Why the World Exists

[Ariosto]

double post

 

[Scribble]

This is the sort of thing that I thought you meant.

CR and EL are tools to give the DM some ability to predict the outcome of a particular encounter or series of encounters, and thus to achieve a desired outcome. Perforce, the CR guidelines are not perfect, and make assumptions about how encounters are handled, and perforce, the CR guidelines will sometimes fail because the encounter is handled in a way not foreseen by the creator of the guidelines (thus seemingly "too easy" or "too hard").

Ok sure, we'll go that route. Thats fine. Those who write the rules have a desired outcome of their rules. Right on.

In this case not fudging also plays towards th desired outcome. You have x percentage chance to defeat an encounter of y level. Fudging invalidates that, so not fudging works towards a desired outcome.

But what I said isn't invalidated. If the CR indicates in X circumstance Y should occur, and then G7 occurs instead because the author of said rules screwed up? My expectations of what the implied desired outcome was are now invalidated. That annoys Scribble. It's like if someone secretly replaced the 20 on your die with another 1. Now my understanding of the die has been undermined. The game says I have a 5% chance to roll a 20 and I no longer can.

However, "too easy" and "too hard" both strongly imply (I would go so far as to say have no intrinsic meaning without the existance of) a desired outcome. The entire CR system, as well as things like wish lists, etc., are a move to encourage desired outcome play. Because random elements exist within the game, though, this desired outcome does not always occur.

It is the random elements, not the rules, that are adjusted when the CR 5 creature outperforms (or underperforms) your expectations. Random elements like encounter design, player choices, and die rolls.

Fudging eliminates these random elements, thus reinforcing the desired (predicted by CR guidlelines) outcome. It is, after all, meaningless to say that you intentionally chose a CR 5 creature without also agreeing that you chose that CR because it seemed to support the encounter outcome you wanted.

And what outcome was expected or wanted?

If it's simply that the game run as designed then sure I agree.

If it's simply that X character has an x percentage chance to survive a head to head fight? Then yes again I agree.

If it's that a character not die or the "plot not be ruined" in a particular encouunter then I dissagree.

In either case choosing a particular CR vrs not choosing a particular CR are both done with a "desired outcome" in a way. In one case it's the outcome that PCs have a chance mathwise to effect the encounter should they choose to. In the other it's sometimes they just don't and have to avoid the encounter.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, while CR does a poor job of predicting actual difficulty, it is advertised as working so well that the entire encounter design and XP rules are based around using CR.

This we agree on.

So, it sometimes requires a bit of correction on the DMs part.

Only if there is a "desired result". I suppose, otherwise, you might need to adjust XP awards, but the vagarities of the CR system are liable to even out on this score without any adjustement at all. Certainly, unless there is a "desired result" that a die roll undoes, there is no need to adjust die rolls.

However, I agree that using CRs to plan encounters DOES imply a desired result.

We agree here.

For much the same reasons that using CRs to plan encounters implies a desired result (strongly), so does fudging a die roll. If there is no desired result, why use CRs? If there is no desired result, why fudge the roll?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

If the CR indicates in X circumstance Y should occur, and then G7 occurs instead because the author of said rules screwed up? My expectations of what the implied desired outcome was are now invalidated. That annoys Scribble. It's like if someone secretly replaced the 20 on your die with another 1. Now my understanding of the die has been undermined. The game says I have a 5% chance to roll a 20 and I no longer can.

LOL.

Where were you when I was discussing the (many) failings of 3.5?

The CR System is a predictive engine, but if you read the DMG, you will note that it makes no prediction of being perfect in its predictions. I do not agree with the argument that because a prediction fails to take into account all possible elements (which is, in and of itself, an impossible task), the game has failed to run as designed.

But, going from this, the encounter was designed to follow the predictive model. The predictive model predicted a given outcome. The investment in the outcome (not the investment in the model) causes the fudging. I do not believe that anyone, anywhere, ever fudged because he believed it protected the (questionable at best) integrity of the CR System. I do believe that many people in many places have fudged because they used the CR System in an attempt to control the odds, and that attempt failed without fudging.

