# Do you "save" the PCs?



## Reynard (Apr 10, 2010)

The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim.  Yet, they won't run away.  So what do you do?

If you are GMing and the PCs get themselves in a pickle, but through poor judgement, overconfidence or just plain stubbornness they refuse to leave a losing encounter and a TPK or similar fate seems imminent, do you save them? Do you fudge the dice or have some deus ex machina event save them? Or do you leave them to cruel fate?


----------



## Nightson (Apr 10, 2010)

I prevent a TPK unless I can't think of a way to do that consistent with the situation.


----------



## darjr (Apr 10, 2010)

Kill em all let the GM sort em ou.... oh... yea, make em dead.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 10, 2010)

I start to look really worried and double check and double count all results so that when the characters fall, it will not have been because of my table mistake.

Then I run the encounter as written until it is resolved.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 10, 2010)

Depends on the game.  If a TPK is prevented though it will come at a cost but some times that is better then just starting a new campaign.


----------



## Victim (Apr 10, 2010)

Depends on the game.  In Mutants and Masterminds (which is what I'm running), I would give them all a hero point and have them wake up in some fiendish trap or something.  Casual lethality isn't really part of the sub genre I'm going for - and that works both ways.  By not pressuring the PCs with immediate death should they fail, I diminish the incentives for them to use lethal attacks on villains.  I'd rather not tempt some of my players.  And since they're supposed to be super heroes, I'd be kind of peeved if they wanted to run away before all the nearby bystanders could vacate the area.

Similarly, I'd be more inclined towards generosity if I had underestimated the enemy force than if it seemed like the party just screwed up.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 10, 2010)

Whatever happens happens. Adventuring is a contact sport after all. Part of the game is the possibility of losing. If I take that away from the players then I have left them without a game at all.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 10, 2010)

Take all their magic items. It's a fate more hated than death, and allows for some awesome revenge stories.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 10, 2010)

Yeah, sometimes. I never fudge the dice though, I just don't like to do that. My most recent campaign was M&M, which is, by genre, strongly against killing PCs. That said, I did kill individual PCs on three occasions over a 20 session campaign. For one of those the PC came back, also very in genre, because he'd just acquired a self-resurrect power.

The party in that game had amazing movement powers - one PC was a speedster, another had a global-range teleport - so they were mostly able to escape when fights went bad, come back and win round two. Also, very in genre. (Also very old school, come to think of it.) Twice, the party just lost and was unable to escape, both times I stuck em in death-traps. Also, very in genre (hmm, I see a pattern developing here).

But there was one time where the PCs were losing and I just saved them with a bit of a deus ex machina. They were fighting an army of plant monsters. I was finding the battle a bit dull and overlong, I was getting a bit tired, so I decided to have the enemy leader, the Great Growth, call for a cease-fire, appalled that there had been so many deaths on his side. (The players had been using lethal attacks in this battle, it had become pretty much a war rather than a traditional superhero fight. That this had happened was largely my fault, as I obviously hadn't made sufficiently clear at the start that the 'quest' NPCs only wanted one particular plant monster slain, not the whole gang.) It wasn't unreasonable or implausible but I definitely let the PCs off the hook, probably partly cause I just couldn't be arsed with the consequences of them losing and also cause I had had enough of this encounter and wanted to move on. Rather imperfect, certainly.


----------



## weem (Apr 10, 2010)

> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim. Yet, they won't run away. So what do you do?




I let it play out. I'm there to referee the fight, not throw in the towel.

I understand the point of 'saving the PC's' and have done it before in some previous campaigns - but I never really like doing that, and in most cases I say up front, before a campaign that I will not be doing so (and the players love this).

In those cases, if the players appear to be prepping to fight something(s) that I feel is out of their league, I may give hints such as "you feel like there is certainly a chance for victory... but you can tell it will be messy and the margin for error is slim at best" etc. Or on the other side, "you can tell this would be an easy victory... you outmatch them in every regard" etc. These are usually in situations where combat is not something that was planned by me, as those are well balanced.

If they go on regardless, it's in their hands. And of course in encounters I plan, I do not pull punches either.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Apr 10, 2010)

Generally I try to make it clear through in-game hints and DM body language that they're in over their heads.  

But if the PCs insist on charging ahead, well... let the dice fall where they may.

The caveat: I'll try to avoid a TPK (or allow an immediate rematch) if it's the DM's fault, like forgetting to mention a critical piece of information.  This is important to me since I don't put a lot of emphasis on mechanical balance; if the PCs are heading into a situation where they're outmatched, I try to make sure they understand that before it's too late (or at least make sure that they try to get more information!).


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 10, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim.  Yet, they won't run away.



I keep a ready supply of blank character sheets for just this situation.


----------



## Odhanan (Apr 10, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim.  Yet, they won't run away.  So what do you do?
> 
> If you are GMing and the PCs get themselves in a pickle, but through poor judgement, overconfidence or just plain stubbornness they refuse to leave a losing encounter and a TPK or similar fate seems imminent, do you save them? Do you fudge the dice or have some deus ex machina event save them? Or do you leave them to cruel fate?



I let the characters die. 

It is part of the game. If there is no possibility for failure, success means nothing.


----------



## caudor (Apr 10, 2010)

I simply remark 'you rolled poorly' and let them die.  That's little tradition I have going doesn't seem to bother my players at all.  They just whip up the character generator to roll up a friend or brother...eager for revenge.

Success is sweeter when you have risked your own hide in the process of getting it.


----------



## weem (Apr 10, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> I let the characters die.
> 
> It is part of the game. If there is no possibility for failure, success means nothing.






caudor said:


> Success is sweeter when you have risked your own hide in the process of getting it.




Yea. I agree from the DM side, and even more so on the player side.

Knowing a DM I play under is pulling punches and saving the group kills my enjoyment of a game entirely. It may sound, I don't know... petty, or a small thing to be concerned about, but for me that pretty much kills it.


----------



## Rechan (Apr 10, 2010)

Yes, I'd save them. In many cases I've pulled the punches either due to bad rolls or my own miscalculations.

The caveat though is that if I know the group would be offended by it/be OK with it, or if the Campaign could keep going despite it, I'd let them die.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 10, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Yes, I'd save them. In many cases I've pulled the punches either due to bad rolls or my own miscalculations.




I am very much a let the dice fall where they may type when I run games, and kind of on the "adversarial GM" side of things, but despite that -- or perhaps because of it -- I tend to try and be as fair as humanly possible, so I might "save" the PCs in the latter circumstances if a) i had made an error in calculating some planned encounter's difficulty (note: this does not apply to random encounters), and b) things were happening so fast the PCs/players didn't really have a chance to adjust for it.

But poor dice rolls, bad choices and the like lead to whatever consequences emerge organically, IMO.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Apr 10, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim.  Yet, they won't run away.  So what do you do?




It depends.  If it's solely because of poor luck (which can include using tactics that in practice didn't pan out but looked good in their minds) I'm more inclined to throw a bone than if it's due to player ineptness.  Refusing to run away if escape is possible is player ineptness as far as I'm concerned.  If escape isn't possible, and I've seen situations where it isn't, I might start to reroll dice if my hot streak continues* and/or give the PCs rerolls when their luck defies common sense.
Player: *rolls below 10 for the 5th time in a row*
Me: That's bs, roll again.
Player: *rolls a 3*
Me: *rolls an 18* That's your score.  Stupid dice.

I might choose ot take the PCs prisoner rather than kill them if it still turns out badly.  I don't like the idea of an impromptu NPC rescue.  If an encounter has a high EL, I might have a planned NPC ally to help out or leave the option open plot-wise for one to walk in if needed, but that's not quite the same.

In the case of player ineptness, barring very circumstantial case-by-case examples of a low mental scores PC genuinely trying to roleplay, even if it means doing very tactically unsound actions...I'm no where near as kind.  Best example i can think of is actually from my friend's game.  One of the PCs was a figher, got shot up for lots of damage, had few hp remaining.  He decided, instead of drinking a healing potion, which he had, that he would charge a Large (read: longer reach) Fire Elemental.  Of course, he died on the AoO before even getting to attack it.  No sympathy from the DM, and I wouldn't have given any, either.

*Anyone else seem to roll MUCH better as a DM than as a player?  Happens to me and one of my friends a lot.  Was funny, I had a mage in his game, and he'd roll a nat 20 about 1/3 of his saving throw rolls against my spells, and in general seemed to roll a 15-20 at least 90% of the time on a save.  Spurred me to look for no save spells much more than at any other point in my gaming history.  So, tables turn, I'm DM, he's playing an arcanist.  Guess who's suddenly rolling nat 20's on saving throws like it's the only number on the die?   Sweet revenge.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 11, 2010)

When there was an obvious chance to get away, surrender or something like this it is the PCs choice to die.

If it was mainly DM´s fault (mine) I am a bit more lenient. (A situation where surrender or running away is no option and players did everything right. It is a bit anticlimatic to kill them just because of some bad rolls.

But here it is important to hide the rolls or having an in game reason why i changed fate.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 11, 2010)

Not nearly as much as I used to.  It's not a zero thing, though.

For example, in 3.5, I let the newbie wizard player survive a disintegrate trap at the cost of an arm.  In a combat, I might "fix" really bad (or good, in truth) luck by the PCs by tweaking a couple of rolls on my side of the screen.

For myself, I've become very much a "let the dice fall as they may" person with D&D.  Any softness usually comes either because my players don't enjoy that as much or because there was some miscommunication ("Oh, you meant the dragon was as big as the king's throne room, not that the statue beside him was that big.  Crap!") that is threatening to end a PC.  Even in a "fall as they may" situation, I think it's a bit improper to allow obvious and reasonable misunderstandings ruin someone's evening.


----------



## frog (Apr 11, 2010)

Been guilty of both saving and not saving them. Had an instance last night where a symbol of death was triggered and someone failed a save. He had 148 hp (less than 150 is death). We have a form of action points in the game that can be used to re-roll a bad roll although normally you have to declare before the roll. The DM allowed him to use the re-roll even though he hadn't declared.

It really depends on the situation. In this case, it would have pretty much ended the night on the first encounter (Savage Tide, 13th level group, our only cleric was the failed save). We are all there to have fun and blowing up everyone's night 5 minutes into it really isn't much fun for anyone.


----------



## drothgery (Apr 11, 2010)

I'm not very good at judging how tough an encounter is going to be sometimes; I've had opponents in my PBPs open by hitting the PCs very hard, me deciding that I misjudged what the PCs could handle and quickly scaling back the enemy behind the scenes... and then a few rounds later it turning into a cakewalk.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2010)

Depends entirely on the game.  And I make it pretty known at the outset whether the gloves are off or not.  In my World's Largest Dungeon campaign, it was no holds barred.  You die when the dice gods decree.  Twenty seven PC deaths later, my next campaign was a LOT more lenient.    I allowed the PC to blow all his AP's to turn a lethal attack into Stable at -5.  A TPK was about the only way anyone could die.  

My current game allows the players to pretty much punch the I Win button at any time, so, dying is pretty much entirely up to them.


----------



## Skallgrim (Apr 11, 2010)

I really, really try to have planned out, in every adventure (if not every single encounter) a "fate worse than death". If the PCs are gonna die, then instead, something even more annoying happens.

I had one player rashly provoke someone who was clearly way more powerful than they were, when it was made totally clear that this guy would brook no disagreement, and when the rest of the party was totally, totally, totally agreeable about following his orders. There was really just absolutely no way that this PC should have survived as anything but smoking boots.

So the wizard gives them the option of immediate death, or of performing a little 'service' for him. Cue the exact same quest that the wizard was going to offer them as "mighty heroes", but now the big reward was _not dying_ instead of _massive loot_.

I ran Scourge of the Slave Lords back in the day, so "you wake up naked in chains" is always there in my tool chest too.

Given the existence of the Revenant race, I'm now totally set for any eventuality!


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Apr 11, 2010)

It really depends on the situation.  In the situation you described, I'm more prone to letting the characters twist in the wind.

If I screwed it up somehow (overmatched, gave them some bad info accidently, etc), then I have no problems saving the PCs somehow.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 11, 2010)

Let the dice fall where they may.

Genuine danger, up to and including the mortal kind, is a vital part of RPGs, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## caudor (Apr 11, 2010)

I've pondered more...

At lower levels, I do tend to let the dice fall where they may and let them die.  But a higher levels, I like to shake things up a little.

In some situations, I like to have the 'bad guy' keep players alive for his own villianous purposes: Using them as bargaining chips, attempting to turn them to the dark side, or simply keeping them prisoner as a trophy/amusement.

On one memorable occasion (the idea which I stole from Heroes of Horror), the players became vampires and turned out to be terrific adversaries for new characters.

Sometimes...death is the easy way out


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 11, 2010)

I "leave them to cruel fate". That's what they want me to do. It's what gives the victories context.

I'm the _referee_. I volunteered for the job so that my friends could play a game. I'm not in the game. It's not my place to be partial, to use my power to rig an outcome. I will get my own turn to play, and someone else to referee.

So, if "a TPK or similar fate" is the consequence dictated by the rules of their game, then that is their fun and I have no reason to spoil my friends' fun.

If they wanted something like playing a video game with "cheat codes" on, then I expect they would tell me of any such rules. I might or might not be interested in running such a show, but I would not lie to them with false agreement.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Apr 11, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim. Yet, they won't run away. So what do you do?



I ask myself if there is some reasonable way they could survive (for example, they are actually worth more to the enemy alive than dead), and if there isn't, I kill them all.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 11, 2010)

Cruel fate.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Apr 11, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I'm the _referee_. I volunteered for the job so that my friends could play a game. I'm not in the game. It's not my place to be partial, to use my power to rig an outcome. I will get my own turn to play, and someone else to referee.




DM is not just referee.  He also chooses the opposition and the location, among other things.  If you screwed up and seeded the PCs against a top 5 team it turns out they never really had a chance to beat, that's your fault.  If "homefield advantage" works out for team Monsters better than you anticipated, that's your fault.

And even extending it to incredibly bad dice rolling...  If one pro basketball team was nailing every 3 pointer it tried while the other team went 5 minutes with a scoring ratio of 2 scores : 18 attempts, as a referee, at what point of ridiculousness would you forfeit (not sure the proper term) the game because _clearly_ something was rigged?


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 11, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> DM is not just referee.  He also chooses the opposition and the location, among other things.  If you screwed up and seeded the PCs against a top 5 team it turns out they never really had a chance to beat, that's your fault.  If "homefield advantage" works out for team Monsters better than you anticipated, that's your fault.




Exactly.  The answer for me depends on the scenario the PCs are in.  In at least every other session, I like to have at least one encounter that's pretty far out there, scenario- and rules-wise.  Something like infinitely respawning waves of monsters in an escape scenario, or (in an epic-tier example) jumping between astral ships as they are being destroyed by the wrath of an angry god or something.

So, since I don't usually have the benefit of good testing in those scenarios, if one of my creations goes completely awry, I would prefer to "rescue" the PCs, typically by changing the scenario.  I've done so subtly, and I've done it in a more Deus Ex Machina style, but I'm not going to kill off a perfectly good party because they were my guinea pigs in something weird and untested.

On the other hand, if it's a more normal fight, and the PCs don't retreat when they're either outmatched or unlucky, then let the dice fall where they may.  I feel as though that's the standard answer there.


----------



## Pig Champion (Apr 11, 2010)

I always tell my players that they can do anything they want, on the condition that they can deal with the consequences of their actions.

Death being one of those consequences.


----------



## Somebloke (Apr 11, 2010)

If I feel that the looming TPK is due to a mistake by me as a DM, then I might offer advice or fudge some dice rolls.

If it is down to the player's decisions and an out already exists, then I sit back and enjoy some guilt-free carnage. The entire premise of the game rests on the threat of death- you _need_ to be prepared to follow this threat through if you want the element of danger to remain.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 11, 2010)

I don't have a general policy. The devil, as they say, is in the details.  What kind of game are we playing?  What kind of mood am I trying to set?  How exactly did they come to this point?  And so on.

There are games where I won't consider ever saving the party, and games where I'd consider it in certain circumstances.  There are other games where I've started with the explicit agreement that no PC was going to die unless the player wanted it to happen.


----------



## Woas (Apr 11, 2010)

Let 'em die. It's just a game.


----------



## ggroy (Apr 11, 2010)

In many one-shot pickup rpg games, I usually don't bother saving the players if they get in over their heads and/or I want to end the game before midnight.  (I have a hard time gaming when I'm starting to get sleepy and tired after playing for half the day, for a one-shot).

If there's a TPK from the players getting in over the heads in a pickup rpg game, we just end the game and find another game to play, such as a boardgame or a card game.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 11, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:
			
		

> DM is not just referee.  He also chooses the opposition and the location, among other things.



Uh, no. That's a different game. I happen actually to know what we play, and so am in a position to have something to say about it. Funny how that goes, eh?


----------



## Roadkill101 (Apr 11, 2010)

I run a grim and gritty style game, where even a fight with weaker foes can result in character death.  My players know up front that character death, based upon their actions, is a very real possibility.

I let the dice fall where they may, pulling no punches.  To my way of thinking if there's no risk of character death, ther's no real challenge in playing the game.

Some of my players have had to roll up new characters several times (mostly by refusing to retreat when in a weakened state) where others have only had to do so only once or twice where a situation resulted in a TPK.  

In situations where the party will be overmatched and the party should recognize the fact, I'll give due notice to the effect of "(insert character name here) has a very strong feeling that a frontal assualt on this keep in broad daylight is suicidal (or whatever situation the party is confronted with) and a different approach would be more appropriate."  I try to avoid setting up situations where the party will be overmatched and the characters have no way of discovering this fact until it's too late.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 11, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim. Yet, they won't run away. So what do you do?
> 
> If you are GMing and the PCs get themselves in a pickle, but through poor judgement, overconfidence or just plain stubbornness they refuse to leave a losing encounter and a TPK or similar fate seems imminent, do you save them? Do you fudge the dice or have some deus ex machina event save them? Or do you leave them to cruel fate?




I will, at times, protect the players from bad luck (the dice) by fudging. But, if they insist on not running away even when tactically necessary, then they are going to die. I will not protect players from intentional stupidity - and if it takes a TPK to teach them, then so be it. If they had an opportunity to save themselves, recognized the opportunity, and then ignored it for whatever reason...they may as well start rolling up new characters - I won't save them.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 11, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> DM is not just referee.  He also chooses the opposition and the location, among other things.  If you screwed up and seeded the PCs against a top 5 team it turns out they never really had a chance to beat, that's your fault.  If "homefield advantage" works out for team Monsters better than you anticipated, that's your fault.




I don't think this line of reasoning applies to all methods of play. Some GMs *are* just referees because they don't create adventures: they use modules and/or some system for adventure development (the random dungeon generator in the 1E DMG, frex) and therefore only arbitrate. If a GM runs just, say, Paizo Adventure Paths or Goodman DCCs, then he is in fact just a referee (if he so chooses).


----------



## Haltherrion (Apr 11, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim. Yet, they won't run away. So what do you do?
> 
> If you are GMing and the PCs get themselves in a pickle, but through poor judgement, overconfidence or just plain stubbornness they refuse to leave a losing encounter and a TPK or similar fate seems imminent, do you save them? Do you fudge the dice or have some deus ex machina event save them? Or do you leave them to cruel fate?




There are times when a complete party kill is nice. It can certainly remind the players you mean business. But let's be realistic, a complete party kill can end a campaign, something that isn't usually desirable.

Rather than fudge dice, my preferred method is make them pay a price but try to play it out in some manner that may allow some game continuity:


Dead PCs are always good in a situation like this. They need to feel there are consequences to their actions. Nothing like a dead person to do that.
Once folks start dropping dead, the remainder will usually reconsider fleeing. In many cases, that might remain an option, especially if the foes stop to loot or are themselves bloodied by now.
Capture of survivors for food, ransom or what not can be an option, usually with significant loss of gear.
There are some caveats:

If the disaster is due to some combination of bad luck and your own mis-calling of the encounter, you generally should go easier on the players. It depends on the type of campaign you are running but usually there is an understanding that the players will be given a fair chance to deal with encounter foes. It might be realistic for a ancient dragon to swoop out of the sky and eat them (if the campaign has those) but is that a fun game?
If the players are being willfully foolish and just getting themselves into more and more trouble until you have no choice but to kill them, then that is a red-flag that something is wrong with the campaign.
It could be a grumpy player trying to sabotage the campaign.
It could be the players really don't like the way you are refereeing and staging a revolt.
It is probably a combination of the two above. Regardless, you need to consider your campaign and you and your players may need to talk


----------



## Hejdun (Apr 11, 2010)

Unless it's brutally obvious that it's the PCs fault, I go a little easy on them and give them a chance to pull it out.  This is mostly because I'm having trouble balancing encounter difficulty, so I'm ratcheting up the difficulty.  So if the PCs are in a life-threatening encounter, it's probably because I ratcheted it up a bit too far.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Apr 11, 2010)

I have had a "TPK" - it wasn't complete, but we stopped the campaign with 2 dead, 3 confused. One sane character grabbed one of the confused ones and escaped. It was in the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil and I had gone tired of the campaign.

