times to use the rules and times not to use the rules as long as the GM and players are happy when doesn't matter. I'm Sure the same applies to villains reading outside combat it is not always to the Players advantage or at least I assume its not.

But On to the true subject. I never fudge dice rolls doing them in front of the players. I think it drives the emotions a little more when that almost down character on his last leg sees that Natural 20 pop up. I can hear the groans and the shout of joy when I don't confirm. It makes the combat a little more involved and exciting.

Now I do fudge sometimes. Luckily I make enough real boo-boo's in the game that seldom do my players suspect. Usually I up the hit points since the players never no how many they bad guys have. They figure out what they have to hit , damage and Ac pretty fast by my rolls. They like to do this and I have no problem with them tryin to do so its just the characters gauging the bad guy and the players staying inlvolved in the combat.

As far as recurring villians I have turned to using organizations more so than individuals. I do have recurringindividuals but when they die it seldom flips the plot on end. I do have the deaths and such affect the organizations ability to function and I let the players know this in various ways through intel on the bad guys and captured documents that more or less say the party is screwing up the great plan.
And as far as having a specific personailty or making the great Villian speech you would be surprised how much personality can be injected into an organization. Just think about real world organization like the KKK or Skin heads or political groups they can be loved and hated almost if not more than an individual.

Just my opinion

Later

 

[Storm Raven]

Well Perhaps Storm Raven they were in Combat. Who decides about initaitive starts GM or Players if the players wantto ready they start combat and remain ina round by round with readied actions until the Wizard decided to go.

Umm, no. They weren't in combat when they readied actions. That was made clear in KD's post. If you want to ready an action, you move to initiative mode. Outside of the initiative sequence, the concept of a "readied action" is meaningless.

 

[KarinsDad]

KD -- nice that your players are so much smarter than everyone else's.

Please.

Are you telling us that your players are so stupid that they cannot figure out when they are getting their hats handed to them and the Calvary shows up that it wasn't DM intervention?

The DM's job is to make sure everyone has fun. Whatever it takes to make the game more fun, that's what I do. My players trust me to give them an entertaining session and to refrain from either railroading or unfairly burninating them. Beyond that, they have bigger things to care about than how "fair" everything is.

Yes, it is about fun. And for most people (except for some powergamers and some DMs on power trips), fun equates to fairness.

Just like it does in practically every other game played by people.

And in gaming, it is all about perception of fairness. If players perceive that the DM is fudging in order to either force a certain storyline or to save the players, regardless of whether that is what he is doing, the players may (and often will) have less fun because of it.

We have heaps of fun. It's got nothing to do with some perceived "sanctity of the dice". Fudge or don't as you prefer. One way isn't better than the other -- all that matters is the end result: fun.

I have had several fudging DMs in the past and those are the campaigns I have had the least fun in. The reason is that even if the DM does not think that he is railroading the session, he actually is.

I have also found in my experience that the players who do not like or want to solve problems at games (e.g. those that are willing to let other players do most of the work) are those who have the most fun in campaigns where the DM fudges whereas gamers who like to be challenged and like to come up with their own solutions to problems are those who do not like DM fudging. This is not always true, but it is a tendency that I have noticed.

And, this is not about DM planning. All DMs plan to some extent (some more than others). This is also not about DM filling in the gaps. All DMs have to fill in detail where they previously did not have it defined.

This is about DMs who change the scenario or outcome on the fly to meet some preconceived notion of what they wanted to happen (even if they think that their preconceived notion was more fun).

As DM, I plan events for every single session we play. And although some events occur as planned or similarly to plan, none of the sessions occur without many unexpected events happening and planned events often not happening. The first casualty of war (and gaming) is the plan.

But, any DM who "fudges" (i.e. changes the dice or the scenario) on a frequent reoccurring basis is doing a disservice to his players. IMO. He is shoehorning the events of the campaign into his own mindset of "fun" and reinforcing lack of spontaneity and problem solving from his players.

 

[KarinsDad]

Umm, no. They weren't in combat when they readied actions. That was made clear in KD's post. If you want to ready an action, you move to initiative mode. Outside of the initiative sequence, the concept of a "readied action" is meaningless.

Actually, I did not declare that initiative had started and that players should roll for it.

However, I do not believe that the game system should allow players to do some actions in combat (e.g. coup de grace or ready action) which cannot also typically be done out of combat.

In the case of players readying to shoot their bows at an NPC if he casts a spell out of combat during a few minute conversation by the other PCs with the NPC, I have no problem with it. Effectively, the characters are in combat, we just haven't gone through the ritual of rolling initiative yet.

In the case of players readying to shoot their bows at an NPC if he casts a spell out of combat where they are readying for an hour or so, then I do have a problem with it. I do not think that most people can maintain their concentration for that long. Hence, I might have everyone roll initiatives and if they win, great they are readying the action. If the NPC wins initiative, too bad. Or, depending on situation, I might have the PCs roll a Concentration roll to see if they were actually prepared to fire at the instant that the NPC decided to cast his spell.


