Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6786441" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yes, but by that same token, people have repeatedly given the reversed case as though it is an impeccable argument in favor of fudging: the "success would be way more interesting/cooler/funner/awesomer, but I asked for a roll and it failed" examples. If success is so clearly, obviously better and more interesting than failure, why even bother with a roll that you will ignore if it doesn't go the way you want it to go? If "obvious failure means you shouldn't even ask for a roll" holds true, then I see little to no reason why "obvious success" shouldn't do the same. I can certainly say that I feel pretty damned good when I present my case to the DM so well, he (or she, though I've not yet had a female DM) simply says, "Sure, that's what happens."But in order to make it a good example, you must overstate your case. A DM rolling 20 after 20 after 20, while players roll 1 after 1 after 1, is an incredible statistical improbability. If we're talking just two DM-run creatures vs. a party of four PCs, the odds of even two rounds where this occurs would be (.05)^((4+2)*2) = .05^12 = 0.000000000000000244140625, or approximately 1 in four quadrillion (4,096,000,000,000,000 to be precise). Even if all of the 7.5 billion-ish people on the planet participated in a thousand two-round combats a day, every day, that would be (4.096 quadrillion/((7.5 billion/5 players)*1000 games/day*365.25 days/year) = ~7.48 years of playing, just to expect one combat that was that bad.Now, let's take your example and tone it down--to simply "all four PCs miss all their attacks, which they have a 60% chance of landing, and the DM crits with all four of the attacks made by the creatures." That would be a miss chance of p=0.4, so we'd have (.4)^8*(.05)^4 = 0.000000004096 (I swear I didn't plan that!), or approximately 1 in 244,140,625. I think it's safe to assume that that number is bigger than the total number of all games ever played in any dice-based gaming system (particularly since it's slightly over three-quarters of the current US population!) Even if every campaign had a thousand instances of "two consecutive rounds of combat with this many participants" (which sounds like a buttload of fights, since even 4e only expected ~300 combats to reach maximum level), that's still 244,000 campaigns just to get an expected value of one two-round situation like this weakened case.In other words: Something so severe where fudging is necessary, where no one is at fault and the dice are purely responsible, is so statistically unlikely, even over the course of an individual gamer's entire lifetime, that I feel completely justified in dismissing it as a valid example. Yes, it could happen--just like I could be struck by lightning on the same day as buying the winning lottery ticket (if I ever bought any). But the odds are low enough to be negligible. In fact, I think it's actually quite unlikely that it ever has happened to anyone in this conversation, even if 50 posters have participated at any point. In fact, a calculation: p(hasn't happened to any of us) ≈ (1-0.000000004096)^50 ≈ 0.9999997952, meaning the inverse--that it has happened to at least one of us--is about 1 in 4.9 millionThe much, much more likely scenario is that the GM, the players, or both are at least as much "at fault" for the bad situation happening. At which point, I would argue that the more useful response, in the long run, is to use it as a learning exercise, instead of handwaving it away. The DM needs to think about how they design and employ combats. This may mean weakening or eliminating combats that have not yet happened, employing unwise but context-appropriate enemy tactics, playing enemy creatures more cautiously and having them retreat more often, etc. For those times where a fight doesn't pan out as quite the climactic battle you wanted, you should instead have prepared items "waiting in the wings" so to speak--perhaps extra soldiers who were ordered to stay out of the fight, but rush in when seeing their commander "at death's door"; or giving an awesome boss a "NOW YOU SHALL SEE MY TRUE FORM" ability that triggers on reaching 0 HP; or giving most bosses a health potion they can quaff as a reaction (and simply choosing not to use it when you, as DM, don't think it necessary--again, "unwise but context-appropriate tactics"). Similarly, the players need to think about whether they're managing resources and risks as well as they could be--and whether they're employing sound strategic thinking. Knowing their abilities, knowing wise strategies (e.g. "better to deal damage and let your ally bleed on the ground for a round, than to spend a spell healing and delay the damage-dealing that much longer"), preparing for dangerous situations, having known simple attack plans the group can employ (which can be a delightful RP opportunity as well!).So...again, I don't see any situations where fudging is necessary unless one or more participants "made a mistake" (in the sense of pursuing an enjoyable situation). I believe that it is better for all people involved to face those "mistakes" and learn from them, so that the enjoyable situation flows naturally from the choices made. Does that mean DMs shouldn't, for example, make preparations for the possibility that the group has "failed"? Not at all! The DM would absolutely be wise to always consider, "What would happen if there's a TPK? Will it actually be the party's deaths, or will it be something else? How can I raise the stakes after a TPK, so that the players still fear 'dying,' without ending their characters' stories prematurely?" These are extremely useful questions to ask, and any answers you come to are just another form of DM preparation for things failing to go to plan--a skill I think every DM has to hone at some point.</blockquote>

Verification