I usually let characters die without intervention, but check every loophole to see if there is something we had done wrong so the character can just have been passed out. 

I might let someone get a you-didn't-die-card if it just messes up everything and your character might get a scar or something like that. When I think of it I have generally talked it over with the player of the character before saying that the character is dead. That way the player doesn't feel powerless in the situation.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 11, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Uh, no. That's a different game. I happen actually to know what we play, and so am in a position to have something to say about it. Funny how that goes, eh?




So your GM doesn't happen to put together the monsters, and put them in the locations?  Your players do that too?


----------



## Reynard (Apr 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> So your GM doesn't happen to put together the monsters, and put them in the locations?  Your players do that too?




I don't actually know how Ariosto plays, but it isn't a huge leap to say that the GM for his group does not in fact do any of that, and neither do the players. Many groups use modules exclusively, in which case the GM doesn't "create" any adventures and is in fact a referee in the contest between the PCs and the adventure.

What I don't understand is why this is so difficult for people to believe.


----------



## thalmin (Apr 11, 2010)

I roll in front of the screen. No chance to fudge, and the players know it. But intelligent monsters might take prisoners.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 12, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim.  Yet, they won't run away.  So what do you do?




If they are too stupid or too proud to run away, they die.  I have played characters who were honor bound to never flee, and thus, died.  If it's a role playing decision to stay, fight and die, I'm happy that my character died that way, rather than run away, and live with his honor besmirched.  If I stay and fight and the fight is fixed, it lessens me.  My heroic stand was nothing.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> So your GM doesn't happen to put together the monsters, and put them in the locations?  Your players do that too?




When I GM, yes, I put the monsters in certain locations, but the PLAYERS are the ones who decide to go there.  If they decide to take on the Steading of the hill giant chief at 1st level, and get tpked, how is that the gm's fault?


----------



## Reynard (Apr 12, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> When I GM, yes, I put the monsters in certain locations, but the PLAYERS are the ones who decide to go there.  If they decide to take on the Steading of the hill giant chief at 1st level, and get tpked, how is that the gm's fault?




It isn't, assuming that the players and their characters know what awaits them. Failing that, there should be a lot of clues to tell them to turn back before their first TPK-gauranteed encounter.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 12, 2010)

When the playes make it clear that "retreat" isn't in their vocabulary, it's time for a spelling bee challenge. E.g. Party attacks an ancient blue dragon on very little provocation. "Why would they do such a thing?" I wonder in confusion, almost sadness. A maximized breath and a nasty snatch attack later, and the PCs are still fighting. Then the dragon grabs the wizard and eats him. That's when they finally decided it was time to retreat.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 12, 2010)

Vegepygmy said:


> I ask myself if there is some reasonable way they could survive




Nod.  If the other players come up with some plausible "sounds kind crazy but it just might work" way of saving their friend, I'm happy to be a soft judge in allowing it to work.  

Two examples in 28 years of gaming:
-- PC is falling off a height that will kill him (or into something deadly, I forget since this was about 1990).  Another player with a chain weapon lassoes him with a to-hit roll, and he doesn't fall after all.

-- Druid PC is drained by a shadow, which would turn him into a shadow.  But the fight is right next to hallowed ground.  Other PC uses Speak With Animals to tell the druid's familiar to drag him onto the hallowed ground, before the druids init comes up (when death from bleeding out would normally happen).  Hallowed ground = can't form undead, so he doesn't go undead after all.

But mostly, it's good to allow death to happen, because danger = fun.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 12, 2010)

Sometimes. I'm not concerned about making my games challengeless, because there is more to challenge than fights.

But when we play one-shots, with little time to develop interactions or events, I let the players know my goal is a TPK. And I tend to succeed. Good fun is had by all.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 12, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:
			
		

> He also chooses the opposition and the location, among other things. If you screwed up and seeded the PCs against a top 5 team it turns out they never really had a chance to beat, that's your fault. If "homefield advantage" works out for team Monsters better than you anticipated, that's your fault.






			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> So your GM doesn't happen to put together the monsters, and put them in the locations?  Your players do that too?




So you have never played a game in which you as a player get to decide the moves of your pieces? Your opponent, or the programmer, or the GM always does that for you, too? And always makes sure that you win, regardless of your moves?

Regardless, it was not of *your* experience that *I* wrote. I see no reason not to believe that all the others who wrote of acting impartially were _speaking for themselves_ as well.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is why this is so difficult for people to believe.




Well, look at your own jumping through hoops to bring in "modules" -- and so to add a camel to the flea.

Some trends go back a long time, back before some folks started playing. Some people have never known anything but the rigging of things, from the DM fiat suggested in the thread's title to the DM dictation of "encounters" that SOTS took for granted, and upon which certain notions of "balance" depend. White Wolf was pushing a couple of decades ago a model that has since become the new norm.

It is not exceptional for people to lack the mental agility to consider that there might be other possibilities.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 12, 2010)

I can only wonder how, or whether, WotC adjudicates D&D tournaments at GenCon anymore.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 12, 2010)

Reynard said:


> Many groups use modules exclusively, in which case the GM doesn't "create" any adventures and is in fact a referee in the contest between the PCs and the adventure.




Typically the GM still chooses the module, no?  Maybe the players are handing the GM the module, or the GM is rolling a die to randomly determine the module used.  But then the GM made a choice to agree to the method of module choice.  Somewhere along the line, a choice, an act of will on the GM's part, is involved.  

And, somewhat more directly - the GM is making _all the choices_ for one of the sides.  Claiming he's a referee is rather like claiming the guy in the black and white striped shirt with the whistle is only a neutral referee, when he's also calling all the other team's plays.



> What I don't understand is why this is so difficult for people to believe.




It isn't at all difficult to believe.  I used to play in that line when we took up AD&D way back when.



JRRNeiklot said:


> ...how is that the gm's fault?




It is only "fault" if the players don't have fun.  There is no need to try to dodge "fault" if you're pretty sure folks will, overall, like the results.  If you can see it coming, and really think that in the long run they'll be happier for having gotten wiped out, you should stand up proudly and support your decision to do that.  There's only a need to shift blame to the players if you think there's something wrong with the proceedings.

I was in a campaign once, where the entire party got wiped out in the first session.  We stayed up into the early hours of the morning, and made new characters, with most of us changing classes from what we started with, and plunged into the same dungeon.  Two decades later we still play those characters once a summer - we are very happy we had that TPK, because it added a bonding experience, and we're pretty sure we like the second party more than we'd have liked the first - better characters with more entertaining personalities the second time around.  We are all happy with the result, and the GM.

Another time, a different group, a different game - the party ended stuck in a position where the only way out of a situation was unacceptable to the players.  It was, in essence, a TPK that the players could not have possibly foreseen (and thus could not have chosen to avoid) and pretty much ruined the game if allowed to stand.  The GM owned up that he'd misread us, took responsibility, and rewrote the ending of the adventure to something that was a reasonable compromise.  We continued playing under him for years afterward because he could take responsibility and act accordingly.

But really, that's not the point of what I was trying to say earlier.  I was more reacting to the sophistry about it being "some other game".  There's two leagues - one uses pinch hitters, the other doesn't, but neither tries to claim they aren't both playing baseball.  

That doesn't mean you need to use a pinch hitter.  Just don't try to disown the other league.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Typically the GM still chooses the module, no?  Maybe the players are handing the GM the module, or the GM is rolling a die to randomly determine the module used.



 When I've used modules, it's because of a lack of time to make stuff up myself.

Reading multiple modules & evaluating them in reference to the party's strengths is out of the question. I'll take something that is recommended and run with it.

The choice is essentially random due to practical constraints, even if it is *in theory* all 100% under my control.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 12, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> If they are too stupid or too proud to run away, they die.  I have played characters who were honor bound to never flee, and thus, died.



Yup. As a DM, it;'s my job to make sure that the players aren't blind-sided by this occurrence. I don't mind them trying to take on more than they can chew, but there should be hints that they're walking into a no-win situation.

I almost always rewrite and rebalance encounters in a 3rd party module, incidentally. I know far better than a stranger what's fun and appropriate for my players. When I write modules, I hope other DMs do this with my stuff, too.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 12, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> So you have never played a game in which you as a player get to decide the moves of your pieces? Your opponent, or the programmer, or the GM always does that for you, too? And always makes sure that you win, regardless of your moves?




By my recollection, you've tried the equivalent of this hyperbolic line of argument several times before in similar threads.  I've never seen any evidence that it ever changed anyone's mind, or been particularly constructive in building understanding.  You might want to reconsider your approach.

Specifically, I think you're the only one who has used the word "always" here.  My recollection is that you rather regularly take this line - when folks talk about the possibility of the GM becoming part of the process, you leap to absolutes - the GM _always_ choosing _everything_.  It's a highly flawed argument, due to the scope mismatch.



> Well, look at your own jumping through hoops to bring in "modules" -- and so to add a camel to the flea.




Dude, he was actually helping the case somewhat, by adding in someone we could probably agree was a neutral party - some game writer nobody at the table has probably ever met.

If you want to right off the bat claim the same person who makes up the other team, creates the ground on which the contest will be held, makes all the decisions for one side, interprets all rules for both teams, and hand out the rewards for winning, is somehow only neutral in the proceedings...

...well, it'll be a hard sell.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Reading multiple modules & evaluating them in reference to the party's strengths is out of the question. I'll take something that is recommended and run with it.




Yes, but you're a reasonable dude - I'll be willing to bet (admittedly small) money that you specifically choose something level-appropriate.  And, if it did turn out to be too much, and wiped the floor with the party, you'd probably not be too happy with your choice.  

That's sufficient for my point.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but you're a reasonable dude - I'll be willing to bet (admittedly small) money that you specifically choose something level-appropriate.  And, if it did turn out to be too much, and wiped the floor with the party, you'd probably not be too happy with your choice.
> 
> That's sufficient for my point.



 I absolutely do try... but at the time of my choosing the module, it's uncomfortably close to random. If I had time to "do it right", there would be no module at all.

Anyway, I'm just serving as one datapoint on this issue.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Reynard (Apr 12, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Well, look at your own jumping through hoops to bring in "modules" -- and so to add a camel to the flea.
> 
> Some trends go back a long time, back before some folks started playing. Some people have never known anything but the rigging of things, from the DM fiat suggested in the thread's title to the DM dictation of "encounters" that SOTS took for granted, and upon which certain notions of "balance" depend. White Wolf was pushing a couple of decades ago a model that has since become the new norm.
> 
> It is not exceptional for people to lack the mental agility to consider that there might be other possibilities.




I actually have no idea what you are talking about. The only play method I can imagine that does not involve the GM choosing *something* is one in which everything -- every location, every NPC, every object -- is determined via the game engine (random tables, for lack of a better term). And I am sure some people play this way, I imagine it is relatively rare.

ANd at the same time I don't think this is what you are talking about.  What are you talking about? Can you describe your method of play? I am honestly curious how you play, as it does not intuitively leap to my mind.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 12, 2010)

Umbran said:
			
		

> By my recollection, you've tried the equivalent of this hyperbolic line of argument several times before in similar threads.



By my recollection, and most definitely as my intent, it precisely parallels your hyperbolic line of argument that I quoted directly above it.



> Specifically, I think you're the only one who has used the word "always" here.



Drop that then, if you will. If you meant "sometimes" in _your_ rhetorical questions, then you ought to have been explicit. I do not see that it would have made the hyperbole any more relevant.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> well, it'll be a hard sell



As hard as however many computer games! 

Are there "killer" DMs, who make the game too hard? Are there "Monty Haul" DMs who make it too easy? Has that anything to do with creating scenarios, as in _writing modules?_

Are there _both?_ I think there are. And, having two gray cells to rub together, I am not about to buy into your shell game there.

There is a *lot* of slippery slope down which to slide between trying to be impartial -- and wholeheartedly embracing partiality!

I think I stated very, _very_, *very* clearly where my interest lies: in my friends' having a fun game. If you mean to say that you, in a similar position, would consider yourself to have some interest opposed to that -- then that is you saying something about yourself. 

I wonder whether you are even conscious of your tendency to "question" other people's statements about their own experiences and values as if you are in a position to know better what those are. There was a delightfully surprising exception in your first post to this thread, but here you are back to form.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 12, 2010)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Can you describe your method of play?



E. Gary Gygax and others have devoted many words to describing it, but a little fraction of which had been written when I learned to play. That was sufficient then, in combination with an hour's learning by actually playing. I have met people who learned from books alone.



> The only play method I can imagine that does not involve the GM choosing *something* ...



Being a fair judge does not anything to do with a requirement that one choose nothing. It has to do with applying the rules by which the players have chosen to play.

I have absolutely no reason to "defend" a position that is not mine.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> So your GM doesn't happen to put together the monsters, and put them in the locations?  Your players do that too?




In my mind, there are two roles that may or may not be the same person: designer and DM.

The designer puts together the circumstances, situation and poplulation.  His job generally ends once the group gets together to play.  A good designer builds good designs -- ones that interest, challenge, and engage the prospective players.

The DM runs the table arbiting the players stated actions in context of the situation.  A good DM, while rooting for the players, judges results in a disinterested manner that is consistent with the table input (both player statements and game results) and the design.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 12, 2010)

A lot of this depends on what kind of opponents the group is facing. Intelligent NPCs might see a reason to keep some members of the group alive, be it ransom or having something to gain out of the group's defeat. 

In a recent game I ran the group was captured by the bad guys who turned their defeat into a major political coup against the group who had originally hired them, for instance. That defeat was way worse than death for some party members. I think a GM should always consider their alternatives, especially when an intelligent opponent is involved.

On the other hand, hungry ghouls or mindless undead? Time to start creating a new group...


----------



## Imaginary Number (Apr 12, 2010)

I have no problem killing off individual characters, even in situations where the PCs have a run of bad luck or make some bad choices.  That's what Raise Dead is for.  In a potential TPK scenario, however, I'll try to find some way to save some or all of them unless I'm convinced that the players don't want to continue with the campaign, regardless of what would cause the TPK.  There are lots of consequences short of death that can make a total defeat meaningful, many of which are mentioned upthread, and as a GM I'll grab one of those if I can in order to keep the story going for players who have an investment in it.


----------



## esstillia (Apr 12, 2010)

LOL I think my DM does the same thing!  He gets that worried look on his face..you know THAT one :/


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I actually have no idea what you are talking about. The only play method I can imagine that does not involve the GM choosing *something* is one in which everything -- every location, every NPC, every object -- is determined via the game engine (random tables, for lack of a better term). And I am sure some people play this way, I imagine it is relatively rare.
> 
> ANd at the same time I don't think this is what you are talking about.  What are you talking about? Can you describe your method of play? I am honestly curious how you play, as it does not intuitively leap to my mind.




You could always go alphabetical:

Fight one, round one, Aarocockra.... FIGHT!


----------



## Reynard (Apr 13, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> E. Gary Gygax and others have devoted many words to describing it, but a little fraction of which had been written when I learned to play. That was sufficient then, in combination with an hour's learning by actually playing. I have met people who learned from books alone.
> 
> Being a fair judge does not anything to do with a requirement that one choose nothing. It has to do with applying the rules by which the players have chosen to play.
> 
> I have absolutely no reason to "defend" a position that is not mine.




Ah. I get it. You're engaging in some sort of geek-cred/badwrongfunism hybrid. That's fine. Enjoy it.

I, on the other hand, enjoy fruitful discussion with other posters, even those with whom I rarely agree (hi Hussar!), because gaming -- and D&D gaming in particular -- is a fundamentally social activity, shared across decades and leagues between people that have a common language and experiential foundation.

Except for, you know, people that want to flourish a black cape every time they leave a room.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 13, 2010)

Reynard said:


> ...Except for, you know, people that want to flourish a black cape every time they leave a room.




Hey!  Don't ignore the fashion advantage of a good black cape!

It's an essential this year.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 13, 2010)

I would agree with those who say that knowing the GM is pulling punches kills the fun for them. I would much rather my character die, and roll up a new one, than have the GM pull me out of the fire somehow. 

As a GM though, I try to read the group. Some groups seem okay with a "let the dice fall where they may" approach. But just because I prefer this style, I am not going to ruin everyone's fun if the majority of players prefer a different approach. Also, if you are going to let characters die when the dice dictate, you really need to make your best effort to be fair at all times, and balance encounters as much as possible.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Apr 13, 2010)

I NEVER save them.



As others have said...put the game on "God Mode" and they're not really playing...



That said, I've dm'ed different "difficulty levels". My last campaign was for my group of "D&D experts"...it was to test and break the system and it was hardcore...usually 1 or more deaths per session. My current campaign is heroic. I expect few deaths over the whole campaign...very few. The difficulty level is dropped...BUT that's going into the fights...the rules don't change if they screw up or have a run of bad luck.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 13, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> By my recollection, and most definitely as my intent, it precisely parallels your hyperbolic line of argument that I quoted directly above it.




What you quoted was me pointing out that the GM was the one typically arranging the monsters and terrain (either by design, or by accepting a module).  I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that's hyperbolic. 



> There is a *lot* of slippery slope down which to slide between trying to be impartial -- and wholeheartedly embracing partiality!




It is a very long _and shallow_ slope, and not actually particularly slippery. Taking a step down it doesn't imply that you'll end up at the bottom.  



> I think I stated very, _very_, *very* clearly where my interest lies




Yes.  And I don't see anyone questioning where your interest lies. 



> I wonder whether you are even conscious of your tendency to "question" other people's statements about their own experiences and values as if you are in a position to know better what those are.




I have not intended to question your experiences or values in the slightest.

What else I have to say is far enough away from the basic premise of this thread that I'll take it to PM.


----------



## Longtooth Studios (Apr 13, 2010)

If I feel that they are trying to metagame and exploit the fact that I don't really want them to die and make a wreck of the campaign I have labored over, then yeah, they gotta die. 

If I can get away with it, I will drop in a few opportunities and let them almost wipe, and allow them to save themselves. 

There has to be the potential of death and failure or there is no hope for an exciting game.


----------



## drothgery (Apr 13, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Yup. As a DM, it;'s my job to make sure that the players aren't blind-sided by this occurrence. I don't mind them trying to take on more than they can chew, but there should be hints that they're walking into a no-win situation.




... though it was quite common for monsters in 3.x to move much faster than PCs could short of teleportation or similar magic, so you could only run away if the DM decided the monster wouldn't pursue.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 13, 2010)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Ah. I get it. You're engaging in some sort of geek-cred/badwrongfunism hybrid. That's fine. Enjoy it.



*W*T*F*?!

O/AD&D is *just a game!* What on Earth has it done to you, that you feel a need to engage in name-calling like that? It really comes down to an attack on a _person_ just for playing it.

If you really, truly wanted an explanation of how to play it, then you could pick up one, or several, of the books on the subject (including compilations of classic articles from The Dragon, and Gygax's "Mastery" volumes). That would be much more helpful than my trying to duplicate the work.

Why I would want to go to such effort for someone who is going to be so nasty is a mystery.

Look, people, I don't know where you get off going out of your way to claim I'm lying or whatever about *how I and my friends play a dang-blamed game!*

I have not said one damned thing against *your* statements of your own practice, and I am far from the only one in this thread to have said that I let the dice fall as they may.

What's it to you? How does our enjoyment of our game _in any way_ affect yours?


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 13, 2010)

Umbran said:
			
		

> What you quoted was me pointing out that the GM was the one typically arranging the monsters and terrain (either by design, or by accepting a module). I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that's hyperbolic.



In that case, it was no more hyperbolic when I pointed out that the players are typically (in our game) arranging the courses of their characters through the world, both where they go and what they do. You can have your hyperbole-cake, or eat it, but not both.

There is a *critical difference* between on one hand "arranging the monsters and terrain", and monasteries and treasures, and cabbages and kings, _on the campaign map_ -- and on the other hand, *dictating "combat encounters"* as SOTS had suggested.

I did not see why I must "defend" my statement about my personal experience, relationships and ethos from people who undertake to contradict me without knowing thing one. I did not want to get into an argument with someone who started by directly contradicting my statement of my own position (and the very terminology in the rulebook), someone using (twice) such loaded language as "your fault".

Therefore, rather than go into details, I pointed out that our game was not SOTS's (or Benimoto's) game, and the assumptions that would create the condition in the first place, much less make it "my fault" do not pertain.

I think that ought to suffice. A person ought to realize that he has plenty of which to speak whereof he actually knows.

Yet you insisted on not merely raising again the claim, but casting it in the form of mocking hyperbole -- or whatever you will choose to call it (and my own response copying your form).



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Taking a step down it doesn't imply that you'll end up at the bottom.



That's repeating my point, framed as it being a "long" way, which was in response to


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> If you want to right off the bat claim the same person who makes up the other team, creates the ground on which the contest will be held, makes all the decisions for one side, interprets all rules for both teams, and hand out the rewards for winning, is somehow only neutral in the proceedings...
> 
> ...well, it'll be a hard sell.




Where did you get this attitude that I must "sell" jack to you? How is it your place to pass such a judgment? You are as much as accusing me of being a liar! Oh, well.

Logically, why should _some_ deviation from neutrality matter? I never claimed to be perfect, so that is just a straw man. 