But, the no ready action out of combat rule is just plain stupid. Its like saying that someone cannot walk out of combat or swing a sword at a tree out of combat. And, it is easy to circumvent the no ready action out of combat rule by stating that you were in combat all along, people were just not fighting and hadn't rolled initiatives yet (or however you want to justify getting rid of a stupid rule, even house ruling it).

 

[Ace]

The easiest solution to fickle dice is to use something like action points from Spycraft/D20 Modern or Hero Points from AU

When the bad guy needs to get away -- well he can and without the need to unofficially fudge die rolls

 

[barsoomcore]

Are you telling us that your players are so stupid that they cannot figure out when they are getting their hats handed to them and the Calvary shows up that it wasn't DM intervention?

Uh, no, actually, I believe you are telling me that your players are so much smarter than mine. But you don't know my players, or me, so maybe you're wrong. Maybe it's possible for DM intervention to be less heavy-handed. Maybe my players would see through your attempts just as well as yours do.

And for most people (except for some powergamers and some DMs on power trips), fun equates to fairness.

That's funny. For me, fun equates to great heroism, thrilling storylines, drama, tension, humour, and last-minute escapes. You're describing YOUR preferences -- why do you feel the need to pretend you know what "most people" prefer? First off, you don't know what "most people" prefer, and when you pretend you do, you make your argument less convincing. Second, your preferences are just as valid as anyone else's -- and substantially more interesting to me than your vain efforts to make your preferences more "valid" than mine. Just tell me about what YOU prefer, and why, and we can have a pleasant conversation.

This is about DMs who change the scenario or outcome on the fly to meet some preconceived notion of what they wanted to happen (even if they think that their preconceived notion was more fun).

What about DM's who fudge because they suddenly had some great idea that would make everyone go, "Holy crap. That's the coolest thing ever."? What about DM's who fudge because their group is getting discouraged and unhappy, and they alter some number they wrote down last week so that the session can end on a positive note? What about DM's who fudge because they realise they over-estimated the party's abilities and decide to scale the challenge since this isn't supposed to be a death-dealing encounter?

As DM, I plan events for every single session we play. And although some events occur as planned or similarly to plan, none of the sessions occur without many unexpected events happening and planned events often not happening.

That's why I almost never plan events. I just have my NPCs, I know what they want and what their abilities are, and I throw the PCs into it and see what happens. I don't have plans about what's going to happen because I know my players will turn inside out any plans I might have.

That you might not enjoy my campaign I accept. That I'm a worse DM than you I do not.

 

[barsoomcore]

However, I do not believe that the game system should allow players to do some actions in combat (e.g. coup de grace or ready action) which cannot also typically be done out of combat.

Then you fundamentally misunderstand the nature and meaning of an action like "Ready". Ready literally has no meaning outside of the initiative context.

If a player says, "I'm pulling out my bow and pointing it at him. If he tries to cast a spell, I shoot," your response ought to be, "Fine, roll for initiative."

If the player wins initiative, THEN they can use the Ready action to take care of him if he casts a spell. If the bad guy wins initiative, he can cast his spell while they're getting their weapons pointed at him.

The fact that the bad guy prefers to spend his action standing and chatting doesn't mean the good guys don't have to roll initiative. Now, if you've already decided that your bad guy is okay with having weapons pointed at him, it doesn't really matter if he rolls initiative or not -- he's not going to act before the players anyway, so they'll automatically get their shot in.

But it is STILL an action being performed within the combat round.

Ready is different from, say, "coup de grace", in that it has no meaning outside of initiative. It is a purely mechanical term to model the idea of waiting for a particular condition to occur before acting. Which of course you can do outside of combat -- but IF the action planned is a combat action, then in order to "Ready" it, combat must have already started.

 

[RangerWickett]

I hope not to start any insult-slinging here.

A lot of the time, I don't plan. Last session, I walked past an interesting-looking hospital two hours before the game, memorized it's vague layout, drew a map and decided where the key locations were, and came up with the general assortment of who the bad guys were.

The players were supposed to stop a group from sneaking into the palace/hospital, and I kept throwing a few random distractions at them to lure them away from where the main group was sneaking in. Eventually, though, they saw through the tricks of the NPCs, rushed down to where the infiltrators were on their way to, and set up an antimagic field.

The fight started as soon as the first invisible infiltrator stepped into the field. They started a barrage of spell-slinging and hacking and slashing, and though I really wanted the climactic fight to take place a few rooms down where there were all sorts of nifty tricks available, I did the best with what I could in the bare room the PCs had chosen to lay their ambush in. I hadn't come up with stats ahead of time, but I had the DMG open with some sheets of paper in it in my lap so I could scribble notes as things went on.

As the fight progressed, the antimagic field eventually went down so that the PCs could use their own magic, and then I decided that the fight would quickly end if one PC's mass confusion effect hit all the villains. The NPCs rolled low on their saves, but, honestly, I don't know what their Will saves were; I didn't write them down before the session began. I just decided that I wanted the NPC mage who was leading the group to get a few more licks in before going down, so I said she'd made her save just barely, while the rest of the NPCs were running around confused.

