D&D 5E To fudge or not to fudge: that is the question

[EzekielRaiden]

You made the claim, so prove it. Prove that bad luck can only happen to and impact easy encounters, and not hard ones. I'll wait.

Firstly: I might be reading something into this, but your post sounds a bit hostile. Have I offended you? If so, I apologize.

Second: I never made that claim. Not once have I ever said that luck only affects such encounters. I was only considering such encounters, because that's what Imaculata wanted to talk about--the requirement was placed by Imaculata's (theoretical) example and nothing else. Luck happens in all encounters. And you are correct that, if the DM is intentionally throwing high-risk, steep-difficulty encounters, then the danger is going to increase and the margin of error will reduce. That wasn't what Imaculata spoke of, in the post I quoted, so that wasn't a situation I was considering. That I didn't consider it doesn't mean it never happens--it was merely outside the scope.

I had thought, on the basis of joining the conversation specifically to back up Imaculata's assessment, without saying anything different (other than providing the frequency of your sessions), that you were agreeing with the restrictions placed on the type of situation under consideration. Hence why I quoted Imaculata's statement. Since I now know that you had always meant to refer to a very different situation--the DM intentionally and consistently pushing the upper bounds of the system--it makes a good deal more sense that you would have the situations you do. Of course, purely as my own opinion, I think it's a little silly to push the difficulty so high, only to then rein it in later--whether or not it happens frequently, it gives a sense of working at cross-purposes with yourself. I, personally, prefer a situation where the players consistently fear for their safety (at least in the first round or two), but where the margin of error was always known (by the DM) to be well in hand; that way, the outcomes are (almost always) precisely what the DM intended, in terms of success or failure rates (though not necessarily what the nature of that success or failure is--no plan survives contact with the players), but the players still feel like they overcame daunting odds and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

In that sense, perhaps we are coming at it from a perspective of which area we want to make an illusion, when it is necessary to resort to them to maintain the "flow" of the game. Because the nature and validity of player choice is of paramount concern for me, I never, under any circumstances, wish to create a situation where the player only has an illusion of making an informed decision, when the results have nothing to do with how they have decided to act + whatever randomness comes from the dice (which is something I believe players need to learn to manage). So instead, I am comfortable making the danger be an illusion--not much of one, mind, since death or at least severe hurt is still possible, but still, I'm okay with making players feel greater fear than is warranted by the enemy/ies in question. I don't mean to speak on your behalf, since I'm not you and it's pretty obvious now that we express ourselves in very different ways. However, it sounds like you prefer to allow the action-resolution system (the "consequences" in a very, VERY rough gloss) to be illusory, in the uncommon-but-unavoidable situations where the action-resolution system produces a result you don't wish to see happen (for any of a number of reasons).

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]91 - the reason I tend to look at the math and the odds before accepting someone's claims is pretty simple. If someone claimed that they got a royal flush every time they played poker with their friends, would you simply accept that? Or would you question it? After all, the odds of a royal flush are extremely small, and someone getting one every time they play is very anomalous. So, you question, and it turns out that when they play poker, they play with several wild cards - 2's, 3's and 4's are all wild. So, their experience is true, but, until you get that extra bit of information, it remains an anomaly.

Let's take [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s claims about running combats that are extremely difficult and use up the entire party's resources. Now, unless the entire party is Short Rest recharge (like fighters or warlocks), that's not an easy thing to do. It's hard to blow through that many resources in a single encounter. Let's do some back of the envelope calculations:

1. Take a 10th level party of 5 PC's. Fairly standard party, 2 fighter (types), a rogue, cleric and wizard. Now, that party, generally, should have about 350 HP total. Give or take. Make that 500 with healing.

2. In order to blow through the cleric and the wizard's resources, we need about 10 rounds of combat. You simply can't do it in a shorter space, the group doesn't have enough actions to use up their spell list. A 5 round combat can't use up this party's resources.

3. If the combat lasts for 10 rounds, the bad guys cannot do more than about 50 points of damage per round. Any more and they kill all the PC's.

4. A 10th level party should be dealing about 100 points of damage per round - between AoE spells, and whatnot, that's pretty reasonable. Therefore, we need about 1000 HP worth of baddies. Any less and the combat is over too soon and the party can't expend it's resources. Let's see, trolls have 84 HP, so that gives us 12 trolls. This is a Deadly level encounter.