"The same person who ..." is very clearly an argument for bias "against" the players, is it not? It is _perfectly_ the rhetoric to suggest such a conflict of interest! Or, let us suppose that it is not. What then? What if, indeed, one could just as well be biased in favor of the players?

Well, what of it? What on earth do you suggest?

The only alternatives presented are
(A) to be "only neutral" -- which is held close enough to impossible;
(B) to adjudicate to the best of my ability in accordance with the rules to which my friends have agreed -- which somehow marks me as _wrongly_ biased; or
(C) violate that agreement in favor of what SOTC, and Benimoto, and you happen to urge -- which  is to be _thoroughly_ biased, to the point of using DM Fiat to get "my" (actually _your_) way.

So, yes, it certainly looks as if you were indeed asserting that "taking a step down" -- any deviation from perfection -- leaves no recourse but to abandon even trying and go straight to "fudging".



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> And I don't see anyone questioning where your interest lies.



Do you see now? When someone tells you that what you are doing has a particular effect on her or him, your choice is either to respect that or not.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I have not intended to question your experiences or values in the slightest.



What you in fact have done is question them only the more outrageously with each suggestion that your actions are not appreciated.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 13, 2010)

Ariosto, I have no idea what you are talking about, but I am quite certain I do not feel the same heat from the other posters in this thread that I do from you. May I suggest taking a deep breath, and considering how you might express your opinions in a way that will help others relate to you, rather than a defensive stance?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 13, 2010)

Longtooth Studios said:


> There has to be the potential of death and failure or there is no hope for an exciting game.



For me, this raises two questions.

First, is the possibility of PC _death_ crucial for excitement? A lot of people live lives that they regard as at least moderately exciting, although they face no very large risk of death (eg sports people, performers, politicians, gamblers just to pick a few).

And a lot of movies are exciting even though - at the meta level - it's obvious there's  no chance of the protagonist dying. The excitement consists in finding out how the protagonist survives, and at what cost. I think this can be applicable to RPGs too, including D&D.

Second, who should face the possiblity of failure - PCs or players? If the former, fine - that's part and parcel of dramatic protagonism. If the latter - well, some people like to play a game where they can lose, but some people like RPGs precisely because they can be played in a non-competitive way. I don't think it's necessarily a good thing if the rules create a serious risk of some players not having a good time playing the game.

DMG2 has some useful stuff to say on the pass/fail cycle, although it gives poor (or at best half-baked) advice on implementing it. (It's more-or-less recycled from HeroQuest, but the 4e mechanics are different enough from HeroQuest that you can't just drop in HQ withou any changes.)

The last TPK in my 4e game I had the PCs taken prisoner (except for the one whose player wanted a new character - that PC died, and the new PC was in the goblins' jail wghen the others turned up - party introductions made easy!). The 4e rules make that an easy option.

Another possibility would be to have a 3rd party intervene in the conflict, and hold the PCs to some sort of ransom in exchange for saving them. This requires a bit of finesse so that the players don't feel like they're being railroaded, but is something I'd probably try if I had to.

I'd only allow a TPK to be _literally _that if the players were all happy to start over with a new set of PCs and/or a new campaign.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 13, 2010)

pemerton said:


> First, is the possibility of PC _death_ crucial for excitement?



The possibility of character death? For me, yes, it is.







pemerton said:


> A lot of people live lives that they regard as at least moderately exciting, although they face no very large risk of death (eg sports people, performers, politicians, gamblers just to pick a few).



Their lives may be exciting on one level, but if you're playing a game about, say, exploring dark dungeons and trackless wastes filled with ravening monsters and evil villains, then it's reasonable to expect the adventurers to face hazards more dangerous than a torn ACL, a scathing review, or a well-funded primary opponent.







pemerton said:


> And a lot of movies are exciting even though - at the meta level - it's obvious there's  no chance of the protagonist dying. The excitement consists in finding out how the protagonist survives, and at what cost. I think this can be applicable to RPGs too, including D&D.



Roleplaying games are not movies. Different medium entirely.

And many of those movies suck precisely because they are so predictable, in my opinion, but to stick with the example, just for the sake of argument, we can also watch movies in which we know the characters we care about are going to die, and still find them exciting as well.

But again, I don't think it's a valid comparison in the first place.







pemerton said:


> Second, who should face the possiblity of failure - PCs or players?



Both.







pemerton said:


> If the former, fine - that's part and parcel of dramatic protagonism. If the latter - well, some people like to play a game where they can lose, but some people like RPGs precisely because they can be played in a non-competitive way. I don't think it's necessarily a good thing if the rules create a serious risk of some players not having a good time playing the game.



Then those sensitive souls who would not have a good time playing a game where character death is on the table should perhaps play a game where character death is rare per the rules as written; _Marvel Super Heroes_ comes to mind.

But if you play a game where combat and other hazards meant to be deadly, and your character dies, you probably shouldn't be too shocked or disappointed.







pemerton said:


> The last TPK in my 4e game I had the PCs taken prisoner (except for the one whose player wanted a new character - that PC died, and the new PC was in the goblins' jail wghen the others turned up - party introductions made easy!).



I don't know about anyone else, but for me that's not actually a total party _kill_.







pemerton said:


> Another possibility would be to have a 3rd party intervene in the conflict, and hold the PCs to some sort of ransom in exchange for saving them. This requires a bit of finesse so that the players don't feel like they're being railroaded, but is something I'd probably try if I had to.



Being beaten over the head by _deus ex machina_ isn't my idea of a good time, but others' mileage certainly varies.

Look, I agree that the model "failure equals death" is much too simplistic: characters may fail in many different ways without dying in the games I run. But there are circumstance which arise in the course of play in which death is explicitly on the table, and I won't shy away from allowing those situations to run their course.







pemerton said:


> I'd only allow a TPK to be _literally _that if the players were all happy to start over with a new set of PCs and/or a new campaign.



And if we're playing a game where you can get a sword through your eye, you are explicitly agreeing to the fact that your character may die in the course of play.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Apr 13, 2010)

For me everything comes down to: How bad did I screw up as DM?  

If I feel I didn't withold important information from the players that would have changed their decisions or strategy, then I will let the game play out.  

If I realize they are in deep because of my screwing up, I will find a way to extricate the party from the mess I created.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 13, 2010)

pemerton said:


> For me, this raises two questions.
> 
> First, is the possibility of PC _death_ crucial for excitement? A lot of people live lives that they regard as at least moderately exciting, although they face no very large risk of death (eg sports people, performers, politicians, gamblers just to pick a few).





This is a good question. My answer would depend on the nature of the characters and thier adventures. If the game being played features player characters such as performers, gamblers, etc. then life or death stakes are not a normal part of the game and may not be required to play out exciting adventures with these characters. 

If the player characters are wizards, warriors, etc. and thier adventures involve going into dangerous places infested with monsters, tricks, and deadly traps then life or death stakes are a normal part of life for these characters and thus part of the game. 



pemerton said:


> And a lot of movies are exciting even though - at the meta level - it's obvious there's no chance of the protagonist dying. The excitement consists in finding out how the protagonist survives, and at what cost. I think this can be applicable to RPGs too, including D&D.




Movies are a different medium of entertainment and a passive one. One enjoys a movie as a consumer of entertainment, not a participant _in _that entertainment. A movie story is set and canned. Viewers cannot change the outcome through active participation. In a game, it is the ability to create and modify the action that provides the entertainment. 



pemerton said:


> Second, who should face the possiblity of failure - PCs or players? If the former, fine - that's part and parcel of dramatic protagonism. If the latter - well, some people like to play a game where they can lose, but some people like RPGs precisely because they can be played in a non-competitive way. I don't think it's necessarily a good thing if the rules create a serious risk of some players not having a good time playing the game.




The character faces death. The player experiences failure of a sort. A heroic death with meaning may not be a failure for the character at all.
Without the possibility of defeat there cannot be a victory. Degrees of success and failure are certainly possible. Not every failure needs to involve death and some victories can have a high cost. An rpg with a GM should be non-competetive at least between GM and player. If one aproaches a game with the attitude that it is no fun to play if there is any possibility of losing then why play? Participate in story telling and dispense with the sham of dice rolling or mechanics.



pemerton said:


> The last TPK in my 4e game I had the PCs taken prisoner (except for the one whose player wanted a new character - that PC died, and the new PC was in the goblins' jail wghen the others turned up - party introductions made easy!). The 4e rules make that an easy option.




There is nothing wrong with this. The stakes of failure do not have to be universally lethal. When it makes sense for the NPC's to take captives then they should.



pemerton said:


> Another possibility would be to have a 3rd party intervene in the conflict, and hold the PCs to some sort of ransom in exchange for saving them. This requires a bit of finesse so that the players don't feel like they're being railroaded, but is something I'd probably try if I had to.




This is the kind of situation that players hate worse than being captured or killed-being rescued. Regardless of finesse the players may feel railroaded. If made to appear as part of the adventure as designed it's even worse because the DM put them in a situation that required a rescue.


----------



## the Jester (Apr 13, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim.  Yet, they won't run away.  So what do you do?
> 
> If you are GMing and the PCs get themselves in a pickle, but through poor judgement, overconfidence or just plain stubbornness they refuse to leave a losing encounter and a TPK or similar fate seems imminent, do you save them?




No. Generally, my groups keep going until there's a tpk (I don't usually have an overarching story in my campaign, although one often develops based on the pcs' actions). This "out at 30th level" stuff that 4e brings to the table is very interesting, and I'm excited to see how it works out, though we haven't gotten there quite yet!


----------



## Imaginary Number (Apr 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Then those sensitive souls who would not have a good time playing a game where character death is on the table should perhaps play a game where character death is rare per the rules as written; _Marvel Super Heroes_ comes to mind.
> 
> But if you play a game where combat and other hazards meant to be deadly, and your character dies, you probably shouldn't be too shocked or disappointed.




Badwrongfun! I have no problem with players who want to play in games where everything gets rolled in the open and a TPK could result at any time; that's a legitimate playstyle preference. However, I think it's also a legitimate playstayle preference for my group to want the DM to try to avoid campaign-ending events like a TPK unless the group as a whole wants the campaign to end. Either way, I'm not aware of anything in the D&D "rules as written" that dictates explicitly how rare or common character death or TPKs should be.


----------



## Janx (Apr 13, 2010)

there's a whole lotta factors that lead up to an encounter being lethal.

On the whole published module versus homebrew, the act of choosing a module to play is a "bulk" act of creating all the encounters by hand.  The DM is simply accepting somebody else's judgement of "what's there initially".  If all the encounters are badly written and the DM doesn't adjust them, it's still the DM's choice.  Right or wrong.

In a good movie or rpg session, there is a suspension of disbelief going on.  It's not active, the player isn't conciously doing it.  They are sucked into it, and thus, they are engaged in what happens next, and not considering that "this is just a game" or "the hero can't die, because he's signed a contract for 2 more sequels."

Deus ex machina sucks as story telling tool for a reason.  If it has to be wielded, somebody screwed up.

Having your PC die sucks, especially if you have a lot of investment in your PC, and getting raised is not an option.  Honestly, in most the games I play D&D in, death is pretty permanent.  That's not true of all campaigns, but if those it is, it shapes how one looks at PC death.

Replacing your PC with a new one, doesn't make the suckitude go away.  Oh yay, my replacement PC that I have no emotional investment into and is at full health beat the guy who killed the PC I put 5 years of game time into.

As a player, I like feeling like the situation is dire, and then pulling out a victory.  I don't like losing.  A good GM can deliver that, regardless of actual difficulty level or lethality.

As a GM, I don't like rewarding really stupid or obnoxious behavior.  A player who picks a fight with some NPC, just because, and it having nothing to do with anything else going on, gets no safety net.

As a GM, I have killed PCs, including on the first mission (actually, that's a good time to whack a PC and demonstrate the lethality, before players are invested).  

PCs do die.  I think a good GM takes in a lot of factors in considering whether to kill a PC, or make something different happen.

I think the answer is, "It depends"


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 13, 2010)

Imaginary Number said:


> Badwrongfun!



Awhile back I was informed by another poster on these boards that he would sulk if his character was killed without his permission. That was the exact word: sulk.

Yes, I think an adult pouting like a child over losing a game is bad, wrong, and pathetically unfun.







Imaginary Number said:


> I have no problem with players who want to play in games where everything gets rolled in the open and a TPK could result at any time; that's a legitimate playstyle preference.



Agreed.







Imaginary Number said:


> However, I think it's also a legitimate playstayle preference for my group to want the DM to try to avoid campaign-ending events like a TPK unless the group as a whole wants the campaign to end.



And what I'm suggesting is that there are roleplaying games out there which are written with this in mind, and that gamers who prefer this approach might be better served in playing one of them. This avoids the need to kludge the game to avoid certain outcomes.

Funny, I didn't think suggesting gamers should play a game which fits their playstyle would be controversial.







Imaginary Number said:


> Either way, I'm not aware of anything in the D&D "rules as written" that dictates explicitly how rare or common character death or TPKs should be.



Other than the rules of the game which say when your character is alive and when it is dead, you mean?


----------



## Janx (Apr 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Awhile back I was informed by another poster on these boards that he would sulk if his character was killed without his permission. That was the exact word: sulk.
> 
> Yes, I think an adult pouting like a child over losing a game is bad, wrong, and pathetically unfun.Agreed.And what I'm suggesting is that there are roleplaying games out there which are written with this in mind, and that gamers who prefer this approach might be better served in playing one of them. This avoids the need to kludge the game to avoid certain outcomes.
> 
> Funny, I didn't think suggesting gamers should play a game which fits their playstyle would be controversial.Other than the rules of the game which say when your character is alive and when it is dead, you mean?




I don't think you're saying it to be rude or mean, but telling me to go play a different game can be construed that way.

D&D is a very versatile ruleset.  it can support a variety of play styles, usually with a shift in what the DM decides happens next, rather than specific arbitrary rules.

I like D&D.  I like the rules overall.  I like that I already own the books.  I'm not going to jump systems when the effect I want is manageable by the GM.

If you're playing a dungeon crawl, where the challenge is really for the player, then PC death is just a setback, roll up a new one and get back in there.

If you're playing a story-driven game (and I cringe to see how some people interpret that), your PC is the vehicle, and if it dies, so does the story in many ways.  

It's a valid way to play the game, which is why 2e seems to espouse it, and it came as recognition of that play style evolved in the 1e era.  Is it truly a game, maybe not, but then the forward in the 2e PH says as much.

Anyway, I find suggesting somebody is playing the wrong game to be a bit off.  I've been playing my way for 20 years.  overall, I'm happy with the product.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 13, 2010)

> ...Other than the rules of the game which say when your character is alive and when it is dead, you mean?




What about the guidelines in the DMG's that acknowledge the opposite is also allowed? That just because "the rules" say your charcter is dead, it doesn't necessarily have to be so. (Of course, only if the whole group accepts it). If the rules don't 100% support your playstyle, it's not necessary to change systems. If the disparity is too great, then maybe, but still not necessary. All systems are capable of supporting multiple playstyles, and no system supports any playstyle in a perfect manner. Sometimes, the system which one wants simply doesn't exist, in which case the only choices are to play them as is, or change them until the system is what you want. Systems are rules, and rules are simply tools to facilitate that which you (and the group) desire out of a game. No game rules are completely rigid unless you want them to be. Malleability of game rules is a plus, not a negative, that can be taken or left alone as one desires.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Apr 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Funny, I didn't think suggesting gamers should play a game which fits their playstyle would be controversial.



It's a very good suggestion.  

However, a problem some groups have is player "buy-in".  The more casual gamers at a table often just don't want to bother with learning a new ruleset.  Doing that can take a lot of session time away from a group that may only meet once every few weeks.  

So the more agreeable option is simply to stick with the familiar rules in order to keep the group at the table, and leave it to the DM to make it work with the group's playstyle.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 13, 2010)

Janx said:


> I don't think you're saying it to be rude or mean, but telling me to go play a different game can be construed that way.



I'm not telling anyone to do anything, *Janx*. I'm suggesting that if you find the rules of a game produce outcomes that you don't want, you might try a game more likely to produce the outcomes you do want.

For example, when I was thinking about running a 17th century swashbucklers game, I considered using _AD&D_ and the supplement _A Mighty Fortress_, but this system does a poor job of emulating fencing; I was better served by choosing _Flashing Blades_ instead, which did what I wanted it to do straight out of the box.

Again, I'm not sure how this could be controversial, unless you really, really want it to be, of course.







Janx said:


> D&D is a very versatile ruleset.  it can support a variety of play styles, usually with a shift in what the DM decides happens next, rather than specific arbitrary rules.



I think _D&D_ is an excellent game for playing _D&D_, and I prefer to keep a lighter hand on the controls than other referees.







Janx said:


> I like D&D.  I like the rules overall.  I like that I already own the books.  I'm not going to jump systems when the effect I want is manageable by the GM.



And if I need a torque wrench and all I have in my tool box is a hammer, I'd rather go buy or borrow a torque wrench. Right tool, right job, _yadda-yadda_.







Janx said:


> If you're playing a dungeon crawl, where the challenge is really for the player, then PC death is just a setback, roll up a new one and get back in there.
> 
> If you're playing a story-driven game (and I cringe to see how some people interpret that), your PC is the vehicle, and if it dies, so does the story in many ways.



No comment.







Janx said:


> It's a valid way to play the game, which is why 2e seems to espouse it, and it came as recognition of that play style evolved in the 1e era.



That's an interesting interpretation. Another is that there was a convergence between what was published as adventures and the fiction divisions of the gaming companies; the same writers who were writing the modules were also writing novels for the game, and so gamers entering the hobby around the time of its peak were conditioned to think that modules = stories.







Janx said:


> Is it truly a game, maybe not, but then the forward in the 2e PH says as much.



Never played 2e, so I couldn't say, but I would agree telling a story is not playing a game.







Janx said:


> Anyway, I find suggesting somebody is playing the wrong game to be a bit off.



I think I've already addressed this, and I think you're wide of the mark.







Janx said:


> I've been playing my way for 20 years.  overall, I'm happy with the product.



Which puts your right smack dab in that group of gamers conditioned to think gaming = storytelling.

And before you raise your hackles further, no, I'm not in any way suggesting that's a bad thing. I just find, more often than not, it explains a lot about gamers' assumptions to know when they entered the hobby.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 13, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> What about the guidelines in the DMG's that acknowledge the opposite is also allowed?



Could you give me an example?







El Mahdi said:


> That just because "the rules" say your charcter is dead, it doesn't necessarily have to be so.



Unless you're playing by the rules, of course.







El Mahdi said:


> If the rules don't 100% support your playstyle, it's not necessary to change systems. If the disparity is too great, then maybe, but still not necessary.



Necessary, no, but perhaps advisable.







El Mahdi said:


> All systems are capable of supporting multiple playstyles, and no system supports any playstyle in a perfect manner.



But some do a better job than others. In my experience, if you're throwing out outcomes because they don't produce the results you want, either there's a problem with your expectations or a problem with the rules meeting those expectations. If it's the latter, what's the harm is trying something else? 







El Mahdi said:


> Sometimes, the system which one wants simply doesn't exist, in which case the only choices are to play them as is, or change them until the system is what you want. Systems are rules, and rules are simply tools to facilitate that which you (and the group) desire out of a game. No game rules are completely rigid unless you want them to be. Malleability of game rules is a plus, not a negative, that can be taken or left alone as one desires.



I house rule pretty extensively, but what I don't do is abandon or substitute for large swaths of significant rules which lie at the heart of the game. If I have to do that, I'm playing the wrong game, in my experience.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Which puts your right smack dab in that group of gamers conditioned to think gaming = storytelling.



It's much older than that.



> D&D players can be divided into two groups, those who
> want to play the game as a game and those who want to
> play it as a fantasy novel



 - Lew Pulsipher, White Dwarf #1, 1977


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 13, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> It's much older than that.



Marc Miller also wrote about fudging the dice in _Traveller_ in 1977, but in terms of products published for games which pushed the adventure = story theme, it didn't really start showing up extensively until the early to mid-Eighties, in my recollection.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 13, 2010)

Janx said:


> If you're playing a story-driven game (and I cringe to see how some people interpret that), your PC is the vehicle, and if it dies, so does the story in many ways.




Why does that have to be the case? If your campaign is the story of your adventures then the death of a hero and the introduction of a new hero are just chapters in that story. 

If the story is being driven to a pre-defined end then there really isn't a game taking place at all.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 13, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Why does that have to be the case? If your campaign is the story of your adventures then the death of a hero and the introduction of a new hero are just chapters in that story.




That depends on who is being referred to by the possessive pronoun, "your".  If it refers to the player, or the group as a whole, then perhaps.  If it refers to the individual character, then not death does pretty much end that story.  You get to start a new one, but that old one's done.



> If the story is being driven to a pre-defined end then there really isn't a game taking place at all.




Does not seem to follow.  Not dying does not equate to "driven to pre-defined end".