It is also true, as you say, that not fudging the dice is also in service of a desired outcome. The desired outcomes, however, in these two cases are polar bears and pine martins. Close enough to be related, but not the same animal.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

My initial impression is that 4E does a good job of yielding predictability. However, any probabilistic element -- even the probability of players choosing a given mix of character types -- means that an encounter is sometimes easier and sometimes harder than average.

So, I am skeptical when I see a claim, based on a single run, that an encounter is poorly designed. A small sample is not a sound basis, and just one instance is as small as they come.

 

[ryryguy]

perfect storm of bad luck

The bloodthirstyness of the privateers is going to be determined by reaction roll, so assuming the adventurers allow them to board or are forced to yield, the crew may not necessarily end up dead with a wave of my hand. I might impose a -1 or -2 modifier to the reaction roll, but if the roll is high they could simply end up marooned instead.

That said, I would have no problem with the privateers killing off the crew if that's how it shakes out. Remember that we're talking about a perfect storm of bad luck for the adventurers: wrong place wrong time, facing overwhelming force, bad reaction. The chances of this encounter are about the same as the ancient red wyrm in a fit of pique discussed earlier.I agree that keeping meaningful options on the table is a worthy goal, but I also think that an occasional foregone conclusion, whether it's murderous privateers in space or a coup de grâce of a captive adventurer by an orc chieftain, can be a part of an enjoyable game, if the players and the referee know this is a possibility from the outset and accept that shared mental space of the game-world.

Very interesting... I think I can appreciate a some of the fun I'd have playing in a game where there was a lot of uncertainty and risk, where I felt like I had to stay on my toes at all times or risk catastrophe. I have played in a few games like that. However...

I can't help but wonder how I would react to the above scenario as a player. I'm pretty sure that I would not find it enjoyable. Even assuming I did know and buy into the idea that this was possible from the outset, I don't think I'd say, "Wow, that was an amazing, perfect storm of bad luck! What fun! I really feel like I am there, experiencing the game world in all its coherence and verisimilitude!"

Please note, I'm not trying to say your game style is bad or that you and your group can't possibly be having fun. I'm just trying to imagine putting myself in the shoes of a player in a game where this happened. Have you actually had this sort of thing happen at your table, and if so, how do your players react?

I remember reading something several years ago (sorry, no idea of the source), where a DM recounted a game session. First, the group completed a long, dramatic arc successfully. I think they may have lost a PC or two in the process, but they won out over great odds and achieved a victory that was important to them. The group was estatic. But, there were still a couple of hours left in the session. So as they journeyed through the woods back to town, he rolled for a random encounter. A wolf attacked, and in the ensuing combat there was a perfect storm of bad luck. One of the PCs was killed by the wolf.

According to the DM, the players immediately deflated, becoming quiet and obviously depressed. He asked them why. "She just died for nothing. It seems pointless."

Again - I'm not trying to say all groups would react this way. Maybe the random wolf encounter was a bad choice for his group because they weren't expecting that style of play - they weren't bought into it ahead of time.

But the DM who wrote up this story clearly took a lesson from it, and it resonates with me. As a player, I don't want to win all the time and I expect to lose. But I want it to matter. I want to have a chance not to lose because of my efforts. More than that, if I do end up losing, I want to have at least a little bit of choice regarding how and why I lose. I don't want it to be because of mere randomness, even if it's the randomness built into a meticulously crafted, coherent and logical game world.

If I'm dealt a zero-point bridge hand and the opponents have a laydown grand slam, I can laugh it off due to bad luck. If my fantasy football team's entire starting lineup suffers season-ending injuries in the first week of the season, I might even get a perverse enjoyment out of such spectacular misfortune.

But when I play D&D or other RPGs, I'm looking for something else. I'm not sure I even know exactly what it is. Maybe it's just wanting to be challenged? Like, on the flip side, if a perfect storm of good luck on the encounter tables led to the discovery of an abandoned starship packed with gold and the deed to a paradise planet - it'd be different, but I don't think I'd actually enjoy that either.