Now, let's work it out shall we?

12 trolls get 36 attacks per round. Each attack does either 7 or 11 points of damage. The trolls can only hit 7 times, maximum, per round. Any more than that, and they kill the PC's. So, the trolls can't hit more than 20% of the time. But, with bounded accuracy and a +7 attack bonus, trolls should be hitting considerably higher than 20%. It should be closer to 40%. Why are the trolls only hitting half as often as expected? This is anomaly number 1.

OTOH, the party is attacking 12 trolls. The wizard isn't holding back, so, it's fireballs for everyone. Hit 4 trolls with a fireball and you're good for about 80 points of damage, quite easily. Why are the other 4 PC's only doing 20 points of damage per round? What's wrong with these PC's that their damage output is so low? Anomaly number 2.

As a result, I'm left with more questions than answers. How do you design encounters meant to blow through the party's entire load of resources that A. Last long enough to actually ALLOW the party to do this and B. Do so without killing the PC's?

This is an encounter Challenge Rating of 24. The guidelines in the DMG tell me that I should be mopping the floor with the PC's in this encounter. This should be a TPK, almost guaranteed. Yet, this is the bare minimum that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] needs to get the results he claims he is getting. Any fewer monsters (and consequently fewer HP) and the encounter is too short to blow through the party's resources. Any more monsters and they need to hit even less often than the half chances they are already hitting.

When someone claims that the DMG is flat out wrong, and their experiences are contrary to the guidelines provided AND their experiences are so anomalous, why should I take them at face value. I have a sneaking suspicion that two things are true - [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] fudges considerably more than the 2-4 times per campaign and there are some seriously strange encounter setups going on. I talked to another poster recently whose campaign regularly featured encounters starting at ranges of hundreds of feet. That would certainly give a different result than expected. Is suspect that there is something similar going on here. That if we were to drill down a bit further and gain a better insight into what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is doing at his table, we'd see why he (sorry, I did presume he, my appologies if I'm wrong) is getting results that are so far away from the results that the DMG states we should be seeing.

 

[Maxperson]

Firstly: I might be reading something into this, but your post sounds a bit hostile. Have I offended you? If so, I apologize.

No. You haven't offended me. Sorry if I seem hostile. It's just that the math you have been describing has been full of requirements that I never asked for and Imaculata has already told you was hyperbole and then agreed with me and my arguments, so your continued pursuit of that goal is misplaced and has been for quite some time now. It has just been a bit frustrating that you have been ignoring me and the far more reasonable requirements that are reality.

Second: I never made that claim. Not once have I ever said that luck only affects such encounters. I was only considering such encounters, because that's what Imaculata wanted to talk about--the requirement was placed by Imaculata's (theoretical) example and nothing else. Luck happens in all encounters. And you are correct that, if the DM is intentionally throwing high-risk, steep-difficulty encounters, then the danger is going to increase and the margin of error will reduce. That wasn't what Imaculata spoke of, in the post I quoted, so that wasn't a situation I was considering. That I didn't consider it doesn't mean it never happens--it was merely outside the scope.

Fair enough. Thank you for acknowledging that the requirements vary depending on encounter difficulty. Encounter difficulty varies from trivially easy to very hard within any given campaign, so math that doesn't take that into account cannot be accurate.

I had thought, on the basis of joining the conversation specifically to back up Imaculata's assessment, without saying anything different (other than providing the frequency of your sessions), that you were agreeing with the restrictions placed on the type of situation under consideration. Hence why I quoted Imaculata's statement. Since I now know that you had always meant to refer to a very different situation--the DM intentionally and consistently pushing the upper bounds of the system--it makes a good deal more sense that you would have the situations you do. Of course, purely as my own opinion, I think it's a little silly to push the difficulty so high, only to then rein it in later--whether or not it happens frequently, it gives a sense of working at cross-purposes with yourself. I, personally, prefer a situation where the players consistently fear for their safety (at least in the first round or two), but where the margin of error was always known (by the DM) to be well in hand; that way, the outcomes are (almost always) precisely what the DM intended, in terms of success or failure rates (though not necessarily what the nature of that success or failure is--no plan survives contact with the players), but the players still feel like they overcame daunting odds and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

Both Imaculata and I have both been discussing this topic, so coming to his defense and vise versa should take both of our arguments into account, especially since Imaculata admitted to hyperbole and backed up my more reasonable assertions. I'm not sure if you missed that post or not, but you haven't altered your responses since then.