----------



## Janx (Apr 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> That's an interesting interpretation. Another is that there was a convergence between what was published as adventures and the fiction divisions of the gaming companies; the same writers who were writing the modules were also writing novels for the game, and so gamers entering the hobby around the time of its peak were conditioned to think that modules = stories.Never played 2e, so I couldn't say, but I would agree telling a story is not playing a game.I think I've already addressed this, and I think you're wide of the mark.Which puts your right smack dab in that group of gamers conditioned to think gaming = storytelling.
> 
> And before you raise your hackles further, no, I'm not in any way suggesting that's a bad thing. I just find, more often than not, it explains a lot about gamers' assumptions to know when they entered the hobby.




And in the same token, before the 2e era, there are a group of gamers who were conditioned to think role playing != storytelling.

If I want to play a game, it would not be an RPG.  An RPG is not a game.  It's biased because of the reliance on a GM to both arbitrate and define and control the opposition.  Just because it has the word game in it, RPG is not necessarily a game.

None of this doesn't mean folks weren't having fun doing it in any era in either style.

BTW, I find it HIGHLY improbable that somebody wasn't storytelling with D&D in the 1E era.  That pattern is so inherently obvious to play the game that way that some group of players did it that way.

I ain't gonna change my ruleset.  That costs money.  I'm not the OP, I don't have a problem with killing or not killing PCs in my game.  But then, me and my players also don't tend to wake up wishing we had better fencing or sailing rules for our swashbuckling nautical campaign.

I just don't see this as a ruleset problem.  It's more of a GM execution problem.


Now, oddly enough if I was complaining about wanting better rules for sailing or swashbuckling, then suggestions for other rulesets would be very spot on.

I think we beat that horse, and it ain't about saving the PCs.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 13, 2010)

Umbran said:


> That depends on who is being referred to by the possessive pronoun, "your". If it refers to the player, or the group as a whole, then perhaps. If it refers to the individual character, then not death does pretty much end that story. You get to start a new one, but that old one's done.




If the story is about that character, you are correct.




Umbran said:


> Does not seem to follow. Not dying does not equate to "driven to pre-defined end".




If one is playing a game in which situation X can happen and anytime X does indeed happen the results that produced X are changed or discarded then it has been decided that result X will not be a possibility.

If we say that result X = character death and result Y= the party survives and we eliminate possibility X then we are left with a predetermined situation Y, the party survives. 

We don't know all the events that will take place but we do know that the party will make it through alive. That is predefinition of a kind.


----------



## Janx (Apr 13, 2010)

Umbran said:


> That depends on who is being referred to by the possessive pronoun, "your".  If it refers to the player, or the group as a whole, then perhaps.  If it refers to the individual character, then not death does pretty much end that story.  You get to start a new one, but that old one's done.
> 
> 
> 
> Does not seem to follow.  Not dying does not equate to "driven to pre-defined end".




I should give out XP for this.  You hit it on the head.

I use this subjectively, but a good storytelling campaign is in about the PCs.  If one dies, the story is over for that PC, and the player of that PC.

Players are people.  People are self-focused by nature, partly because they view the world in 1st person.  A PC is the expression of that 1st person perspective in the game space.  If the PC dies, so does my investment in that game space.  As a person who cares about more than myself, I have some emotional investment and concern on that which is not my PC.

Another thing to clarify, I identify the story as being the story of my PC.  As the player of Aragorn in LotR, my investment is earning my birthright, my relationship with Arwen, and getting those hobbits safely to their destination.  Sure, I care that Frodo makes it to the volcano, but I got my own worries.

See the difference?  For the player of Aragorn, the story isn't about the ring and Sauron.  It's about HIM.

However, in none of this, does it invalidate or give guidance on whether Aragorn should die in an encounter gone bad.

It might have made a good ending for him to die at Helmsdeep, or the big battle.  Certainly the player of Boromir would have thought so, but then, he got to bring in a new PC, the brother named Faramir, but he didn't have as much story built up.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 13, 2010)

Janx said:


> If I want to play a game, it would not be an RPG. *An RPG is not a game.* It's biased because of the reliance on a GM to both arbitrate and define and control the opposition. Just because it has the word game in it, RPG is not necessarily a game.
> 
> None of this doesn't mean folks weren't having fun doing it in any era in either style.
> 
> BTW, I find it HIGHLY improbable that somebody wasn't storytelling with D&D in the 1E era. That pattern is so inherently obvious to play the game that way that some group of players did it that way.




[Bold emphasis mine]

Are you serious? Because you choose not to play it as a game then it cannot be a game? 

You would be quite correct about the DM bias if the game were a competitive one between the DM and players. Such a game would be very unfair.

The competition is one of players vs game environment (and possibly other players for those who like that). The DM is not part of that competition. A character death is not victory for the DM but it is a defeat for the player. A successful adventure is a victory for all participants but the DM doesn't _lose._

It is easy to see how it can easily be a game without being a competitive one. It is also easy to use the game's framework as a story telling vehicle without playing an actual game. 

So the rules themselves do not determine if the activity is a game or not, the participants are responsible for that.


----------



## Janx (Apr 13, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> If one is playing a game in which situation X can happen and anytime X does indeed happen the results that produced X are changed or discarded then it has been decided that result X will not be a possibility.
> 
> If we say that result X = character death and result Y= the party survives and we eliminate possibility X then we are left with a predetermined situation Y, the party survives.
> 
> We don't know all the events that will take place but we do know that the party will make it through alive. That is predefinition of a kind.




I think I agree to some extent.  At least on the micro per-encounter scale of things.  It doesn't offer any predefined ending on the macro scale of will the PC become a king, pauper, god, or ooze. 

If I say that in my game, PCs don't die, that rules out an outcome of combat.

I would never tell players that, however, as that eliminates a tool from my arsenal.

What muddies the water in no death = "predefined ending" further is that I don't know that I would "save" a PC until I was in an encounter where he needed saving.  At that point, I would consider questionss like:
did he have it coming to him?
is there a rational alternative that doesn't look totally cheezy?
will this screw up the storyline in unrecoverable ways?


If I kill Aragorn at Helmsdeep, is that going to screw up my story line?  I know Aragorn will be mad, as his storyline will end.  But I've got this Sauron thing, and a ring-trek to try to run.  It's early on in the campaign,  Boromir's player got over it, though running side quests for Faramir until he comes on the scene is getting tedious.  If I kill him, it'll cement in the players mind that there is no plot immunity, especially useful with the jerk who's holding the ring...


----------



## Nightson (Apr 13, 2010)

Regarding death in story driven games, it's generally not "No PC will ever die" it's a dislike of the random death.  Imagine a PC who is the long, lost noble with the true claim to the throne.  There's a lot of time spent raising allies and preparing to return home and claim the throne.  Then through a string of bad luck the character bites it to a gelatinous cube.  

Now without access to raise dead there's plenty of reason to be upset by that, ideally people at the gaming group are equally upset by, that having sat down and hashed out their expectations for the game ages ago.

But that same group would probably be okay with the character dieing in the scene of the final confrontation.  Because one death conforms to good storytelling and one doesn't.  

Now in my campaign, I let PCs die, in fact the monsters try to kill them a fair bit.  But raise dead is also available in my campaign.  That money cost and inconvenience of having someone dead is just about exactly where I want the penalty for death to be.  I want my PCs, who are seventh level and have storylines that extend into paragon, to live as long as the player wants to keep playing that character.


----------



## Janx (Apr 13, 2010)

Nightson said:


> Regarding death in story driven games, it's generally not "No PC will ever die" it's a dislike of the random death.  Imagine a PC who is the long, lost noble with the true claim to the throne.  There's a lot of time spent raising allies and preparing to return home and claim the throne.  Then through a string of bad luck the character bites it to a gelatinous cube.
> 
> Now without access to raise dead there's plenty of reason to be upset by that, ideally people at the gaming group are equally upset by, that having sat down and hashed out their expectations for the game ages ago.
> 
> ...




And that's probably a good example of how some GM's approach it.

Generally, I have an assumption of PC success.  I expect they'll beat every encounter somehow.  I expect that when Bob decides to reclaim his throne, he'll do it.  It's not that I make it easy, I simply figure my players are smart and will come up with a solution.

I might call the quest to reclaim Bob's throne a storyline.

If Bob is about to die from a gelatinous cube, I have a quandary.

If Bob's dead (assume permanently), Bob just wasted his time, because he didn't even come close to the goal, and it wasn't even a cool ending.  I also wasted the other players time who supported Bob on his quest.  If I let Bob live, will it make players assume they have plot immunity and act recklessly?

Personally, I try to avoid plots that hinge tightly on a specific player.  At least ones that are for a central plot.  Thus, anybody can carry the ring to the volcano, not just  the one who inherited it from his uncle.  Thus, I can try to avoid one problem with killing a PC.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 13, 2010)

Janx said:


> And in the same token, before the 2e era, there are a group of gamers who were conditioned to think role playing != storytelling.



*_raises hand_*

Present. 


Janx said:


> If I want to play a game, it would not be an RPG.  An RPG is not a game.  It's biased because of the reliance on a GM to both arbitrate and define and control the opposition.  Just because it has the word game in it, RPG is not necessarily a game.



I couldn't agree less.







Janx said:


> BTW, I find it HIGHLY improbable that somebody wasn't storytelling with D&D in the 1E era.  That pattern is so inherently obvious to play the game that way that some group of players did it that way.



That's not my point. Yes, some people were using roleplaying games to simulate fantasy novels - just like there are players now for whom _D&D_ is effectively a miniatures skirmish game - but that style of play didn't become supported by adventures and rule books until some years later.







Janx said:


> I just don't see this as a ruleset problem.  It's more of a GM execution problem.



If you think the role of the guy or gal behind the screen is to manipulate outcomes, then I can understand why you'd say that.

On the other hand, if you believe the role of the referee is to arbitrate play, then it's a whole different kettle of kippers.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Could you give me an example?




My pleasure!



> 3E DMG page 11 (section - Changing the Rules) - "The ability to use the mechanics as you wish is paramount to the way roleplaying games work..."
> 
> 4E DMG page 189 (section - Creating House Rules) - "The D&D rules cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns and play styles of every group.  If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights."




However, I've never seen anything in a D&D book that says you might want to switch systems if these rules don't work for you...of course that may just be a marketing thing or an oversight...  (Just kidding)




The Shaman said:


> Unless you're playing by the rules, of course.




Since changing the rules is also playing by the rules, I guess we agree with eachother.



The Shaman said:


> ...what's the harm in trying something else?




Absolutely nothing!



The Shaman said:


> I house rule pretty extensively, but what I don't do is abandon or substitute for large swaths of significant rules which lie at the heart of the game. If I have to do that, I'm playing the wrong game, in my experience.




Or you just haven't created the _"Penultimate Houserules"_ yet.  (But then again, neither have I......but I'm working on it!)


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 13, 2010)

Janx said:


> ...Just because it has the word game in it, RPG is not necessarily a game. ...




Well, _Randomized and Interactive Group Narrative Entertainment Experience_ just doesn't roll off the tongue the same way...


----------



## Reynard (Apr 13, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> *W*T*F*?!
> 
> O/AD&D is *just a game!* What on Earth has it done to you, that you feel a need to engage in name-calling like that? It really comes down to an attack on a _person_ just for playing it.
> 
> ...




I not only own AD&D, and love it, but actually continue to play it. What I don't understand is this: when asked straight out what your playstyle was and why you believed it was not encapsulated by any of the descriptions given previously in this thread, rather than answer the question to the best of your ability, you refused and suggested we were too dumb or new wave or something to "get it".

And given that I am in fact an "old school gamer" and have read Gygax excessively (beyond just the 1E DMG) and  I still don't have a clue what you are talking about, one of two things is true (and perhaps both): either your playstyle is not as universally regarded as "old school" as you think, or you are being intentionally obscure so as not to have to defend your assertion that  a DM can "have his cake and eat it too" in regards to the responsibilities of refereeing and the freedom of creation.

Additionally, just pointing at Gygax and saying "That's how I play" is of no value. EGG's style varied between tournament modules and other modules, between what was in the DMG and what he did at his table, over the years and through play groups. There's no definitive "Gygaxian" style (of play; of prose that's a different story!) to claim.

So I ask you again: please describe your playstyle. If nothing else, it will be enlightening to those of us that have never experienced it and may perhaps improve our games.


----------



## Janx (Apr 13, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> [Bold emphasis mine]
> 
> Are you serious? Because you choose not to play it as a game then it cannot be a game?
> 
> You would be quite correct about the DM bias if the game were a competitive one between the DM and players. Such a game would be very unfair.




There's some other thread that devolved into the definition of a "game" a few months ago.  I'm no expert on the topic, it's simply my view that in the strictest usage of the term, an RPG is not a game.

It isn't Hockey, Chess, Monopoly or Shadows Over Camelot.  And Shadows over Camelot is the closest to an RPG.

In all of those examples, the game is a competition.  In the first three, it is player versus player.  In the last, it is player versus gameboard.

I think you are claiming in an RPG as a Game, one aspect of the GM is the gameboard.

I have no doubt you can play the game that way, and it SEEMS fair, but the fact is, as long as a moist robot is running the show, it is not being fairly arbitrated.  Otherwise, the expression "Rocks fall, everybody dies" would not have been coined.  There are too many points of flawed human decision making that taint the results.

If instead, you gave 1 player 100,000 gold to build a dungeon and populate it with monsters and traps, and then a GM arbitrated that, you would have a more fair situation, as he is not controlling the opposition.

This differs from a sporting even with a true referree, of which the the referee only initiates play with a whistle and makes calls on plays.  A GM makes a zillion other tiny miniscule decisions and such that are unaudited by anybody else.

But that's got nothing to do with the OT


----------



## Haltherrion (Apr 13, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> So you have never played a game in which you as a player get to decide the moves of your pieces? Your opponent, or the programmer, or the GM always does that for you, too? And always makes sure that you win, regardless of your moves?




I think the issue is that you, the referee are not some impartial robot processing a simulation of a fantasy world. In most cases, referees are executing their part of a cooperative game. Even in cases where a referee may be trying to remain impartial and do their imitation of a fantasy simulation, it is still a simulation where you, the referee make some sort of trade-offs in the name of game enjoyment and those decisions can set you down the path of "oops I made a mistake and threw too much at the players."

Case in point: encounter rates and encounter tables. It is a very rare game that I've ever encountered that has encounter rates anything like what people report in real-life adventures throughout history for the simple reason that most of life, even in a wild adventure through unknown (to Eurpoeans) Africa or what not, even in an out and out war, is boring. Not much happens for most of the time. And when it does happen, since the real world doesn't take care to make sure the adventurer is faced with a foe that he or she has a reasonable chance to defeat, death may occur at much higher rates. So it's a good thing it isn't too often or your Sir Richard Francis Burtons of the world wouldn't get to write their interesting memoirs.

So if you, the ref, are throwing out combats that don't kill someone every 4-8 encounters and having an encounter less than every few weeks you probably have already inserted your own views and decisions into your world and therefore are already part of an understanding that there will be an entertaining level of encounters that isn't too lethal. Therefore, when the encounters are suddenly lethal, one thing to consider is whether you screwed up or even if not, you owe it to your players, per this implicit understanding to not necessarily destroy them.

It's all a natural and accepted part of the game.


----------



## Haltherrion (Apr 13, 2010)

Janx said:


> I have no doubt you can play the game that way, and it SEEMS fair, but the fact is, as long as a moist robot is running the show, it is not being fairly arbitrated. Otherwise, the expression "Rocks fall, everybody dies" would not have been coined. There are too many points of flawed human decision making that taint the results.




Exactly. And I would include RPGs in the realm of "game" in the sense it is an engagement undertaken as an amusement with agreed upon conventions.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 13, 2010)

As a player, I prefer that outcomes be based on consistent rules, not on a GM's whim. PC deaths are no different. TPKs are no different in that regard, but are in a sense neater than only a few paying the price for a group's move.

The original D&D set was designed to have 1st-level clerics or magic-users (d6) die on the first hit (d6) about 58% of the time, 1st-level fighters (d6+1) about 28%. (What a difference a pip can make!)

With Supplement I (and all later TSR-D&D), magic-users (d4) went to 75% versus the same old d6, or about 81% versus d8 (e.g., sword or battle-ax). Thieves (d4) were the same. Clerics (d6) had about 58% and 69%. Fighters (d8) were about 44% vs d6, 64% vs d8. AD&D moved thieves up to d6, clerics to d8, and fighters to d10 (35%, 45%). In AD&D, the chance is for being reduced to 0 h.p. or below, not necessarily death.

(These figures do not include bonuses or penalties for constitution, which average out in the original set.)

Obviously, those chances go up after the first hit. In the original set, 1st-level clerics and magic-users are about 91% likely to be dead after two hits, fighters about 84%. From Supplement I on, many monsters got multiple attacks (usually claw/claw/bite), and with that or otherwise many got higher damage potential than before.

Considering that even orcs do 1-8 by default in AD&D, one might see a trend of increasing deadliness. The orcs are also harder than in OD&D for a first-level fighter to hit (14+ vs 13+), although the orcs hit just as often.

On the other hand, AD&D officially introduced a rule that _exactly_ 0 hit points indicates unconsciousness, and losing another point per round until either receiving aid, or dying at -10. Optionally, the zone of unconsciousness could be extended to -3 _from the same blow that brought the total to 0_. In either case, another hit would be decisively deadly (as would one beyond the zone of one or four points). The more generous option gives just an even chance of getting killed instantly taking d8 with one h.p., none at all taking d6 with three points. Note that the rule applies to all creatures, not just PCs.

Versus d6 per hit, getting down to 12 points poses some risk of being at least helpless after two hits, and getting down to 6 means it could happen in one hit. _However many points one started with_, those are serious danger zones. Bigger damage rolls mean not only bigger averages but greater ranges.

Not only could a 1E _T. Rex_ (18 HD) potentially dish out 52 points of damage in a round, it had a 15% chance of _just gulping down a man-sized creature regardless_! The relatively humble (5+5 HD) giant scorpion could deal 24 points plus poison. Poison had a basic 10% chance of killing even a top-level fighter, or 5% with constitution of 19 or 20. The terrible purple worm had 15 hit dice, did up to 32 points, _plus_ engulfing _and_ poison.

So, death was not very hard to come by even for very high-level characters. At lower levels, a single carrion crawler or a pack of ghouls could make quick work of a party (although they might turn to feeding rather than pursue a remnant, and a cleric of 5th level or higher could turn or destroy ghouls, but not necessarily ghasts, automatically). Getting surprised could be very bad luck indeed, whatever one faced.

Then there were level-draining undead, and mummy rot, and giant spiders with webs, and various nasty magics such as the infamous E.H.P.'s _finger of death_ (_slay living_ in AD&D) and the wizard's _disintegrate_.

And yet, all this is not enough for a perhaps surprising number of people! There are those who balk at not being able to pot even a fresh character with a single shot regardless of level. So, they throw in "exploding" damage dice, or some chance of instant death based on roll to hit, or the like.

The common sense reason for introducing random chances of death is to allow the cases to arise. In O/AD&D, the "sure thing" is not the rule but the exception. Risk, and its balancing against potential reward, is a key part of the game design. Death is _expected_, although she may call at any hour. Even being _raised_ or _resurrected_ from  the dead in AD&D comes with a chance of failure if constitution is less than 18 (as well as an absolute limit in any case).

Small chances, what might seem "mere outliers", are built into the rules. It's not feasible to avoid risk completely, and chance is likely to play a dramatically telling role, but one can shift the odds over the long view.

As a general rule, if a brand-new character gains x.p. at the same rate as an established character of less than "name" level, then the new one will eventually be just one level behind. There are ways to accomplish that, or even for the lower-level character to advance more rapidly.

All that is part of the "balance" of the game. It was not for nothing that it was written of magic-users that "survival is often the question". If that's _not_ the case, then expect canny players to adjust their strategies accordingly.

There are many other games. The 40 years since the first expedition into the dungeons beneath Blackmoor Castle have not exhausted the possibilities in detail, but have certainly explored many more broadly different paths. There are games that owe relatively little to the historical-wargames campaigns that inspired the first distinct RPG. There are games in which character death is neither expected, nor left to chance, nor any sort of setback, but strictly a "narrative-authorial" option for a player. Other setbacks for a character may not even be that for a player! There are all sorts of other games as well, too many to relate at once. Some come with a lot of "baggage" from previous game forms, legacies adopted without much thought. Some go to the other extreme, that of novelty for its own sake. Some are very thoughtfully designed.

Different people want to get different things out of a "fantasy role-playing game", and so there are different FRP games.

And so, no, _nothing_ is "necessarily good" -- but various games satisfying various tastes seems to me a state of affairs likely on balance to be better than uniformity.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 13, 2010)

marcq said:


> I think the issue is that you, the referee are not some impartial robot processing a simulation of a fantasy world.



And a "storyteller game master" doesn't sit in front of the group reading aloud from his novella, either - at least I hope he doesn't.

Absurd extremes which mean nothing in the context of how people really play don't add much to the conversation, in my humble opinion.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 14, 2010)

I often find myself retreating from extreme, inflexible viewpoints. In my view, the basic point of breaking out the dice is to use a system to determine what happens in a situation. However, it us up to the GM to decide when to break out the dice and how they will be used. I would have no problem overruling something suggested by the rules that makes no sense, but would probably not overrule a character death caused by "bad rolls." On the other hand, I would be pretty free with Gygax's suggestion for the GM to do things beyond what the rules can accomplish alone. For instance, "death" in a relatively unimportant encounter might instead be a crippling blow. I don't use that prerogative very often, but it's there. 