Please note, by challenge I don't mean "always a level-appropriate" challenge. Figuring out something is not "level-appropriate" and backing off could in itself be an enjoyable challenge. Screwing up and stepping into the "non-level-appropriate" challenge might just open a new challenge of how to survive or to recover from getting my butt handed to me.

I understand as well that we're talking about a continuum here, that even DMs who are very committed to a sandbox style are still generally going to have ways for players to figure out when they might be getting in over their heads and to escape when they inevitably do; and PC's are gonna die sometimes in most any style of game. But the Shaman's comments were pretty striking to me as one of the purest expressions of the one end of the continuum. In that pure form at least, I don't think it would be the game for me.

 

[Scribble]

LOL.

Where were you when I was discussing the (many) failings of 3.5?

Not sure.

The CR System is a predictive engine, but if you read the DMG, you will note that it makes no prediction of being perfect in its predictions. I do not agree with the argument that because a prediction fails to take into account all possible elements (which is, in and of itself, an impossible task), the game has failed to run as designed.

Sure I agree, but I'm not saying the game as a whole. Just a particular element... Which is why I said it wasn't a routine thing, and my example was a broad example.

Really I don't need "perfect" predictability... That would be boring. I just want it to be roughly on track. Little swings here and there don't bother me. It's the odd out of no where OOPS moments that get to me because they throw EVERYTHING off.

But, going from this, the encounter was designed to follow the predictive model. The predictive model predicted a given outcome. The investment in the outcome (not the investment in the model) causes the fudging. I do not believe that anyone, anywhere, ever fudged because he believed it protected the (questionable at best) integrity of the CR System. I do believe that many people in many places have fudged because they used the CR System in an attempt to control the odds, and that attempt failed without fudging.

Sort of: But what I was saying can be looked at from the standpoint of someone picking a CR and using that or someone randomly having a CR pop up.

If the CR indicates that a creature is X powerfull (roughly) then I can use that in my judgement of how to describe the situation to the PCs without having to go throuhg the entire stat block.

If it's a CR much higher then theis I can give them clues (usually through skill checks) as to their level of perceived danger.

But if something is wildly off, it tricks me. I give them a level of perception that's WAY off.

Those are the moments that annoy me. It's not that I WANTED them to survive, I just wanted their choice to do what they do to be somewhat informed.

It is also true, as you say, that not fudging the dice is also in service of a desired outcome. The desired outcomes, however, in these two cases are polar bears and pine martins. Close enough to be related, but not the same animal.RC

My point really was that the game is essentially desired outcome + random = fun. (Otherwise why have things like BaB or AC bonus, or levels of anything really.)

The amount of either side of the equation equaling fun to a particular group is open to debate.

 

[Ariosto]

Sure, an obviously "pointless" death may elicit more grief than one seen as "serving a purpose." A game with an emotional range encompassing that may appeal more to some people than one with a more limited range.

If that's not a feature but a flaw, then why incorporate it into your game rules? Why make it so that the DM feels obliged to hide "fudging" of rolls?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sort of: But what I was saying can be looked at from the standpoint of someone picking a CR and using that or someone randomly having a CR pop up.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about this one, because I am a very, very long way from convinced that a person using a random CR (i.e., a person who does not have a vested interest in what CR is used) is going to modify rolls because the listed CR is off.

Colour me skeptical, but I find the science in Star Trek more believable than that.

My point really was that the game is essentially desired outcome + random = fun. (Otherwise why have things like BaB or AC bonus, or levels of anything really.)

The amount of either side of the equation equaling fun to a particular group is open to debate.

Ah. But, let me suggest that the players can and should have a vested interest in the desired outcome of an encounter regardless of the type of campaign, but the interest in a desired outcome on the part of the DM fundamentally and obviously changes the nature of the game by the degree of its presence or absence.

(I.e., the point I first made.)


RC

 

[The Shaman]

I can't help but wonder how I would react to the above scenario as a player. I'm pretty sure that I would not find it enjoyable. Even assuming I did know and buy into the idea that this was possible from the outset, I don't think I'd say, "Wow, that was an amazing, perfect storm of bad luck! What fun! I really feel like I am there, experiencing the game world in all its coherence and verisimilitude!"