They ended up cornering the mage in a small part of the room so she couldn't use any area of effect spells, and they cut her down as she desperately tried, and failed, to get off a few spells. The players who took her down are fond of ripping villains apart, so I think they enjoyed hacking her to pieces in person more than letting her wander around confused while they took potshots at her.

. . .

On a different example, with the cavalry, think of it this way. The DM, John Tolkien, wants to really scare the PCs, and make them see that the villains are probably too powerful, so he throws an army of hundreds of thousands of Orcs at them while the PCs defend a fortress. He's pretty sure the PCs will think of something crazy to save the day, like Gandalf's player did a few weeks earlier when he dropped the balrog down the pit, or like what Boromir's player did when the Orcs just couldn't deal the last few hit points to him after he'd been struck with three critical hits on arrows.

Unfortunately, the players just hang back in the fortress and hack at the monsters for a 30-minute slugfest, and John the DM realizes they're going to lose at this rate. He fakes that he has a stomach cramp, and excuses himself for a minute to go to the bathroom, telling Aragorn's player to doublecheck the math on Legolas's attack bonuses for dual-wielding. While in the bathroom, John washes his hands and splashes some water on his face, brainstorming what to do. Then he remembers that the party had been very friendly to the horsemen of Rohan a few sessions ago, and they'd expressed condolences about them getting kicked out by their crazed king. Inspired, John decides that the tide of the battle will turn when the riders come in from behind and catch the Orcs off guard.

The battle ends up taking another two hours, but at the end, the Orcish army is scattered, and the PCs are weary, but victorious. The PCs have had lots of close scrapes like this, and though they might wonder if perhaps the Rohirim coming in at the last minute was off the top of John's head, it fits with the story, and it made for a cool scene, so they're okay with it.

John, though, makes a mental note not to have any allies come to their rescue for a good long time. They fought well this time, but he wants their next victory to be uniquely theirs.

And you, reading the novelization or watching the movie, probably wouldn't criticize Tolkien for copping out and having allies help the heroes. It was a cool movie, and that's what matters.

 

[Desdichado]

Are you telling us that your players are so stupid that they cannot figure out when they are getting their hats handed to them and the Calvary shows up that it wasn't DM intervention?

Doesn't have anything to do with stupid players necessarily. Could have something to do with stupid DMs, though. Just saying, not calling you a stupid DM.

Yes, it is about fun. And for most people (except for some powergamers and some DMs on power trips), fun equates to fairness.

Just like it does in practically every other game played by people.

And in gaming, it is all about perception of fairness. If players perceive that the DM is fudging in order to either force a certain storyline or to save the players, regardless of whether that is what he is doing, the players may (and often will) have less fun because of it.

Speak for yourself. I don't know why you think you can state that with such authority. For many roleplayers, the game is secondary to the product of the game session: that is, another episode in the ongoing story that's unfolding. I typically don't roll dice in front of the players, I also don't tell them what the targets are they're trying to hit with their rolls. They have no idea if I'm being "fair" or not. Point of fact; I very, very seldom "fudge" anything (although I do generate a lot of DCs, ACs, HPs, etc. on the fly as needed) but my players don't have any idea from the way the game plays if I am or not.

I have had several fudging DMs in the past and those are the campaigns I have had the least fun in. The reason is that even if the DM does not think that he is railroading the session, he actually is.

Rather than state that your (rather limited, IMO) experience is an absolute, you should probably look around a bit. Every day there are numerous posts here on these message boards that show the counterpoint to this statement.

I have also found in my experience that the players who do not like or want to solve problems at games (e.g. those that are willing to let other players do most of the work) are those who have the most fun in campaigns where the DM fudges whereas gamers who like to be challenged and like to come up with their own solutions to problems are those who do not like DM fudging. This is not always true, but it is a tendency that I have noticed.

That's all well and good, but again, the experiences of many here do not match yours.

And, this is not about DM planning. All DMs plan to some extent (some more than others). This is also not about DM filling in the gaps. All DMs have to fill in detail where they previously did not have it defined.

This is about DMs who change the scenario or outcome on the fly to meet some preconceived notion of what they wanted to happen (even if they think that their preconceived notion was more fun).

That caveat is well and good, and makes your statements much more palatable (to me, at least) but it doesn't explain your insistence on rolling in front of the players, or anything like that. Do you also tell the PCs the DC's their trying to hit, how many hit points the enemy has left, and things like that? Those are gamisms that might make D&D more fun as a game, but much less satisfying as a roleplaying experience.

As DM, I plan events for every single session we play. And although some events occur as planned or similarly to plan, none of the sessions occur without many unexpected events happening and planned events often not happening. The first casualty of war (and gaming) is the plan.

But, any DM who "fudges" (i.e. changes the dice or the scenario) on a frequent reoccurring basis is doing a disservice to his players. IMO. He is shoehorning the events of the campaign into his own mindset of "fun" and reinforcing lack of spontaneity and problem solving from his players.

Please. You can't say that authoritatively at all. It's completely contrary to my DM style, for instance, where I rarely plan more than somewhat vague plot elements and some standard stat blocks and a few NPCs.