Generally speaking, I let the dice fall where they may. However, although I often run story-driven games, I engineer my campaigns with the possibility of failure always in the forefront of my mind. If an RPG is taken as a vehicle for storytelling, and uncertainty and choice as means of generating ideas, the picture changes. In that case, "saving" PCs makes more sense. Letting it be done by GM fiat versus a game mechanic is not inherently inferior, but I think it's a good idea to design a campaign with game systems that will favor the outcomes you want. A game in which the GM applied fiat to every single resolution might still be, in some thin sense, an RPG, but it's not the experience I'm seeking.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 14, 2010)

Janx said:


> This differs from a sporting even with a true referree, of which the the referee only initiates play with a whistle and makes calls on plays. A GM makes a zillion other tiny miniscule decisions and such that are unaudited by anybody else.




This tells me that you think the DM is either adversarial or a puppet master controlling the fate of everything with no room for a different role.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 14, 2010)

Reyard said:
			
		

> Additionally, just pointing at Gygax and saying "That's how I play" is of no value.



Pointing to the instructions, the *rule books*, as some call them, is no value in learning to play a game? Then what are people paying for? Why the heck are so *many* people so foolishly insistent not merely on playing "D&D" or "RoleMaster", "Hero System" or "GURPS", "World of Darkness" or "Mutants & Masterminds", but on playing a particular _edition_?

Maybe you just know so much better than all of them. Maybe not.

You can do what you want, add what you want, change what you want, and that's just fine. However, some things are or are not in fact in there to start. The text is not just a random collection of alphanumeric characters!

The more you have to reduce it to that to "read between the lines" this or that rule, the more you have to ignore the context in which it was originally written and read, the more you have to throw out further elaborations and answers to queries -- the more likely it is that you are just over-writing with your _own_ text.

If you *don't want* to read the plain intent, then ain't nothin' gonna make ya. There are plenty of things like that.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> So I ask you again: please describe your playstyle. If nothing else, it will be enlightening to those of us that have never experienced it and may perhaps improve our games.




_As it relates to the matter at hand_, *I have already stated what that is -- and had other people try to tell me I'm wrong!*

I told it like it is. It's nothing else. The answer is not going to change just because you don't like it.

Try this again.



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> I'm the _referee_. I volunteered for the job so that my friends could play a game. I'm not in the game. It's not my place to be partial, to use my power to rig an outcome. I will get my own turn to play, and someone else to referee.
> 
> So, if "a TPK or similar fate" is the consequence dictated by the rules of their game, then that is their fun and I have no reason to spoil my friends' fun.




That's the same *no matter the game*.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 14, 2010)

What's it like to be a referee in D&D?

It's like writing an Adventure computer program.
It's like drawing a maze.
It's like making a jigsaw puzzle.
It's like creating a crossword or Sudoku puzzle.
It's like writing a mystery story.
It's like playing Black Box (a sort of advanced variation on Battleship).
It's like playing Hangman.
It's like playing Twenty Questions.

Most of all, in terms of direct historical antecedents, it is like being referee of a Braunstein, a Diplomacy game, or a Napoleonic wargames campaign.

From the Wikipedia article on Twenty Questions:


> Lying is not allowed, as it would ruin the game.




That's just the way it is, and anyone with whom I would want to play in the first place understands without a whole lot of fancy metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.


----------



## Janx (Apr 14, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> This tells me that you think the DM is either adversarial or a puppet master controlling the fate of everything with no room for a different role.




I don't think I think that.

It's more that I don't think that a human can be truly impartial.  If I sat at the table of somebody who disagreed vociferously on my opinion of this topic, would I get a fair game?  There would always be that question based on the outcome of the game.  it might even be that the GM would over-compensate, and thus bias the game the other way.

The human brain's decision tree starts in the emotion chip of the brain.  Everything after that is in support of that emotional decision.  Thus, there is no guarantee that the impartial GM is actually impartial.

Since I don't think the GM is impartial and I don't see an absolute mathematically tested model to ensure he is reigned in, I see no point in pretending he is impartial.  Since the GM has ultimate power (remember, no absolute mathematically proven model to bound his power), it would be an abuse of power and true imbalance to play as an adversarial role.

Sure, the GM's gotta try to be fair.  Impartial?  No way, he's a human and has just as much right to pursue his goals within the game as the players.

Now is the GM a puppet master?  I don't necesarily think that either.  Sure, a DM is in position to manipulate the players, and what GM doesn't.  But ultimately, the GM has a game because he delivers a great experience for the players.  And that means it can't be against the players will.  Not truly.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 14, 2010)

marcq said:
			
		

> I think the issue is ...



 ... something that not I, nor my friends, nor even the extremely simulation-minded designers of _Chivalry & Sorcery_ care about in the least.

It sure as shooting is not a compelling (or even remotely sensible, really) argument for throwing up our hands in dismay, throwing out our agreed upon rules, and telling the GM just to _dictate_ what happens!

If we wanted to be "players" in a staged production, then I don't think we would want to mess around with pointless and distracting dice rolls.



			
				marcq said:
			
		

> Therefore, when the encounters are suddenly lethal, one thing to consider is whether you screwed up or even if not, you owe it to your players, per this implicit understanding to not necessarily destroy them.




It's simply not possible for anything involving creatures getting hit to be "suddenly lethal". An average 84% to 91% dead after two hits is where it _started!_ Guess what happens to a lot of the PCs' foes?

Some of their enemies surrender, and more flee. The players have those options as well!

There _is no_ "implicit understanding not to destroy them!" Jumping crickets, what is this deal with suggesting that I'm lying?

The *perfectly explicit* understanding is that they roll up characters, guide them through the world to see what they can see and do what they will do, and the best laid plans of gallants and waghalters come to what ends skill and chance may yield.

There is no reason the Wicked Wyrm of Withywains should suddenly have to become other than what it is just because this or that player has chosen to molest it. Bands of men or monsters don't suddenly shrink when they have the upper hand, for *the same reason they do not suddenly turn into fanatics with miraculous reinforcements when the players are easily routing them*.



			
				marcq said:
			
		

> So if you, the ref, are throwing out combats ...



I am not. It is up to the players what they will do, and it takes two to tango! If they go to a dangerous place, then they are likely to encounter some of its dangers. That is rather to the point -- but fighting with anyone and everyone they happen to meet generally is not.

If characters somehow manage to reach a cloud giants' castle, then they can either keep their heads or lose 'em. If they are cunning and lucky enough, they may well escape with treasure. If they pick a fight and get smeared, then they have learned something. That's how it goes in games!

If something really, really unusual happens, well, _it's the unusual that makes for memorable stories_. It's also part of the game, right along with the really, really common occurrences.


----------



## Enclave (Apr 14, 2010)

In my youth, I was a lethal GM.  Now that I'm nearing 30 though, I'm more forgiving.

I'd sooner have the party locked up in a dungeon or prison of some sort than kill them.

Players don't like their characters being killed.  But you can certainly cause them some inconvienience.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2010)

As far as D&D goes, I'm a big believer that the ruleset is flexible enough to encompass a pretty broad range of playstyles.  If you want to be 100% hard nosed about it, let the dice dictate events, that's no problem.  OTOH, softening the death at -10 (or whatever) rule does not invalidate large swaths of the mechanics.

I mean, if you change the rules so that any lethal attack instead leaves you stable at -1, it is possible to have a TPK (or the baddies could just take you prisoner), but highly unlikely.  That does not suddenly turn the game into a predestined lockstep railroad.

It just means that failure by death is not on the menu.  If the only failure that can possibly occur in a game is "failure by death" I would think that the game is pretty shallow and nothing but hack and slash.  OTOH, I don't presume that about other people's games.  

It would be nice if people wouldn't presume things about mine.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 14, 2010)

Gotta love those folks who are so duty bound to tell the rest of us that *we're doing it wrong!*

"You screwed up!"
"It's your fault!"

_What_ is my fault? Can you please tell me?

No, you cannot, because you know all of zip-a-dee-doo-dah about _a game you have never played and people you have never met_. When you are told by one in the know, you refuse to listen.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 14, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Gotta love those folks who are so duty bound to tell the rest of us that *we're doing it wrong!*
> 
> "You screwed up!"
> "It's your fault!"
> ...




The question now becomes: "What in the world are you talking about?" because none of that has appeared in this thread at all.

Here's the thing, as it relates to a couple of posts back by you: 1) The 1E DMG goes to great lengths to remind the prospective DM/referee that what the rules or the dice say *don't matter one whit* and what happens in the game is up to the DM and no one lese. Hence the asking about your playstyle: simply invoking Gyugax, even in the 1E DMG, doesn't say much considering the man himself obviously realized that each and every DM would do things differently.

In the long run, I would make a wild *guess* that what you are talking about is a sandboxy kind of game that hews pretty close to the _*guidelines*_ presented in AD&D. And if that is the case, although you have game rules and suggestions to back you up, you still have to make decisions and present situations to your players, which ends up in the same place we all are, despiute edition: making decisions about whether we screwed up in landing certain challenges at the feet of our players and their characters.

There's no right answer of course, but we can presume that a responsible DM will make an effort to "play fair". So, in "playing fair" and finding that you have misjudged an encounter, do you "save" the PCs? That seems to be the question, devoid of debates over onetruewayism and the like,


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 14, 2010)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The question now becomes: "What in the world are you talking about?" because none of that has appeared in this thread at all.



Actually, "you screwed up" was from just a few posts ago, and "it's your fault" (twice) was from the poster who first saw fit to "school" me on my game.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> In the long run, I would make a wild *guess*



You go ahead and do that, since you refuse to *accept what I have already posted twice*.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> So, in "playing fair" and finding that you have misjudged an encounter, do you "save" the PCs?



What does "misjudged an encounter" mean? On what basis is it to be "judged"? How would I know that I was not "misjudging" it again?

Finally, why should I break my word to my friends?


----------



## Imaginary Number (Apr 14, 2010)

I've been away from this thread for a while, and it seems to be careening away from the original topic, which was (to paraphrase) whether and to what extent individual GMs provided some sort of plot immunity from death to the PCs.  That issue arises in any game system in which PC death is possible, so the question is a good one.  The responses have ranged from "never" through "under some conditions" to "always," with the majority clustering around the "never" end of the spectrum.  In an attempt to re-rail the discussion, I'll ask a slightly modified version of the original question:  how, if at all, does a GM signal to the PCs that they're getting in over their heads and risking a TPK?  I'm assuming that even "let the dice fall where they may" GMs will have some mechanism in place such that the players are able to approximate the level of challenge a particular encounter represents and gauge whether they want to face it.  How do you provide that information to the players in such a way that they will generally agree that a TPK is an appropriate consequence for their actions?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 14, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I often find myself retreating from extreme, inflexible viewpoints. In my view, the basic point of breaking out the dice is to use a system to determine what happens in a situation.



Agreed.



pawsplay said:


> However, it us up to the GM to decide when to break out the dice and how they will be used.



I don't agree with this. I prefer to leave this up to the group as a whole (who will presumably at least be guided by the rules of the game they're playing). In practice, the GM is likely to have more influence, but (in my preferred approach to play) doesn't have unilateral authority.

A complication is the role of the GM in setting difficulties. As Umbran (I think - and probably others) was sayting upthread, if the GM has unlimited discretion to set difficulties, then unless the rules allow for open-ended rolls or auto-successes (or, at the other extreme, fumbles/auto-failures) then the GM has the discretion to make the dice irrelevant. That's why I think the encounter-buidling guidelines for a game are just as important to the rules as are the action-resolution or character-building mechanics. They constrain the GM and therefore help to protagonise the players.



pawsplay said:


> Letting it be done by GM fiat versus a game mechanic is not inherently inferior, but I think it's a good idea to design a campaign with game systems that will favor the outcomes you want.



I tend to think it is inferior. I therefore agree with you that the system should be one that produces the desired gaming experience. In practice, other considerations feed into system selection as well (eg what does everyone else want to play). In my case, I'm happy that 4e has a reasonable range of mechanics to let me ameliorate TPK possibilities without having to exercise GM-fiat (as opposed to GM-responsibilities in relation to encounter and adventure design).


----------



## pemerton (Apr 14, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> if you're playing a game about, say, exploring dark dungeons and trackless wastes filled with ravening monsters and evil villains, then it's reasonable to expect the adventurers to face hazards more dangerous than a torn ACL, a scathing review, or a well-funded primary opponent.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





ExploderWizard said:


> If the player characters are wizards, warriors, etc. and thier adventures involve going into dangerous places infested with monsters, tricks, and deadly traps then life or death stakes are a normal part of life for these characters and thus part of the game.



Death is of course a possibility from the PC's point of view. But this doesn't tell us that it has to be a possibility from the players'/metagame point of view. And we don't necessarily have to change genres (eg to super-heroes). There are fantasy-adventure RPGs where the action resolution mechanics mean that PC death is not really on the table (eg ICE's HARP, with its Fate Point rules - one Fate Point is enough to turn a killing blow into a merely serious one). D&D doesn't have quite that sort of action resolution option, but there are other ways of proceeding that are quite legal within the rules (eg 4e's "unconscious at zero hp" rule).



The Shaman said:


> Roleplaying games are not movies. Different medium entirely.





ExploderWizard said:


> Movies are a different medium of entertainment



It doesn't follow that they have nothing to tell us about RPG design. Look at Robin Laws's advice in the DMG2, for example, which is cribbed from his advice in HeroWars/HeroQuest.



ExploderWizard said:


> One enjoys a movie as a consumer of entertainment, not a participant _in _that entertainment. A movie story is set and canned. Viewers cannot change the outcome through active participation. In a game, it is the ability to create and modify the action that provides the entertainment.



Sure, but "creation and modification" is a long way from "possibillity of PC death as a result of random die rolls". In fact, in a game where (as a player) my main means of creating and modifying is by having my PC do things, than random chances of PC death might be seen as an _obstacle_ to that creation.

Not always, of course - some games and playstyle make bringing in new PCs, or resurrecting dead ones, easy. Others do not. The link between PC death and deprotagonism is subtle. But it is not all one way. It is not inherently deprotagonising to take the possibility of PC death off the table. But of course it does depend on how that is done.



ExploderWizard said:


> If one is playing a game in which situation X can happen and anytime X does indeed happen the results that produced X are changed or discarded then it has been decided that result X will not be a possibility.



I've played lots of sessions of fantasy RPGs, and never once confronted the possibility of a character dying from a burst bladder (as did Tycho Brahe). That's predetermination of a sort. I don't think it's ever mattered, however. That's not the sort of possibility we want on the table (unless, maybe, we're playing F.A.T.A.L.). Is PC death an important possibility or not? That's what's up for grabs in different approaches to play - it can't just be _assumed_ to be important for everyone.



ExploderWizard said:


> If one aproaches a game with the attitude that it is no fun to play if there is any possibility of losing then why play? Participate in story telling and dispense with the sham of dice rolling or mechanics.



Short answer - there can be other reasons to play RPGs besides winning/losing. One reason would be to create (pretty hackneyed and low-grade!) stories with friends. Why use dice and mechanics? Because they (i) create a framework in which to create stories, (ii) resolve issues about distribution of narrative power across participants, and (iii) interject randomness/novelty/tension etc.



ExploderWizard said:


> When it makes sense for the NPC's to take captives then they should.



The real question here is - do we mean "makes sense" in the gameworld, or "makes sense" in the real world at the gametable. I think you mean the former. I would agree with what you've said, but only if "make sense" has the latter meaning. If it would "make sense" at the game table for the PCs to be captured - because this is what the players want, to keep playing their PCs rather than having them be killed - then that is what I would prefer to do when GMing my group. It's my job, as GM, to then find a way - retconning if necessary - to make this make sense within the gameworld.



The Shaman said:


> Being beaten over the head by _deus ex machina_ isn't my idea of a good time, but others' mileage certainly varies.





ExploderWizard said:


> This is the kind of situation that players hate worse than being captured or killed-being rescued. Regardless of finesse the players may feel railroaded. If made to appear as part of the adventure as designed it's even worse because the DM put them in a situation that required a rescue.



I think there is more to it then railroading and _deus ex machina_. It depends a lot on what has come before in the game (eg were allies made or contingencies prepared for). Is the rescue a way of making a player background come into play? Is it a way of rewarding success in an earlier skill challenge (or penalising failure)? Some systems have better mechanics for this than D&D (eg Relationships in HeroQuest) but I don't think it's something that D&D can't handle.

You can even say to the players - do you prefer a TPK or a rescue? And if the latter, by whom, and at what cost? So rescuing is to me more about adventure design and GMing techniques than railroading and _deus ex machina_. As to the GM putting the players in a situation requiring a rescue - I'm kind of with Ariosto on that. It was the players who chose to go there - the GM just refereed the outcome.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 14, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> As a player, I prefer that outcomes be based on consistent rules, not on a GM's whim. PC deaths are no different.



Agreed.



Ariosto said:


> There are many other games. The 40 years since the first expedition into the dungeons beneath Blackmoor Castle have not exhausted the possibilities in detail, but have certainly explored many more broadly different paths. There are games that owe relatively little to the historical-wargames campaigns that inspired the first distinct RPG. There are games in which character death is neither expected, nor left to chance, nor any sort of setback, but strictly a "narrative-authorial" option for a player. Other setbacks for a character may not even be that for a player! There are all sorts of other games as well, too many to relate at once. Some come with a lot of "baggage" from previous game forms, legacies adopted without much thought. Some go to the other extreme, that of novelty for its own sake. Some are very thoughtfully designed.
> 
> Different people want to get different things out of a "fantasy role-playing game", and so there are different FRP games.
> 
> And so, no, _nothing_ is "necessarily good" -- but various games satisfying various tastes seems to me a state of affairs likely on balance to be better than uniformity.



I very much agree, but can't give you more XP at this time.


----------



## airwalkrr (Apr 14, 2010)

I generally let the dice fall where they may. It is a game after all and character death is a part of that game. That said, I do my best to avoid killing a character just because of dumb luck. I try to prevent dumb luck being the cause of death by using a few proactive house rules. First, I use the softer critical hits variant from the 3.5 DMG while the PCs are low level (generally from 1st through 3rd). Second, I use the death and dying variant from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana. But if, in spite of these rules, the dice still spell doom, I let it happen.

I don't ascribe to the notion that the PCs should _always_ win. Obviously they have to win most of the time, otherwise the game wouldn't be able to move forward. But being a smart player character means knowing when you are beaten and when to call a retreat. It happened in the very first D&D campaign (read some of Gary Gygax's old articles in The Dragon) and it continues to happen today. Sometimes the dice don't roll your way. Sometimes you made a tactical blunder. Sometimes you just went poking your nose where it didn't belong. No matter how it happened, you, as a player, shouldn't act as if your player character is expendable unless you created a character who is truly unafraid of death. And if that's the case, then you don't deserve the right to say a thing when your PC does eventually die (notice I said _when_, not _if_). But by and large, player characters ought to behave like actual people when death is looking them in the eye, they need to turn tail and run. If the players can't realize when they've been beaten (and I usually tell them flat-out when that has occurred before the TPK), they deserve to have their characters killed.

"If we take the generally accepted definition of bravery as a quality which knows no fear, I have never seen a brave man. All men are frightened. The more intelligent they are, the more they are frightened."

-George S. Patton


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 14, 2010)

Janx said:


> I don't think I think that.
> 
> It's more that I don't think that a human can be truly impartial. If I sat at the table of somebody who disagreed vociferously on my opinion of this topic, would I get a fair game? There would always be that question based on the outcome of the game. it might even be that the GM would over-compensate, and thus bias the game the other way.
> 
> ...




I don't believe that a DM must be an emotionless robotic calculator to run a fair game. 

It is interesting that you mention that the DM has a right to pursue his goals within the game. The nature of those goals is of great importance. 

If these goals are adversarial in nature, meaning the DM is trying to "win" through the use of some "rules" then he has already failed at running a fair game. The DM is the caretaker of everything in the game environment apart from the PC's. Not every part of that environment is going to be hostile to the PC's. Also consider that a campaign with any mystery or sense of wonder will feature elements that the players must discover. The DM is aware of these hidden rules and elements so playing _against _the players is a pointless foregone conclusion.

The DM plays many roles. Some of those roles will involve portraying things that are hostile to the PC's. The role of Dungeon Master itself is _not _such a role. 

So what is the goal of the DM? Why even bother playing a game that you are not trying to win?

My personal answer to this is that the DM _isn't _playing the game. He/she is _running _the game that others play. The tradeoff for participating in a game one cannot win or lose is being privy to the whole picture and enjoying the action of the game as it unfolds. This isn't something that everyone finds fun and is one of the reasons there are far more players than (good) DM's.

The short version: If a DM tries to put a horse in the race, the game is already over. 



Janx said:


> Now is the GM a puppet master? I don't necesarily think that either. Sure, a DM is in position to manipulate the players, and what GM doesn't. But ultimately, the GM has a game because he delivers a great experience for the players. And that means it can't be against the players will. Not truly.