I don't for a second expect the players to be singing hosannas to my ability as a referee when their characters get offed.

On the other hand, I don't expect them to sulk about it either.

(No, ryryguy, I'm not suggesting you, or anyone one else posting to this thread, is a sulker, a pouter, a whiner, or a tantrum thrower. I just thought one extreme deserved another defining extreme, so that we can perhaps find a meaningful middle.)

Please note, I'm not trying to say your game style is bad or that you and your group can't possibly be having fun. I'm just trying to imagine putting myself in the shoes of a player in a game where this happened. Have you actually had this sort of thing happen at your table, and if so, how do your players react?

I've experienced a number of TPKs over the years, almost always predicated by the players rolling aces and me with a white-hot hand.

However, the closest example I can think of to the raiders scenario was two adventurers in a 1e AD&D getting separated from the rest of the party by a block descending from the ceiling, sealing a passageway. The two adventurers were promptly attacked by hobgoblins; both were reduced to negative hit points, and I ruled that the hobgoblins finished off the downed characters and ate them for tea.

There were a couple of factors in play here. First, it was part of what I planned for the hobgoblins; the adventurers hadn't discovered their lair yet, complete with corpses hanging in the larder, but there were numerous indications that humans and demihumans were a regular part of the goblinoids' diet scattered around the dungeon: gnawed bones in cooking pots, a dwarf's mail-covered leg in a hobgoblin's pack (aka goblinonid 'iron' rations), et cetera.

Second, I made the judgment that getting the players of the adventurers-turned-Lunchables back into play quickly was preferable. One player took over a henchman as a character, the other opted to wait a little bit and re-enter the game with a whole new character a little while later as a recently captured prisoner of another group of hobgoblins encountered by the party (an instance of swinging toward the other end of the continuum in my own time behind the screen).

In this instance both players took it in stride as a hazard of the game. Both players were also dungeon masters in our group, and they were each familiar with the dungeon crawl sample narrative on pages 97-100 in the 1e AD&D DMG, specifically the fate of the gnome at the hands (and teeth) of the ghouls. Being eaten by monsters was not unexpected.

I think many referees might opt instead to make the characters prisoners instead of Happy Meals, to facilitate some sort of rescue or escape adventure. I have done that as well, but in the context in which this particular encounter took place, I opted against it, for the reasons outlined above.

As a player, I don't want to win all the time and I expect to lose. But I want it to matter. I want to have a chance not to lose because of my efforts. More than that, if I do end up losing, I want to have at least a little bit of choice regarding how and why I lose. I don't want it to be because of mere randomness, even if it's the randomness built into a meticulously crafted, coherent and logical game world.

I’m going to address the latter points first, then come back to the section I bolded in the quote.

So, first, let’s revisit the privateers example I offered earlier.

The actions of the privateers will be determined by two things: first, their mission, which is to destroy enemy shipping, and second, the reaction roll which guides me on how severely the raiders will treat their victims. There's a third factor to consider, which is the nature of starship combat in Traveller. For those of you not familiar with the game, starship combat is terrifically destructive, but not in a Star Wars disappear-in-a-flash-of-sparkles way. It’s more like combat between a pair of frigates or ships-of-the-line in the Age of Sail, pounding each other until they’re disabled hulks. A starship exploding in Traveller is the result of a very rare critical hit.

Now let’s make this a worst-case scenario: the merchant ship has no weaponry other than small arms for the crew, they’ve emerged from jump without fuel to make another jump, they don’t know they’ve just jumped into a war zone, and they are immediately engaged by privateers aboard a mercenary cruiser armed with lasers and missiles. The goal of the cruiser is destruction of shipping: if they can recover the cargo, fine, but it’s not the first priority, and the cruiser captain will offer no quarter to prisoners (reaction roll 2, adjusted to 1). This is about as bad as it can get for the crew of the free trader, our intrepid adventurers.