To answer your question about adding difficulty only to reign it in. I don't reign in the difficulty I choose at all. I reign in bad luck that pushes the difficulty to a level higher than I intended. I re-balance the difficulty to where it should be and if the players lose, they lose and could still see a TPK.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To answer your question about adding difficulty only to reign it in. I don't reign in the difficulty I choose at all. I reign in bad luck that pushes the difficulty to a level higher than I intended. I re-balance the difficulty to where it should be and if the players lose, they lose and could still see a TPK.

See, I think the two bolded statements are directly contradictory. You are choosing to let luck take such a significant place. That is a form of difficulty you have knowingly placed into the encounters (based on what you've said about high-difficulty encounters having narrow margins of error). You're then removing it later, "rebalancing" to remove an effect you knew was present. That's applying difficulty, and then reining it in. If you want to maintain the danger without having such moments of "rebalancing," why not simply remove or reduce the luck on the enemy side? Make enemies confirm crits, for example, and use static damage rather than rolled damage. Then you won't need to "rebalance" to remove the luck. It's already gone. And if you're already hiding most such rolls from your players, they'll never know the difference (unless they listen for the rolling dice, at which point you could just roll some meaningless dice).

 

[Maxperson]

See, I think the two bolded statements are directly contradictory. You are choosing to let luck take such a significant place. That is a form of difficulty you have knowingly placed into the encounters (based on what you've said about high-difficulty encounters having narrow margins of error). You're then removing it later, "rebalancing" to remove an effect you knew was present. That's applying difficulty, and then reining it in. If you want to maintain the danger without having such moments of "rebalancing," why not simply remove or reduce the luck on the enemy side? Make enemies confirm crits, for example, and use static damage rather than rolled damage. Then you won't need to "rebalance" to remove the luck. It's already gone. And if you're already hiding most such rolls from your players, they'll never know the difference (unless they listen for the rolling dice, at which point you could just roll some meaningless dice).

Not so. I'm going to pick an arbitrary number to illustrate my point. When I make a hard encounter, I am choosing the difficulty. The difficulty I choose is X + 6 Luck. That's what I am choosing. If Luck goes to 7 or higher due to long odds striking true, then it has gone past what I have chosen, so reigning it in is not going against it. The reason I don't bother to do static damage and the like is because 2-4 times in 1.5 years of game play is extraordinarily minimal. The very few times I have to fudge are vastly outweighed by the enjoyment gained by keeping things random.

 

[iserith]

Not so. I'm going to pick an arbitrary number to illustrate my point. When I make a hard encounter, I am choosing the difficulty. The difficulty I choose is X + 6 Luck. That's what I am choosing. If Luck goes to 7 or higher due to long odds striking true, then it has gone past what I have chosen, so reigning it in is not going against it. The reason I don't bother to do static damage and the like is because 2-4 times in 1.5 years of game play is extraordinarily minimal. The very few times I have to fudge are vastly outweighed by the enjoyment gained by keeping things random.

Do you fudge if difficulty goes above what you expected because of how the players choose to engage with the challenge?

 

[Maxperson]

Do you fudge if difficulty goes above what you expected because of how the players choose to engage with the challenge?

If you're asking about it becoming harder due to bad decisions on their part, no I don't fudge that. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you could rephrase.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not so. I'm going to pick an arbitrary number to illustrate my point. When I make a hard encounter, I am choosing the difficulty. The difficulty I choose is X + 6 Luck. That's what I am choosing. If Luck goes to 7 or higher due to long odds striking true, then it has gone past what I have chosen, so reigning it in is not going against it.

But "7 Luck," "8 Luck," "400 Luck" are all part of the possibility space. You are choosing to let that possibility space apply. You don't get to "choose" 6 Luck or any other "amount" of luck--it just happens. You do, however, have some amount of choice over how sensitive the scenario is to unusual events, the "margin of error" in your words. You chose a degree of sensitivity to "long odds," and then dialled back when those long odds happened--I don't see any way of not calling that "reining in" unwanted-yet-chosen results.