The DM has a playing group because he/she delivers an enjoyable experience. The group has a _game_ (or not) depending upon how they decide to spend thier time during that experience.



pemerton said:


> Death is of course a possibility from the PC's point of view. But this doesn't tell us that it has to be a possibility from the players'/metagame point of view. And we don't necessarily have to change genres (eg to super-heroes). There are fantasy-adventure RPGs where the action resolution mechanics mean that PC death is not really on the table (eg ICE's HARP, with its Fate Point rules - one Fate Point is enough to turn a killing blow into a merely serious one). D&D doesn't have quite that sort of action resolution option, but there are other ways of proceeding that are quite legal within the rules (eg 4e's "unconscious at zero hp" rule).




My answer to this is as simple as a Coke commercial: Ain't nothing like the real thing baby. 

If the players are aware that character death is not likely then such knowledge will influence thier behavior in the game. Sooner or later it _will _become a factor. Browse through all the "how do I stop the PC's from hacking into everything"/ " how do I get my players' characters to act like people" threads. Chances are high that these players are in campaigns that feature some sort of protagonist protection that they are exploiting for all it's worth. 




pemerton said:


> Sure, but "creation and modification" is a long way from "possibillity of PC death as a result of random die rolls". In fact, in a game where (as a player) my main means of creating and modifying is by having my PC do things, than random chances of PC death might be seen as an _obstacle_ to that creation.




Of course it's an obstacle.  A failure or setback is supposed to be an obstacle. PC death is simply the most severe of these.



pemerton said:


> Not always, of course - some games and playstyle make bringing in new PCs, or resurrecting dead ones, easy. Others do not. The link between PC death and deprotagonism is subtle. But it is not all one way. It is not inherently deprotagonising to take the possibility of PC death off the table. But of course it does depend on how that is done.




Players play to have fun. The concept of considering something like deprotagonism is anathema to our fun. Your mileage varies, and that is fine.




pemerton said:


> I've played lots of sessions of fantasy RPGs, and never once confronted the possibility of a character dying from a burst bladder (as did Tycho Brahe). That's predetermination of a sort. I don't think it's ever mattered, however. That's not the sort of possibility we want on the table (unless, maybe, we're playing F.A.T.A.L.). Is PC death an important possibility or not? That's what's up for grabs in different approaches to play - it can't just be _assumed_ to be important for everyone.




I can't say that I have ever played anything like that either (unless it was on the Rolemaster tables and never came up)

The possibility of PC death isn't a condition for every possible game but that has been covered.



pemerton said:


> Short answer - there can be other reasons to play RPGs besides winning/losing. One reason would be to create (pretty hackneyed and low-grade!) stories with friends. Why use dice and mechanics? Because they (i) create a framework in which to create stories, (ii) resolve issues about distribution of narrative power across participants, and (iii) interject randomness/novelty/tension etc.




Winning/losing is the difference between a game and storytelling. As for tension/randomness, it seems tension is a non-issue if there is nothing to be won or lost and randomness isn't really random if we mold what results we get into whatever we like.



pemerton said:


> The real question here is - do we mean "makes sense" in the gameworld, or "makes sense" in the real world at the gametable. I think you mean the former. I would agree with what you've said, but only if "make sense" has the latter meaning. If it would "make sense" at the game table for the PCs to be captured - because this is what the players want, to keep playing their PCs rather than having them be killed - then that is what I would prefer to do when GMing my group. It's my job, as GM, to then find a way - retconning if necessary - to make this make sense within the gameworld.




I agree. The real question of what makes sense depends on if the players want a game or to be the main characters in a story. Once that is agreed upon it becomes easier to decide what makes sense in various situations.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 14, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> As for tension/randomness, it seems tension is a non-issue if there is nothing to be won or lost and randomness isn't really random if we mold what results we get into whatever we like.



But I still think there can be things at stake without any of them being PC life/death.

On the issue of "moulding results", I found a post by LostSoul on an old thread linking to this interesting blog about narration sharing. I don't mind the GM being able to impose adveristy on the PCs if the randomness makes that a possibility. I just don't see why PC death (as opposed to capture, or some other sort of story-twisting rather than story-ending possibility) _has_ to be one of the options.

So I guess we kind of agree (but have different preferences) but I think maybe you're not putting the most sympathetic spin on your less-preferred playstyle (not that you're obliged to, obviously!).


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 14, 2010)

pemerton said:


> But I still think there can be things at stake without any of them being PC life/death.




There certainly can be. You can set up a game with whatever win/loss conditions the participants agree to. If none of those conditions can result significant (game ending) loss then you have a game of infinite continuity. Logically if the game is still a game that one cannot end by losing then it cannot end in victory either. If there ever _was _a decisive victory possible and no chance of a decisive loss then there is no game, return to square one.



pemerton said:


> On the issue of "moulding results", I found a post by LostSoul on an old thread linking to this interesting blog about narration sharing. I don't mind the GM being able to impose adveristy on the PCs if the randomness makes that a possibility. I just don't see why PC death (as opposed to capture, or some other sort of story-twisting rather than story-ending possibility) _has_ to be one of the options.




It doesn't. See above.


pemerton said:


> So I guess we kind of agree (but have different preferences) but I think maybe you're not putting the most sympathetic spin on your less-preferred playstyle (not that you're obliged to, obviously!).




I'm trying my best not to spin anything. There is either a game on or some other activity the participants enjoy taking place. Players choice.


----------



## Haltherrion (Apr 14, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> And a "storyteller game master" doesn't sit in front of the group reading aloud from his novella, either - at least I hope he doesn't.
> 
> Absurd extremes which mean nothing in the context of how people really play don't add much to the conversation, in my humble opinion.




No, not really. In this case, we have the universe of the "strict simultion-ist" and everyone else. Everyone else is inserting their judgement into various aspects of the game. Once that door is open, taking responsibility for TPKs isn't really much of a stretch. If it was your calls that got the party into a TPK situation then you bear some responsibility in how it plays out.

So this isn't the case of one extreme versus another with 99% of the population in the middle at neither extreme. It is the case of 1% versus the other 99%.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 14, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Actually, "you screwed up" was from just a few posts ago, and "it's your fault" (twice) was from the poster who first saw fit to "school" me on my game.



I am going to take a guess and state that the poster you think is trying to "school" you on your game was using a generic "you" and "your" to describe DMing in general and not a "you == Ariosto" or "your game == Ariosto's game".

Maybe with this in mind, it makes more sense to not take these posts personally and instead understand that the poster may be describing the playstyle that _they_ enjoy, or discussing the circumstances _they and many other DMs_ that post here _might_ have experienced in the past.

Then again, I may be wrong, and the poster was personally addressing you specifically and no one else, but I really doubt it.


----------



## Haltherrion (Apr 14, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> It's simply not possible for anything involving creatures getting hit to be "suddenly lethal". An average 84% to 91% dead after two hits is where it _started!_ Guess what happens to a lot of the PCs' foes?




Why is it not possible for it to be suddenly lethal? In your game, are the players in control of every encounter? If there are traveling from point A to point B, they understand all the likely encounters (often the classic 'random' ones) that they will meet on their path so that they can make informed decisions as to the risks they are taking?

If not, if you the referee with your charts or your judgement select a random encounter and that proves too much for the party to handle, do you make sure there is a non-lethal way out as I and many others have suggested (capture, fleeing, bargaining, etc.) or do you just kill them?

If you see to it they never face a lethal situation in those types of encounters, that's all fine in dandy if you never, ever make a mistake. If you do, then as I said seems sensible to see about fixing it. If you provide exits for them, seems like you are doing what most of us say- you see to it there are non-TPK ways out.

And yes, of course, if the players willfully go in over their heads, death is a sensible outcome. Few would say it isn't.


----------



## Haltherrion (Apr 14, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The question now becomes: "What in the world are you talking about?" because none of that has appeared in this thread at all.




I don't think it has happened either but I believe what Arioso is objecting to is my own statement:



> Therefore, when the encounters are suddenly lethal, one thing to consider is whether you screwed up or even if not, you owe it to your players, per this implicit understanding to not necessarily destroy them.




Which some how became from Arioso:



> "You screwed up!"




Asking someone to consider whether you made a mistake is not the same as saying they made a mistake. A little self-reflection and critique seems to be a good thing in a referee to me, eh?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 14, 2010)

marcq said:


> Why is it not possible for it to be suddenly lethal? In your game, are the players in control of every encounter? If there are traveling from point A to point B, they understand all the likely encounters (often the classic 'random' ones) that they will meet on their path so that they can make informed decisions as to the risks they are taking?



I think he is saying that the lethality isn't sudden because in the ruleset he plays there is "An average 84% to 91% dead after two hits".  The lethality was there after you rolled up your PC.

Considering how long it takes to gain a level, a different thread topic could discuss whether that would be fun or not, but that's not the point of this thread.



marcq said:


> my own statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I had guessed that you were also using the "you" in a more generic fashion and not specifically targeting and singling out Ariosto.  But, like I said, I could be wrong...


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Apr 14, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> I am going to take a guess and state that the poster you think is trying to "school" you on your game was using a generic "you" and "your" to describe DMing in general and not a "you == Ariosto" or "your game == Ariosto's game".




You guessed correctly.  I was talking about the times it's undeniably the party's fault for getting into trouble by being stupid, like not fleeing from an obviously superior foe when they can.  In that context, I used the collective "you" to say when it's because of the DM that PCs die, not an attack on Ariosto.  If I put the PCs in a situation where they can't escape against an enemy I grossly misjudged the power level of, I did in fact screw up a far as I'm concerned.  And I have screwed up, on many occasions.  The important thing is recognizing it as soon as possible and taking steps to correct it.  Covertly if still possible, but if not, just be up front about it and admit you misjudged the encounter and that you're going to adjust the enemy's hp or stats to compensate.

Maybe it's just my playstyle, but to me PC death should be rare or for when they "deserve" it.  I have the ability to throw whatever the hell I want at them, a TPK is not a challenge to produce.  I find it much more enjoyable, for the PCs and for me, if I can walk the fine line of _nearly_ killing them in a fight, putting the fear of DM into their hearts but still leaving the encounter level such that they can survive and overcome it.  And I don't mean every time i roll damage, I fudge to what's thematically coolest.  I go with what's rolled generally, until it becomes a big problem.  I mean that I try to tailor the encounters I plan to attain that "extremely dangerous but 100% survivable if you use good tactics" level.



catsclaw227 said:


> Maybe with this in mind, it makes more sense to not take these posts personally and instead understand that the poster may be describing the playstyle that _they_ enjoy, or discussing the circumstances _they and many other DMs_ that post here _might_ have experienced in the past.
> 
> Then again, I may be wrong, and the poster was personally addressing you specifically and no one else, but I really doubt it.




Basically.  Though I do refuse to believe any DM is "just" a referee, like he claimed.  Unless the PCs are telling you what monsters and how many to encounter, you're still choosing their antagonists, which makes you more than a referee.  The PCs can say "we're going to explore the volcano dungeon!", sure.  But the DM still determines just what they encounter in that dungeon, the layout of the terrain and map, the effects and/or abundance of dangerous lava pools at various points, how well adapted the enemies are to the situation for kicking PC ass (orcs on flying carpets with str composite bows hovering over impassable lava?  just a quick example, I'm sure it's "flawed").  Even if you're just running a module verbatim (I find it hard to believe a DM wouldn't at least review it beforehand and consider tweaking it to fit the party or his goals as DM better), you're still effectively determining what the PCs face by your inaction.



Ariosto said:


> Actually, "you screwed up" was from just a few posts ago, and "it's your fault" (twice) was from the poster who first saw fit to "school" me on my game.




I was contesting what you said.  Not "schooling" you.  Cripes.



Ariosto said:


> What does "misjudged an encounter" mean? On what basis is it to be "judged"? How would I know that I was not "misjudging" it again?




Well, if you...
1. Think that with the DM's power to select and/or stat out the opponents the PCs face gives you any influence *at all* in how difficult an encounter turns out to be.
2. Recognize that as DM there's no real challenge in just killing off the party (and if you are doing an adversarial style of DMing, you're also not just a referee), and thus question what exactly is the "challenge" in DMing -- Is it possible to "fail" the group as a DM?  Is there any general measurement of what makes a person a good DM?

Then I guess I expect a person who realizes those two things to come to the conclusion that if the party's dying in encounters despite seemingly making sound choices in combat, to wonder if "maybe the problem is me?"

I'm mostly familiar with 3E rules.  In 3E, something that was considered an "equivalent challenge rating" was supposed to have a very, very low chance of being fatal.  The idea was that a party should in fact be able to go through 3, 4, 5, even 6 of these things on a given adventuring day, each encounter draining some of their resources, but otherise leaving them alive.  If each encounter of "equivlant" challenge were significantly deadly, then by probability alone no adventuring party would last for very long.

If you disagree with those points or see what's "normal" as different, then obviously you disagree with me.  But the whole "just a referee" comment is still hard for me to believe.



Ariosto said:


> Finally, why should I break my word to my friends?




You shouldn't.  My friends just expect me to be fair in the situations I throw them into, as part of my "word" in being DM.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 14, 2010)

marcq said:


> Why is it not possible for it to be suddenly lethal? In your game, are the players in control of every encounter? If there are traveling from point A to point B, they understand all the likely encounters (often the classic 'random' ones) that they will meet on their path so that they can make informed decisions as to the risks they are taking?




Speaking of my own campaigns only, the players have decisions to make when dealing with potential encounters. As far as informed decisions are concerned, that depends on the information available. If the players ask around about any potential hazards in an area they wish to travel then they may get a really good idea about what might be out there. If they were headed into unknown territory from which " none have returned" then there wouldn't likely be any information available. 

Knowing _all _the likely encounters? This depends on the quality and quantity of information gained. Players may know that the road ahead is often used by farmers bringing thier crops to market but that knowledge wouldn't translate into knowing that random encounter result 7 is a mean spirited former fighter turned cabbage farmer named Brak, driving his crop to market and that Brak _hates _nosy travellers and refuses to yield the right of way on the road. 



marcq said:


> If not, if you the referee with your charts or your judgement select a random encounter and that proves too much for the party to handle, do you make sure there is a non-lethal way out as I and many others have suggested (capture, fleeing, bargaining, etc.) or do you just kill them?




There are always options. Some options may not be available depending on choices made earlier. Once combat begins the options available depend on the nature of the opposition. If the party is set upon by a pack of ghouls then the range of options is narrower than if thier foes were bandits. 



marcq said:


> If you see to it they never face a lethal situation in those types of encounters, that's all fine in dandy if you never, ever make a mistake. If you do, then as I said seems sensible to see about fixing it. If you provide exits for them, seems like you are doing what most of us say- you see to it there are non-TPK ways out.




I don't see to it. Exit opportunities are situational and vary wildly. What I am careful about is communicating the threat level of goal oriented objectives relative to one another. If the PC's choose to tackle something then they should understand the basic risk vs reward scheme so they can plan accordingly.


marcq said:


> And yes, of course, if the players willfully go in over their heads, death is a sensible outcome. Few would say it isn't.




Agreed.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 14, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Basically.  Though I do refuse to believe any DM is "just" a referee, like he claimed.  Unless the PCs are telling you what monsters and how many to encounter, you're still choosing their antagonists, which makes you more than a referee.  The PCs can say "we're going to explore the volcano dungeon!", sure.  But the DM still determines just what they encounter in that dungeon, the layout of the terrain and map, the effects and/or abundance of dangerous lava pools at various points, how well adapted the enemies are to the situation for kicking PC ass (orcs on flying carpets with str composite bows hovering over impassable lava?  just a quick example, I'm sure it's "flawed").  Even if you're just running a module verbatim (I find it hard to believe a DM wouldn't at least review it beforehand and consider tweaking it to fit the party or his goals as DM better), you're still effectively determining what the PCs face by your inaction.




For me, the DM is the role at the table running the game.  The guy who chooses to construct the world environs and populate it?  He's the game designer.  They may be the same person, but the roles are separate.

That the roles are separate is obvious once you consider there is a industry offering professional game designer resources (campaign worlds, adventure paths, modules, etc.) for DMs to take advantage of.

As a game designer, do I place "too hard" encounters?  Sure.  The game my players and I expect to play is based around a simulated world where vaiable power levels exist simultaneously.  It is the game designer's job to make sure sufficient areas of different power levels exist to engage interested PCs and to make the transition between power levels either gentle or obvious.

As a DM is it my job to shepherd the character to "appropriate" encounters?  I don't think so.  If the players decide to aim high, so be it.  If the players decide to aim low, so be it.  It is my job to make the players aware of the known power level expectations for areas and inhabitants and to adjudicate the consequences of their actions on the game world environment.  The adjudications should be "fair" in the sense that the mutually agreed game rules are followed so that players can have a good expectation for success / danger level.  The adjudications should be impartial in that the same ruling would be used regardless of the PC affected if the circumstances remained identical.  

As soon as I save the PCs, I introduce a skew to the risk/reward ratio and thus the player's expectations are affected and it sets precedent for the imprtiality since I should now "save" the group in idenitcal or near identical circumstances.

If the group is failing because they hit an outlier probability distribution, well they picked their choices and took their chances and thus reap their rewards.


----------



## Janx (Apr 14, 2010)

My outlook on GMing translates to the GM having some responsibility in the potential death of PCs.  And as I said before, to kill or not, the answer is "it depends."

The matter is muddied by what the PCs did, what the players know, and what the GM has put against them, and how lucky everybody is.

Add in the fact, that we are talking about "unwanted lethality" in an encounter where both sides are trying to kill each other.  That's a contradiction right there.

I've said before, that as a GM, I kind of expect the players to win. I don't know how, that's the fun part.  I'm pretty sure the players pretty much expect to win as well.  Not as in the GM is handing out easy victories, but as in confidence in their own ability to triumph over adversity.  That's not a bad thing.

I have run an encounter with 3 first level PCs versus something like an orc or bugbear with a great-axe.  A couple of lucky hits, and a PC was dead.  oops.

It was my choice to but the critter there, I picked it by CR relative to the party level, and it was stock from the MM (including the great axe).  But statistically, 2 hits on a PC, and the PC is likely to die.  Very lethal.

It was also my choice to accept the hits and damage as I rolled them.   I could have fudged, especially on the last hit.

It was the players' choice to stay and fight the critter.  For them, this was the BBEG of the mission, and if retreat were possible, they'd only have to face him later as they try again (from their thinking).  For a first level, other options may not have been obvious to defeat the BBEG.  Since it wasn't a plain dungeon crawl, they had personal storyline reasons to want to take this guy down.

In any event, this kind of scenario can happen.  The GM has a choice on how to avoid, shift or accept it.  I'm not sure there's a universal wrong answer, though for individuals, certain options may be unacceptable solutions.

Which really ties into statements of "you screwed up" or "you're doing it wrong".  It's a hard habit to break to avoid using those phrases as speakers. As listeners, we can expect it to happen, and try to get to the speaker's actual meaning, without taking it personally.  

I certainly would not assume somebody is directly addressing me or my game unless they used my name or I was posting about a problem I was having.

Generally, the most valid scenarios (in regards to gaming) for "you're doing it wrong" is when one claims to be following the RAW and not actually doing it, especially in very clear cut situations, like handling the Swimming rules.  Or when somebody is having a problem getting something to work, that others have successfully done.  Like making combat faster.  But if the person in question doesn't have a problem, and his group is happy with the results, it's not really wrong, just different.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 14, 2010)

Imaginary Number said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that even "let the dice fall where they may" GMs will have some mechanism in place such that the players are able to approximate the level of challenge a particular encounter represents and gauge whether they want to face it. How do you provide that information to the players in such a way that they will generally agree that a TPK is an appropriate consequence for their actions?




*speaking primarily of 1E AD&D:*

If everybody gets zapped at once, if it's even _possible_, then the famous last words tend to be pretty obvious:

"Boy, _sleep_ is a great spell! Imagine if there were bad-guy magic-users!"
"Carrion crawler! A tentacle for each of us!"
"A dozen ghouls? I can turn them all in just a couple of rounds!"
"No answer from Bob? Let's all follow him into the *dead* black void that's radiating *evil*!"

Otherwise, it's more like someone thinking, hmm, we started with eight and we're down to four. Double the share of treasure! So, what if it's just me and one other guy? If he were a thief or m-u, then he'd already be gone like yesterday. That's good because, if things go _totally_ south, then I won't have to outrun the monster. I'll just have to run faster than him!

Unless there's a _second_ monster -- D'oh!

Anyway, you've got your Dungeon Levels. First floor, Ladies' Wear; second floor, Sporting Goods; tenth floor, Elder Things Man Was Not Meant to Know. _Approximately_, anyhow. You _could_ meet a lone minotaur on the 2nd level, but you're several times more likely to find a group of them on the 6th or 7th level.

You've also got your Hit Points. If you can surround an Ogre with half a dozen third- or fourth-level fighting types at full strength, then casualties on your side are extremely unlikely. If you're all down to 10 points or less, then someone very well might get floored in one blow. Someone at 9 could get instantly killed with the less generous KO range. Even short of death, the consequences of getting down to zero or negative points are not pretty.