The adventurers should recognize at least two things immediately: this is not routine behavior for a pirate in this corner of the Imperium, and they are hopelessly outmatched both in weaponry and maneuver. Their options are limited. To start, the crew may try to maneuver as best they can, evading missiles and laser beams until the free trader’s power plant, maneuver drive, or computer is disabled or destroyed, which will put off the inevitable for a short while at best. They may elect to abandon ship, to take their chances in vacuum suits. They can dump their cargo, and perhaps try to hide in or amongst the drifting containers, again in vacuum suits. They may attempt to hide themselves aboard the free trader, like Han and friends in the Falcon’s secret holds. They may attempt to dump decoys to improve their chances of hiding aboard the ship, such as taking passengers out of the low berths, putting them in vacuum suits, and pushing them out the airlock before hiding aboard the ship. (Yes, it’s cruel.)

This is just a sampling of the tactics the players might employ on behalf of their characters. None of them are particularly good, but if the players can keep their characters out of the hands of the privateers, they have a (very tiny) chance of survival. If they survive the onslaught against their ship and are caught by the privateers, I’d consider offering them a second chance at a reaction roll if they can give the raiders a good reason to keep themselves alive: someone wealthy who can pay a ransom might work, or offering them information on the location of something of value. Overcoming the extremely negative reaction roll is unlikely unless you have a character with several levels in Liaison skill, but at least it’s something that the adventurers may attempt. If they can’t mod the roll out of the hostile range, then they’re spaced, or otherwise summarily executed. Grab a blank character sheet.

So there are some options with respect to how your character might face this situation. The why of it I can’t really help you with: I doubt you would consider this a death that “matters,” and as the referee it’s not something I worry about. Your character may die in a blaze of glorious fusing plasma while facing down some alien menace, or get killed by a random animal encounter while wilderness refueling your ship. It’s a hazardous and indifferent universe, and that’s the way I run it. Skill and luck alone determine your character’s destiny.

That may not be your cup of tea, in which case we must simply agree that our play styles diverge on this point.

But when I play D&D or other RPGs, I'm looking for something else. I'm not sure I even know exactly what it is. Maybe it's just wanting to be challenged? Like, on the flip side, if a perfect storm of good luck on the encounter tables led to the discovery of an abandoned starship packed with gold and the deed to a paradise planet - it'd be different, but I don't think I'd actually enjoy that either.

As I mentioned earlier, starships in Traveller only blow up with a rare critical hit. My character, Captain Hauser, was skipper of the far trader Skadi when we were confronted by a patrol cruiser which demanded we allow a team aboard for an inspection. The referee announced that the cruiser wasn’t moving to match vectors, but rather maneuvering to a position behind our ship, presumably for a clear shot at our engineering space. Conscious of the face that our hold was filled with gems and computer parts we’d purchased on spec, representing all of our capital, I ordered the gunners to fire, and a miracle hit on one of the cruiser’s turret caused a massive explosion that destroyed what we later learned was a Sword Worlder privateer masquerading as a planetary navy vessel.

We shoulda been space toast. Instead we were very lucky.

I’ll take my good luck with my bad.

Please note, by challenge I don't mean "always a level-appropriate" challenge. Figuring out something is not "level-appropriate" and backing off could in itself be an enjoyable challenge. Screwing up and stepping into the "non-level-appropriate" challenge might just open a new challenge of how to survive or to recover from getting my butt handed to me.

Understood.

Obviously it’s a sentiment I share, on both sides of the screen.

I understand as well that we're talking about a continuum here, that even DMs who are very committed to a sandbox style are still generally going to have ways for players to figure out when they might be getting in over their heads and to escape when they inevitably do; and PC's are gonna die sometimes in most any style of game. But the Shaman's comments were pretty striking to me as one of the purest expressions of the one end of the continuum. In that pure form at least, I don't think it would be the game for me.

Now here’s my question to you: would an encounter with the privateers as I described it above, an encounter in which despite your best efforts your character is caught and later spaced by the raiders, would this be a deal breaker for you? Would this unlikely but deadly encounter make the rest of the campaign unplayable for you? Or is even the possibility of such an encounter happening in the game grounds enough not to play at all?