The reason I don't bother to do static damage and the like is because 2-4 times in 1.5 years of game play is extraordinarily minimal. The very few times I have to fudge are vastly outweighed by the enjoyment gained by keeping things random.

Well, it's not like going with static damage makes the situation completely non-random. Just removes one particular axis thereof. As would the "force monsters, but not PCs, to confirm crits" suggestion.

But with that said, more power to you. If this gives you the game you like, do it. How I feel about the way you choose to game doesn't mean much for what you can or should do in the future, unless I'm a player in your games. But I can say, unequivocally, that it would still drive me up the wall to know that whether my character succeeds or fails is, even partially, conditionally, and infrequently, dependent on your whim rather than on the information available to me and the game's resolution system. Because all of that "partially, conditionally, and infrequently" stuff is also dependent on your whim--and means I can never completely trust the results of the actions I take.

And that's part of why I think most DMs shouldn't fudge--a very sizable chunk of players (as this very thread has shown) absolutely hate the idea that their successes or failures are dependent, even partially, on "DM whim" (or "DM oversight" or "DM fun-boosting initiatives" or whatever you wish to call it) rather than an "impartial" adjudication of their decisions. And yes, I do think there is a difference between an as-impartial-as-possible adjudication and "DM oversight" or whatever.

 

[Maxperson]

But "7 Luck," "8 Luck," "400 Luck" are all part of the possibility space. You are choosing to let that possibility space apply.

No I'm not. As the DM, I can do whatever I see fit and allow/disallow whatever I see fit. Nobody and nothing gets to tell me otherwise and be correct. If I decide to limit luck to 6, that's all the luck allowed.

You don't get to "choose" 6 Luck or any other "amount" of luck--it just happens.

Yes I do. I get to absolutely allow X luck and if the luck goes beyond that X, it's disallowed.

Well, it's not like going with static damage makes the situation completely non-random. Just removes one particular axis thereof. As would the "force monsters, but not PCs, to confirm crits" suggestion.

It removes a great deal of the enjoyment of the game and for no good reason.

But with that said, more power to you. If this gives you the game you like, do it. How I feel about the way you choose to game doesn't mean much for what you can or should do in the future, unless I'm a player in your games. But I can say, unequivocally, that it would still drive me up the wall to know that whether my character succeeds or fails is, even partially, conditionally, and infrequently, dependent on your whim rather than on the information available to me and the game's resolution system. Because all of that "partially, conditionally, and infrequently" stuff is also dependent on your whim--and means I can never completely trust the results of the actions I take.

You're attributing too much to what I do. What I do doesn't force success or failure. It just evens things up a bit. It's also impossible for it to be "whim", since it's by rule/design/reason that I do it.

And that's part of why I think most DMs shouldn't fudge--a very sizable chunk of players (as this very thread has shown) absolutely hate the idea that their successes or failures are dependent, even partially, on "DM whim" (or "DM oversight" or "DM fun-boosting initiatives" or whatever you wish to call it) rather than an "impartial" adjudication of their decisions. And yes, I do think there is a difference between an as-impartial-as-possible adjudication and "DM oversight" or whatever.

Whim plays no part in it and it entirely impartial adjudication of my rules. I have a rule that I enact to prevent super bad luck from wiping the party. I enforce it impartially.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're attributing too much to what I do. What I do doesn't force success or failure. It just evens things up a bit. It's also impossible for it to be "whim", since it's by rule/design/reason that I do it.

"Force" need not be required. Merely determination--what decides how the situation ends up? A monster that gets bonus HP, or that doesn't crit when the system says it is supposed to crit, is a monster whose impact on the world is chosen by you, even though that choice is often "make no change."

Whim plays no part in it and it entirely impartial adjudication of my rules. I have a rule that I enact to prevent super bad luck from wiping the party. I enforce it impartially.

So...how exactly do you define "super bad luck" in a way that isn't completely subjective? It doesn't matter if you have a completely impartial procedure, if that procedure is only triggered by a subjective evaluation. And I don't know of any word that is more obviously subjective than "bad."