Killing things is not the object, just sometimes an efficient means to the end of taking their stuff. If giving 'em a chance to whack you is the hard way, then maybe it's time to look for _another_ way.

Maybe this particular loot just isn't worth the getting to you. Fighting Wandering Monsters _at all_, much less "to the last man", is for chumps because chump change is all they've got.

So, you scout. Demi-humans and thieves are very good for that, _demi-human thieves_ very, very good.

How do you know what you're looking at? Well, most of my gang have been players long enough to know our way around the standard bestiary pretty well by memory -- and from tangling with at least the usual suspects more than once!

We will bring to the attention of less advanced students the note on the back of the _Monster Manual_, which indicates that "it is an invaluable aid to players"! Take heed, though, of the Foreword's warning that



> as valuable as this volume is with its wealth of information, some DM's may wisely wish to forbid their players from referring to the MANUAL in the midst of an encounter, since it will be considerably more challenging to confront a monster without an instant rundown of its strengths and weaknesses -- and besides, a D & D player's true mettle (and knowledge) will be put to the test. And as even the most casual D & D player knows, that's what this fascinating game is all about . . .



Even without prior D&D expertise, one may bring to the table a fair bit of lore. Most of the MM's inmates are recognizable from movies, mythology, sword-and-sorcery tales, comic books, or even real life.

There's also common sense. Big differences in size, build and armament tend to indicate about what one would expect. It might be more difficult to gauge how much tougher a bugbear is than a gnoll, or a hobgoblin than an orc, but that the bugbear is in another league from the orc should be pretty clear.

Sometimes a reconnaissance in force might be called for. However, one should _always_ have a Plan B. Make that, "One should always have a Plan C." Plan B, of course, is flaming oil to deter pursuit!

The Wilderness is not so tidy. Only very strong parties should venture there, and this is no secret. "Kobolds" are one thing; _40 to 400_ kobolds (including elite types) are another kettle of  trouble!

Normal random-encounter distance, though, is 60-240 yards. (Outside the USA, substitute meters for yards.) It is remotely possible, with extreme results on surprise _and_ distance dice, to have an immediate, close-range _confrontation_.



			
				DMG said:
			
		

> Confrontation interaction can consist of any number of interactions, singly or in combination -- parley and reaction, spell casting, missile fire, melee combat, etc..




It is not, as in some other games, a matter of the DM decreeing that an encounter is "a combat" or "a skill challenge".

Moreover, it is nearly always possible in the wilderness (and usually in the dungeons) to undertake evasion of encountered creatures, which may or may not pursue. See DMG pp. 67-69.

The bottom line is that if one takes the trouble to investigate before rushing in, then one can make better informed choices. The environment is not inchoate, not a swirling vapor that takes a completely different form each time one looks in the same place!

One can choose _not_ to stick out one's neck where one knows too little. Complete information, though, is not to be had even in Chess! What will the other side do? Finding out what shall happen is wherein lies the game!

Unlike Chess, AD&D has an element of chance quite apart from the vagaries of life and their influences on the players. _Alea iacta est_ is a very literal part of the game. It is very rarely a game of certainties. Strategy consists not in eliminating risk, but in managing it.

That may stand to reason, as an *adventure* is "an undertaking involving danger and unknown risks, an enterprise of a hazardous nature". It comes from the Middle English _aventure_, meaning "chance, risk".


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 14, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> The bottom line is that if one takes the trouble to investigate before rushing in, then one can make better informed choices. The environment is not inchoate, not a swirling vapor that takes a completely different form each time one looks in the same place!



Yeah, we used to play this way back in the day. There was the running joke about my brother, who we would say would poke the thing with a 10-foot pole, and if that was safe, would take out a nine-foot pole, and if that was safe, would take out an eight-foot pole...

In my youth when hours were cheap, that's how we played. My current groups have jobs and kids and little free time, and like to jump into the game and have some adventure. We don't enjoy poking and prodding around for signs of danger.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 14, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> *speaking primarily of 1E AD&D:*
> 
> _snippity_




For the record, as much as we have seemed to have talked past each other in this thread, the game you describe here is the game as I play it. So it is kind of weird that we don't seem to agree.


----------



## Haltherrion (Apr 14, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> I had guessed that you were also using the "you" in a more generic fashion and not specifically targeting and singling out Ariosto. But, like I said, I could be wrong...




You are correct; it was generic. Another way to put it is, "if you screwed up, shouldn't you fix?"

To me it seems that in nearly any game, the referee is making many decisions that affect play ability and that with so many decisions, mistakes will happen. In such cases, I might be more lenient then if the party just had some bad luck or made some bad choices in an otherwise reasonable, albeit challenging encounter.


----------



## Haltherrion (Apr 15, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> There are always options. Some options may not be available depending on choices made earlier. Once combat begins the options available depend on the nature of the opposition. If the party is set upon by a pack of ghouls then the range of options is narrower than if thier foes were bandits.




I agree and went into some of the same things you suggested in a reply earlier in this thread.

More recently, I'm just trying to point out that some TPK situations might be partly the referee's fault and in some case, I would think the referee has some responsibility to fix it.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2010)

> Death is of course a possibility from the PC's point of view. But this doesn't tell us that it has to be a possibility from the players'/metagame point of view.



Nothing "has to be", or even "ought to be" in every game under the sun. That is, however, how the original _Dungeons & Dragons_ game was designed to be. It was designed that way because people wanted it to be that way.

People _still_ want it to be that way!

It does not "have to be" that players have real choices to make, in terms of what happens (not just how) at any level in the secondary world. That can be merely "of course a possibility" to Hamlet, whereas Hamlet's player knows the script by heart.

It does not "have to be" that we roll dice to see whether Character X dies from a giant spider's poison, or even that we play out "combat rounds" when men and monsters engage in violence.

However, the actual thing is what it is.

One thing it is has to do with is a concept of "role-playing" that is less about putting on a show and more about approaching the situation as if one has in fact assumed the role of Fighter or Magician. The aim is not just to _pretend_ to be surprised or in the know, fearful or confident, disappointed or elated -- but actually *to experience those states*.

Even prior to that, more fundamentally, it has to do with what it meant, in the culture that created D&D, _to play a game_.

The two of those intersect, indeed are by design pretty clearly coupled. Characters advance by successfully meeting challenges, "just as actual playing experience really increases playing skill. Imagination, intelligence, problem solving ability, and memory are all continually exercised by participants in the game."

The last complete paragraph on page 7 of the 1E PHB may suggest how different the _expected scope_ of the Advanced D&D game (in keeping with its Original predecessor) was from the mode assumed in some more recent designs. 

The next paragraph (taking us to page 8) brings up the perennial problem:



> Each individual campaign has its own distinct properties and "flavor". A good Dungeon Master will most certainly make each game a surpassing challenge for his or her players. Treasure and experience gained must be taken at great risk or by means of utmost cleverness only. If the game is not challenging, if advancement is too speedy, then it becomes staid and boring. Conversely, a game can be too deadly and become just as boring, for who enjoys endlessly developing new characters to march off into oblivion in a single night of dungeon adventuring?!



The second paragraph following, beginning, "Skilled players always make a point of knowing what they are doing, i.e., they have an objective," is packed with excellent advice -- as is the section on "Successful Adventures" at pages 107 and 109.

The PHB makes it plain that



> THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN. Participants in a campaign have no recourse to the publisher, but they do have ultimate recourse -- since the most effective protest is withdrawal from the offending campaign.



As the DMG warns prospective campaign referees


> To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play _this_ game, not one made up on the spot.



Many people actually prefer _not_ to play _that_ game, but would rather play one or another of the different games that have come down the pike since. A few prefer to _reshape_ it into something more to their tastes.

"Save the PCs" is quite a different philosophy than that expressed in "Saving Throws" (DMG p. 80) and "Rolling the Dice and Control of the Game" (p.110), and indeed throughout the game with its emphasis on chance.



> Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time.



Right there is the plain _advice_, which is all the book can give a Master of the game.



> Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done.



Note the conditions here:


> It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!



In my circle, that is clearly the case when


			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim.  *Yet, they won't run away.*




The design is "game balanced" to work in certain ways, and it is no news that it can easily be found "broken" if bent too far in some directions! Magic-users, for instance, are _supposed to buy the farm more often_. That is what is meant, in reference to their being fearsome at high levels, by, "Survival to that point can be a problem, however, as low-level magic-users are quite weak."

For many people, a game designed from the ground up with different assumptions may be more convenient. Others may find that the very nature of a dependence on DM Fiat means that the supposed "rules" at hand in the form of algorithms in books make hardly any difference at all. It is the quality of the DM, and the correspondence of her or his style with player preference, that is all that really matters to them.

If it is due to a DM's interference that a character does not die _now_, then it is as a consequence that the character in the end dies precisely when the the DM chooses _not_ to save him or her.



> There MUST be some final death or immortality will take over and again the game will become boring because the player characters will have 9+ lives each!



Well, obviously that assumes a certain view of what makes a game boring. Not everyone is likely to share it, but the game _was not designed to please everyone_. Neither was any other!


----------



## Wereserpent (Apr 15, 2010)

I will say this, in games with high lethality, I would probably not roleplay my character very much. That sort of game can be fun, but it would feel more like playing a boardgame to me.


----------



## Janx (Apr 15, 2010)

Galeros said:


> I will say this, in games with high lethality, I would probably not roleplay my character very much. That sort of game can be fun, but it would feel more like playing a boardgame to me.




It would seem to me, that if you devoted a lot of energy into defining and portraying your character, you would get attached to it.

Doing that in a high turn-over game seems like one would be wasting that effort repeatedly.


Plus, I suspect, that unless PC#1 was a bad design, I'd attempt to make him again for PC#2, just so I could get some mileage out of the initial concept.  Especially if I didn't get to play #1 very long.


----------



## Vegan Kid (Apr 15, 2010)

I tend to fudge the rolls in certain situations. The number of times random encounters or what should be small,simple encounters have dragged on from either poor rolling or bad playing are beyond me. In these situations where it's not really attached to the story, having a player lose their character only adds insult to injury, so I try and guide them through it without any fatalities.
If it's an important encounter or one that they have known was coming and could prepare for, all bets are off. I find even if they do die in these situations they see it as a noble end. Getting slain by the level 3 Goblin raider from a few unlucky rolls is not...


----------



## Humanaut (Apr 15, 2010)

If the PC's make bad choices, make bad rolls, refuse to see the writing on the wall or whatever... they die.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:
			
		

> I was contesting what you said.  Not "schooling" you.  Cripes.



It was, and is, not your place to contest what I said -- any more than it would be someone else's place to contest _your_ statement that

*Back off, please. You're coming across extremely aggressively when you absolutely don't need to be. If you're going to discuss a topic where someone disagrees with you, there's no reason to be rude while doing so; it only obscures your point.

If this is at all unclear, please PM me. ~ Piratecat*



> to me PC death should be rare or for when they "deserve" it. I have the ability to throw whatever the hell I want at them, a TPK is not a challenge to produce.  I find it much more enjoyable, for the PCs and for me, if I can walk the fine line of _nearly_ killing them in a fight, putting the fear of DM into their hearts but still leaving the encounter level such that they can survive and overcome it. And I don't mean every time i roll damage, I fudge to what's thematically coolest. I go with what's rolled generally, until it becomes a big problem. I mean that I try to tailor the encounters I plan to attain that "extremely dangerous but 100% survivable if you use good tactics" level.



This is a very elementary matter of common sense.

It is quite seemly for you to speak authoritatively of *your own* beliefs and experience and knowledge.

It is unseemly and unnecessary for one to quote, and question the veracity of, what someone else has to say of matters to which, in fact, only he or she -- certainly not oneself -- is privy.

Moreover, as a very plain matter of fact that you _can_ easily verify (and could have before you posted), *I never said that I was "just" a referee*.

I stated merely that I _am_ a referee, which is in fact how Mr. Gygax addressed the reader, e.g., in the Preface to the DMG:


> What follows is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee.



The term "referee" appears as the usual term throughout the Original _Dungeons & Dragons_ books. The first appearance in them of the term "dungeonmaster" (spelled just so, and in quotes) is, I think, in the Foreword to Supplement II, in reference to Dave Arneson, "the innovator of the 'dungeon adventure' concept".

The "referee" usage is resumed for the body of that work, the terms "Dungeon Master", "Dungeonmaster" and "DM" coming into broader use only in Supplement III.

In practice, Gygax and others used "referee", "judge", "game master" (another term predating D&D) and "dungeon master" interchangeably.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 15, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Yeah, we used to play this way back in the day. There was the running joke about my brother, who we would say would poke the thing with a 10-foot pole, and if that was safe, would take out a nine-foot pole, and if that was safe, would take out an eight-foot pole...
> 
> In my youth when hours were cheap, that's how we played. My current groups have jobs and kids and little free time, and like to jump into the game and have some adventure. We don't enjoy poking and prodding around for signs of danger.




So play however you wish. Making informed decisions before rushing in is merely a survival tip. If you feel more comfortable just rushing headlong into unknown danger it is your right to do just that. 

I would suggest using a rule system with quick character creation if you do this though, time being so precious.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 15, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> So play however you wish. Making informed decisions before rushing in is merely a survival tip. If you feel more comfortable just rushing headlong into unknown danger it is your right to do just that.
> 
> I would suggest using a rule system with quick character creation if you do this though, time being so precious.




Best part of B/E D&D: 5 minute char gen, 1 minute if you make up some typical adventuring gear packages beforehand.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 15, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> So play however you wish. Making informed decisions before rushing in is merely a survival tip. If you feel more comfortable just rushing headlong into unknown danger it is your right to do just that.
> 
> I would suggest using a rule system with quick character creation if you do this though, time being so precious.



Alternatively, we can have a DM who understands the players' desires, and doesn't place encounters likely to result in a TPK in such a situation. Which is what we do, since we find playing more fun that character generation.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 15, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Alternatively, we can have a DM who understands the players' desires, and doesn't place encounters likely to result in a TPK in such a situation. Which is what we do, since we find playing more fun that character generation.




The dm should never tailor encounters to a party's strength.  He merely places the encounters, monsters, and treasures where they would logically appear in the game world.  The pcs are free to go wherever they wish.  There are many methods of research to find out whether there are goblins or giants in a particular dungeon.  Consulting a sage, divination spells, library research, interviewing people who've been there, etc.  Of course they might stumble upon something way out of their league, even after all their preparations.  Thebest laid plans of mice and men and all that.  Such is life.  It cannot be the dms fault unless he deliberately places a Chimera in the midst of a goblin warren or some such.  But I can see a reason for this, even.  Perhaps the goblins worship the Chimera, and in return for protecting their lair, they provide it with food in the form of adventurers.  The Chimera is lazy, and prefers this to actually having to hunt its food.  But again, there should be hints something is afoot to any pcs taking the time to gather information about their adventuring locale.  They can then choose to go there or not.  If they choose wrong, they die, or succeed against all odds, either way it's better than tailor made encounters prepared by a mathematical formula.  Boring.


----------



## rgard (Apr 15, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim.  Yet, they won't run away.  So what do you do?
> 
> If you are GMing and the PCs get themselves in a pickle, but through poor judgement, overconfidence or just plain stubbornness they refuse to leave a losing encounter and a TPK or similar fate seems imminent, do you save them? Do you fudge the dice or have some deus ex machina event save them? Or do you leave them to cruel fate?




Yes, once in 1980 via deus ex machina.  Never again.  Cruel fate has ruled since then.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2010)

Galeros said:
			
		

> I will say this, in games with high lethality, I would probably not roleplay my character very much. That sort of game can be fun, but it would feel more like playing a boardgame to me.



You are clearly not alone! Some people are not cut out for "one shot" games, either, in which a single session is the extent of a character's career.

But, of course, neither was the old D&D game meant to to be limited to that, either!

From what I have seen, the tendency has been to keep characters _longer_ in the old game. That applies, of course, only to those that survive a while. 

I know some old hands who _prefer_ to play low levels, and many who find it hard to role-play a character they have not brought up from first the hard way. I also know some who prefer to skip the "basic" levels and start at 4th (or maybe with an x.p. total that makes thieves 5th).

Gygax in the DMG suggested that experienced players might as well have mid-level characters, because they have already experienced low-level play as genuine novices -- a state that can be lost but once!

Once a character reaches second level, that _usually_ means enough hit points so that becoming a "one-hit wonder" is at least unlikely (if not downright impossible). Gaining third tends to be relatively easy, as it requires only as many x.p. as to reach second!

If one either starts characters at 2nd, or gives them maximum hit points at 1st, then keeping them alive becomes much easier. They are then about twice as tough as typical 1st-level monsters, and easily worth several kobolds each.

But what of "play 'em as you roll 'em"? Then, one may find that one or two characters (or more) bite the dust before at last one character gets "over the hump". Some folks will "play them to the hilt", making up all sorts of personality quirks. Others won't even give a character a distinctive name (unlike, say, "Phred IV") until it gets to 2nd level.

Most genuine novices, in my experience, do indeed approach characters initially as what in fact they are -- _personas_ behind and through which one interacts with the game environment. 

This may seem weird if one is accustomed to more recent RPGs, but one thing that got no mention at all in the original D&D set is "back story". Perhaps even more surprisingly, the first edition of *RuneQuest*  (1978) also said nothing about it. Neither did the AD&D PHB released that same year.

Not a word!

That does not mean that nobody cared about creating pre-game biographies. I don't recall offhand which issue of TSR/TD it's from, but _Best of The Dragon_ includes an early article ("The Play's the Thing . . ." by Thomas Filmore) that ends with a one-paragraph example.

The handbooks did not bring it up, though. The games were presented as being about "what will you do *now*", and indeed the "you" being addressed was the player, the ghost in the machine, not an imaginary personality.

The process that, among most of the people I met in FRP circles, seemed pretty natural -- an "organic" part of the game -- was for roles to gain not only breadth but depth as they were played.

That reminds me of the development of many of the heroes of adventure fiction, whose origins are gradually woven of hints revealed over the course of many stories.

It certainly helped that the games happened to be about just such characters, most often met first as figures walking or riding up to the gates of the Keep on the Borderland or some such outpost on the frontier. (An alternative was a "hard boiled" city with swords for hire in place of P.I.s.) If they at first seemed like cutouts from a Sergio Leone film, then that was fine; archetypes give you somewhere to hang your hat while getting on with the action.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 15, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> This may seem weird if one is accustomed to more recent RPGs, but one thing that got no mention at all in the original D&D set is "back story". Perhaps even more surprisingly, the first edition of *RuneQuest*  (1978) also said nothing about it. Neither did the AD&D PHB released that same year.
> 
> Not a word!



'Details as to your appearance, your body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon Master.' -- _AD&D Players Handbook_, p. 7.

'By determining abilities, race, class, alignment, and hit points you have created your character. Next you must name him or her, and possibly give some family background (and name a next of kin as heir to the possessions of the character if he or she should meet an untimely death) to personify the character.' -- _Ibid_., p. 34.

 I'm not saying there is a heavy emphasis on such, let alone a system for determining anything of the sort. _But_, I simply couldn't resist when you said, 'Not a word!'


----------



## Hussar (Apr 15, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> The dm should never tailor encounters to a party's strength.  He merely places the encounters, monsters, and treasures where they would logically appear in the game world.  The pcs are free to go wherever they wish.  There are many methods of research to find out whether there are goblins or giants in a particular dungeon.  Consulting a sage, divination spells, library research, interviewing people who've been there, etc.  Of course they might stumble upon something way out of their league, even after all their preparations.  Thebest laid plans of mice and men and all that.  Such is life.  It cannot be the dms fault unless he deliberately places a Chimera in the midst of a goblin warren or some such.  But I can see a reason for this, even.  Perhaps the goblins worship the Chimera, and in return for protecting their lair, they provide it with food in the form of adventurers.  The Chimera is lazy, and prefers this to actually having to hunt its food.  But again, there should be hints something is afoot to any pcs taking the time to gather information about their adventuring locale.  They can then choose to go there or not.  If they choose wrong, they die, or succeed against all odds, either way it's better than tailor made encounters prepared by a mathematical formula.  Boring.




This is certainly a valid way of playing.  Been there and done that.

But to claim that this is the one true way of playing and all other ways of playing are "boring" is just so much crap.  

If you want to play this way, more power to you.  But, don't tell me that it's any better than any other way of playing.  You can dislike it all you want, but, trying to claim that your way is somehow "the best" is ludicrous.

Considering the amount of bandwidth people have spent pissing and moaning about how WOTC has bashed certain playstyles, I certainly see enough old school types going out of their way to tell others that they're doing it wrong.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 15, 2010)

Hussar said:


> This is certainly a valid way of playing.  Been there and done that.
> 
> But to claim that this is the one true way of playing and all other ways of playing are "boring" is just so much crap.
> 
> If you want to play this way, more power to you.  But, don't tell me that it's any better than any other way of playing.  You can dislike it all you want, but, trying to claim that your way is somehow "the best" is ludicrous.




I never said it was any "one true way."  It's how the game was designed, though.  By all means, nerf everything to the character's abilities.  I don't see the point in every fight being fair or tailored to the character's particular abilities.   They may as well stay first level and fight goblins forever if the entire world levels up with them.  

But by all means, go right ahead and tailor the world to the pcs if that floats your boat.  It certainly isn't "wrong."  It's just different from how the game was designed.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 15, 2010)

Which game is that?  3e which specifically calls out the idea of tailored campaigns as a valid way of playing?  Or perhaps 1e where you had modules that specifically called out level ranges as being appropriate? 

But, sure, scaling only occurs in games you don't personally like.  

As far as 



> I never said it was any "one true way."




how exactly is:



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> The dm should never tailor encounters to a party's strength.  wrong, /snip
> 
> either way it's better than tailor made encounters prepared by a mathematical formula. Boring.




not a direct slam on any playstyle that doesn't follow your own?  Unless these are new meanings to the words "never" and "boring" that I was previously unaware of.

Of course, also conflating occasionally fudging a die roll to save a PC with staying "first level and fight goblins forever if the entire world levels up with them" is most certainly not any sort of onetruewayism either.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2010)

Thanks, Aus_Snow! Maybe if I hunt, I'll find such "a word" in RQ as well.

I thought I recalled a section on "Establishing the Character", but somehow my eye missed it. (The heading's at the bottom of the first column, so the text at the top right might look like more on Hit Points -- but I'm surprised it slipped by me in the Table of Contents.) The "next of kin" bit comes from an actual rule in the Original set.

Yeah, even that mention in passing of "details as to your history" seems pretty weak gruel next to the emphasis some people put on it. (None of the rest really rises to the level I mean.) The way it's presented in, for instance, the 4e PHB, is not to that extreme, but it is a _lot_ more prominent! I found it right off the bat -- partly because it takes up several pages labeled "Roleplaying".

Anyhow, what I was trying to get at in that rambling is that some folks have no problem playing a character from a very rough sketch, and very heartily for all that it is "on stage" for but an evening rather than for several years. It's just that it might not be worth writing up a novella's worth of deep background for a short story.

The longer a player's in-game exploits with a character last, the more occasions are likely to arise in which "adventure hooks" or other circumstances bring to light relationships and events that had not previously been established.

On the other hand, there are those who don't find the enterprise worth their while without not just a back story but a projected plot line. They tend in my experience to dislike not only high mortality -- which could leave such labors lost -- but also "rolling up" characters. A "build" system that facilitates game-mechanical planning in parallel with the story design is usually more their speed.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 15, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Maybe if I hunt, I'll find such "a word" in RQ as well.



Heh. Probably, for what it's worth. If so, I expect it would be just as cursory a treatment of the matter. As you say, more or less, in fact.

Create, personify, establish. It's an interesting suggestion.* Because, indeed, that's all it is. Creation is the meat of it, the other two merely possibilities for those so inclined.



> On the other hand, there are those who don't find the enterprise worth their while without not just a back story but a projected plot line. They tend in my experience to dislike not only high mortality -- which could leave such labors lost -- but also "rolling up" characters. A "build" system that facilitates game-mechanical planning in parallel with the story design is usually more their speed.



Hm. Establish, personify, create?

Food for thought. . .


* And one I can see playing out in early editions of D&D, _throughout the progression of levels_. That is, during extended play. And again, as you say. . .  Being 'established' could be seen as the final destination of the journey, if there must be one.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 15, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Which game is that?  3e which specifically calls out the idea of tailored campaigns as a valid way of playing?  Or perhaps 1e where you had modules that specifically called out level ranges as being appropriate?





Modules are meant to be placed in the campaign world.  1e actually had guidelines on where to place the adventure locale.  Thus, the players decide whether or not to go there, and when.  The level ranges were suggested, nothing kept first level characters from taking on the Tomb of Horrors if they so wished.  



And I maintain it's not a slam on anyone's playstyle, it's just a divergence from how the game is supposed to be played.  Use Free Parking however you want, use a football in your baseball games, if you have fun with it, there's nothing wrong with that.  But it's a divergence from the basic mechanics of the game and changes the game immensely from how it was intended.

And my boring comment was a personal observation.  I thought that was implied in the syntax.  What is boring for some might be quite entertaining for others.  Do I really have to put "imo" in front of every subjective comment?


----------



## talarei07 (Apr 15, 2010)

kill them all. i had a near tpk a few months ago the last character alive left the rest of the party bleeding on the floor to die


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 15, 2010)

> When you roll up your next character, try investing more in him
> than just the six die rolls. Try to create a colorful background for him.
> Give him a purpose and reason for being where and what he is. Could it
> be that he is a rich bastard, always getting his way due to position and
> ...



Dragon #11, Dec 1977

The Play's the Thing... by Thomas Filmore


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 15, 2010)

> Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will
> have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but
> still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you
> should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent
> ...



Dungeon Masters Guide 1e, pg 110


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 15, 2010)

Ariosto had already mentioned 'The Play's the Thing' a few posts back.

That other find though -- _very_ interesting! Not at all my cuppa, but then, the reason I personally adhere to the 'let the dice fall where they may' school of play is not that I believe it to be 'old skool', but simply because I (and the gamers I spend time with) prefer it.*

I could see some people struggling to find a comeback of some kind, on the other hand. 


* _And_, I'll have to check earlier editions to see if they contained any remotely similar suggestions/advice/guidelines, just out of curiosity. Hm. . .


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 15, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Modules are meant to be placed in the campaign world.  1e actually had guidelines on where to place the adventure locale.  Thus, the players decide whether or not to go there, and when.  The level ranges were suggested, nothing kept first level characters from taking on the Tomb of Horrors if they so wished.



There is, it will be far from the 'starting zone'.



> The general idea is to develop a dungeon of multiple levels, and the
> deeper adventurers go, the more difficult the challenges become -
> fiercer monsters, more deadly traps, more confusing mazes, and so forth.
> This same concept applies to areas outdoors as well, with more and
> ...



DMG pg 87



JRRNeiklot said:


> I never said it was any "one true way."  It's how the game was designed, though.  By all means, nerf everything to the character's abilities.  I don't see the point in every fight being fair or tailored to the character's particular abilities.   They may as well stay first level and fight goblins forever if the entire world levels up with them.
> 
> But by all means, go right ahead and tailor the world to the pcs if that floats your boat.  It certainly isn't "wrong."  It's just different from how the game was designed.



While Gary does recommend giving PCs the freedom to wander, within a dungeon, there are provisions made for making it much more likely that they will encounter an appropriate challenge - difficulty increasing with depth, as mentioned above. And he definitely does recommend tailoring the encounters (it might be more appropriate to say the area) to the party.



> The testing grounds for novice adventurers must be kept to a difficulty factor which encourages rather than discourages players. If things are too easy, then there is no challenge, and boredom sets in after one or two games. Conversely, impossible difficulty and character deaths cause instant loss of interest. Entrance to and movement through the dungeon level should be relatively easy, with a few tricks, traps, and puzzles to make it interesting in itself. Features such as rooms and chambers must be described with verve and sufficiently detailed in content to make each seem as if it were strange and mysterious. Creatures inhabiting the place must be of strength and in numbers not excessive compared to the adventurers' wherewithal to deal with them.



DMG pg 87


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 15, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> There is, it will be far from the 'starting zone'.
> 
> DMG pg 87
> 
> ...





Good stuff and solid advice. There is an important difference between there being _only_ level appropriate areas to explore and a diverse environment with multiple challenge levels _including_ ones that the PC's can handle without excessive losses. The former situation feels artificial while the latter permits the players to make meaningful choices with regard to risk vs. reward.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 15, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> The dm should never tailor encounters to a party's strength. _<snipped>_



That describes the sandbox style pretty well. That's not how my groups like to play, though.



JRRNeiklot said:


> I never said it was any "one true way."  It's how the game was designed, though.



"The game", presumably, meaning OD&D or AD&D? Of course, this thread is not edition-specific. I submit that 4E, for example, is decidedly *not *designed for that style of play.



JRRNeiklot said:


> By all means, nerf everything to the character's abilities.  I don't see the point in every fight being fair or tailored to the character's particular abilities.   They may as well stay first level and fight goblins forever if the entire world levels up with them.



And you wonder why we interpret your posts as one-true-wayism? You don't see the point in our playing the game in a way which enjoy? The point of that should be self-evident: we enjoy it. You don't have to enjoy it. But if you realize that people play in different ways, how can you not see the point?



JRRNeiklot said:


> But by all means, go right ahead and tailor the world to the pcs if that floats your boat.  It certainly isn't "wrong."  It's just different from how the game was designed.



And there you go again. The tone here is very paternalistic and condescending. "Go ahead, play that way, so long as you realize it's not the way you're supposed to play..."

Also, who cares if the game was designed in a particular way? We play it how we want, which gives us fun. What's the point of saying "that's not how it was designed"? It gives the distinct impression that you consider your playstyle superior, because it's "purer". If not, why post what you've posted?



JRRNeiklot said:


> And I maintain it's not a slam on anyone's playstyle, it's just a divergence from how the game is supposed to be played.



So?



JRRNeiklot said:


> And my boring comment was a personal observation.  I thought that was implied in the syntax.  What is boring for some might be quite entertaining for others.  Do I really have to put "imo" in front of every subjective comment?



That's true - I would find your campaign boring, for instance. For most people, "IMO" is not necessary. But with the style of your posts, I'd suggest you use it for clarity. Hussar interpreted it as one-true-wayism, and so do I. If you don't want to miscommunicate, be more clear. This is what it sounds like:

A: "Your playstyle is stupid and boring. *My way *is how it should be done."
B: "But there's no one right way to play the game."
A: "I wasn't saying your way is 'wrong.' Just that it's stupid and boring."


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 15, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> "The game", presumably, meaning OD&D or AD&D? Of course, this thread is not edition-specific. I submit that 4E, for example, is decidedly *not *designed for that style of play.




Designed or not we are having a great time with my current 4E sandbox game. Mechanics only dictate playstyle insofar as the players let them.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 15, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Designed or not we are having a great time with my current 4E sandbox game. Mechanics only dictate playstyle insofar as the players let them.



An excellent illustration of my point. How one plays the game depends little (if at all) on how it was "intended" to be played.


----------



## Janx (Apr 15, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> An excellent illustration of my point. How one plays the game depends little (if at all) on how it was "intended" to be played.




Amen.  There's too much passage quoting of the holy Gygax to prove some point that matters little to using the actual product.

I think that for most gamers, the ruleset covers the execution of the game reality.  How to build a PC, how to resolve actions.

Anything covering play-style or setting is just a suggestion.  Considering the tales of D&D players playing Vampire like a dungeon crawl, I think this is apt.

An RPG is a flexible beast.  It's a tool. I ordered the D&D books sight-unseen, because I saw a vehicle for fantasy adventure.  It worked just fine for me, so I'm pretty sure it does what it was intended to do.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Ariosto had already mentioned 'The Play's the Thing' a few posts back.




I had also quoted, at greater length, from that section of the DMG! (Post #146, covering a lot more ground than this excerpt, on page 10 of this thread)




Ariosto said:


> > Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 15, 2010)

In answer to the question "Do you save the PCs?", quite a lot of people have replied, essentially, "never".

My reply was "sometimes". In the 1e DMG, Gary's reply is also "sometimes". It has been claimed that the reply of "never" is more true to the game's roots. I submit that on the evidence so far, that claim is false and, in fact, the reverse is the case.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 15, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> He merely places the encounters, monsters, and treasures where they would logically appear in the game world



Dungeons are logical? 

I've always though they only made sense in metagames terms: as stacked 'boards' where the 'game' takes place. Sure, I've messed around with rationalizations for them, but that was mainly a form of gamer in-joke. We all know the _real_ reason why the Mad Wizard Milton of Bradley constructed the Dungeon of Challenging Obstacles Sorted in Descending Order From Weakest to Strongest -- it's so players can _play_ there. 

From an in-setting perspective, dungeons are wholly nonsensical. There are better ways to protect your assets than chess-board puzzles, reverse-gravity chambers, chatty Sphinxes and hominid vermin infestations.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> That other find though -- _very_ interesting! Not at all my cuppa



Well, Doug McCrae excised this prescriptive sentence (immediately following the last, merely descriptive, bit he quoted):



			
				DMG said:
			
		

> When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!




Also, the earlier sentence actually urging a particular course of action is buried in a long paragraph:



			
				DMG p. 110 said:
			
		

> In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time.






			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> An excellent illustration of my point. How one plays the game depends little (if at all) on how it was "intended" to be played.



Actually, whether it depends little, not at all, or *a lot* is one's own choice! If one happens to _want_ to be informed by the intent, and to put in the effort to digest the work, then that outcome is likely. It is also possible to misinterpret intent, but one's _own_ intent might still be that how one plays the game should depend on how it was intended to be played. If one does not care about the intent, then to that extent any correspondence is coincidence on some other basis.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Anything covering play-style or setting is just a suggestion.




In Advanced D&D, *everything* is "just a suggestion". 

"Play-style" is just vague jargon I don't recall encountering therein.



			
				DMG Preface said:
			
		

> Pronouncements there may be, but they are not from "on high" as respects _your_ game.
> 
> ... The systems and parameters contained in the whole of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons are  based on a great deal of knowledge, experience gained through discussion, play, testing, questioning, and (hopefully) insight.




No doubt the same holds for 4e, which was designed by different people for different tastes than the original. Yet there is no "authority" to keep Exploder Wizard from using whatever may be Exploder Wizard's First Rule.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> And he definitely does recommend tailoring the encounters (it might be more appropriate to say the area) to the party.



It appears to me that he does _not_, for he proposes no such thing as "the party" in the first place! This is a doubly misleading injection (1) of a term not present in the context, and (2) of an anachronistic meaning, different from what it _would_ have meant _had_ it been present.

The discussion is of the preparation of the upper levels of a dungeon, the terms being used in their functional sense in old D&D (as opposed to some specific spatial or architectural sense). Those ought to be geared to novice players if (as Gygax expected) inexperienced players will be the ones playing inexperienced characters.

What this is *not* is a suggestion to "Nerf" the challenges on deeper levels, much less to "save" players by fiat when they play poorly.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 15, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Actually, whether it depends little, not at all, or *a lot* is one's own choice!



To rephrase slightly, how one plays is not _determined_ by the "intent" of the designer. If you choose to follow that intent, that is your choice, as you say. The point being (in the context of this discussion), that there is a choice to me made there.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 15, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> ...much less to "save" players by fiat when they play poorly.



How does a DM determine when players are 'playing poorly'?

I'm not being facetious. It's a question I've wrestled with over 25 years of playing D&D, the majority of which I spent running games. 

From observing other people DM I've noticed that what constitutes good play varies. A lot. What one DM considers logical or tactically sound another considers inane and suicidal. So it goes.

From _attempting_ to observe myself while DM'ing, I've noticed 'good play' is usually synonymous with 'player doing things that entertain me'. 

It's fairly easy to determine what playing chess poorly looks like. RPG's... well, it's a bit thornier. Then again, the chess isn't built around the concept of a fallible human arbiter who enforces and oversees (or discards and re-invents) the rules during course of play...  

... so bringing this around to the actual topic... I can see why a DM might be tempted to fudge from time to time, as EGG himself suggested. DM's are fallible. Their ability to accurately judge good/smart/clever play might break down sometimes. 

Acknowledging this is wise. Repeatedly invoking player's 'poor play' without also mentioning even a good DM's occasional 'poor adjudicating' is not.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 15, 2010)

Mallus said:


> How does a DM determine when players are 'playing poorly'?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Acknowledging this is wise. Repeatedly invoking player's 'poor play' without also mentioning even a good DM's occasional 'poor adjudicating' is not.




I don't think the DM should be making that form of tactical judgement at all.  I've seen enough off-the-wall manoeuvres / insane situations work out for different groups that prior to a TPK being complete, I don't consider it a foregone conclusion.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 15, 2010)

Mallus said:


> From _attempting_ to observe myself while DM'ing, I've noticed 'good play' is usually synonymous with 'player doing things that entertain me'.



I'm the same. To me interesting play is always superior to boring play. There's a (yet another - sorry Janx) quote from the 1e DMG where Gary seems to agree with you.



> Assume that your players are continually wasting time (thus making the
> so-called adventure drag out into a boring session of dice rolling and
> delay) if they are checking endlessly for traps and listening at every door.
> If this persists, despite the obvious displeasure you express, the requirement
> ...




I have a feeling Gary's solutions to the problem of boring players wouldn't be the same as yours, mind. What he suggests is passive-aggression, rather than just coming out straight and saying, "Guys, please speed things up, you're boring the arse off me here."

It also is rather at odds with all the times PC failure is blamed on the players, the criticism usually being insufficient caution or planning. *Not* listening at doors, *not* checking for traps, etc.

My feeling is that these accusations are just excuses to get the DM off the hook. When something goes wrong, no matter what it is, it's the players to blame - "You should've done this, you should've done that." - It does seem odd that the players should be at fault so often when it's the DM that has most of the power. Power = responsibility.

It's like JFK said, "Victory has a THOUSAND fathers, but defeat is an orphan."


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 15, 2010)

I don't think it's passive-aggressive. He seems to be saying he is offering fair warning before dilly-dallying becomes fatal according to the terrible and inevitible logic of dungeon settings.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2010)

Mallus said:
			
		

> ... so bringing this around to the actual topic... I can see why a DM might be tempted to fudge from time to time, as EGG himself suggested.



He did not "suggest". He _mentioned_ that possibility. What he in fact _advised_ (in precisely these words) was to "let the dice fall as they may".

One more time:



			
				EGG himself said:
			
		

> Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time.






> How does a DM determine when players are 'playing poorly'?



Well, if you are going to appeal to Gygax in the DMG as your authority, as in



			
				Gygax in the DMG said:
			
		

> It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!




Then I guess you could take the same source as informative as to what it means.

As Mrs. Gump says, "stupid is as stupid does". If one doesn't know it when one sees it, then what does one know? If one's "ability to accurately judge good/smart/clever play might break down sometimes", then what of judging anything else? If fallibility is such a problem, then how does compounding an error correct it?

It seems to _me_ most sensible that, if one truly had so little confidence in somebody's judgment, then one would rather prefer to leave *less*, not _more_, up to it!

Fortunately, it is not even an issue for me and my friends.

We _also_ play a *very* DM/story-driven "game" that I put in quotes because, when _it does not matter_ whether one plays well or poorly, I call it a "game" only in the sense of pulling the lever on a slot machine (only this one is rigged). It's a form of entertainment, and has the trappings of AD&D, but it's not really that any more than wiggling the joystick of a Ms Pac-man machine on automatic, "insert coin" mode is actually playing the game.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 15, 2010)

I've left a warning on the previous page. Back off the aggression, please. The thread has improved in the last day, but I don't want to see a reoccurrence.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 15, 2010)

It does not seem to me that Mr. Gygax was writing work that was intended for the  legalese-level scrutiny it is receiving here.  

The guy was cool, and good with a turn of phrase, but I think trying to parse him down to every little nuance seems foolhardy.  Do we all agree that the man had some sense in his head, and was not a raving egomaniac?  Then we should probably accept that he knew darned well he couldn't lay out Ultimate Rules about how the game should be played.  

That means that beating each other over the head with the Book of Gary in attempts to prove our own way is somehow more "correct" or more "in the original intent" is attempting to do something that original author knew wasn't going to work in the long run.  Correctness is irrelevant.  Original intent is interesting, maybe informative, but ultimately academic.  

Please allow me to remind you that your playstyle (whoever you are, and whatever the style) is not a damsel in distress that needs defending.


----------



## Janx (Apr 15, 2010)

to follow up on Doug's point with the quote form Gary, it's clear that even gary had this problem.

Players not being cautious enough, or players being too cautious.

given some anecdotes about killer DMs and killer dungeons and it always being the player's fault, I suspect that over-cautious play by players is due to having it ingrained into them by stickler DMs who are looking for the slightest flaw to nail their players on.

Given critters like Cloakers, mimics, and those stalactite things, they were clearly meant to further blindside the player as something inobtrusive being a very direct danger.

In short, Gary made his own bed, and then seemed to blame the players for slow play in that quote of his.

And its not to say Gary didn't have some good observations and ideas, but outside of actual game mechanic rules, his words are just ideas on how to run things.


One of the business communication seminars my work group got sent to awhile back, had a segment on how to have the "difficult conversation" about a topic with someone.  usually of the kind where you're not happy with what or how they did something.  Part of the script included a section where you are to talk about "for my part, I could have done XYZ better."

The real lesson in that is that for darn near EVERY problem barring a criminal inflicting harm on you, you most likely have contributed to it.

Therefore, both sides of the screen have culpability in the death of a PC.  What could the player have done differently?
What could the GM have done differently?
What did the player do that made things worse?
What did the GM do that made things worse?

it is arrrogant and blind to assume that the GM had no part in the death of a PC, and could have done something different to resolve it better.

That doesn't just mean "don't kill the PC".  It is very likely that the best points to prevent it occurred rounds or minutes before the death.

it also doesn't mean NOT stocking the game area with things beyond the party's level.  Even in my "I don't put mega big monsters in the area for 1st levels" game, there's still dangerous people, like some of the good citizens of the starting town where I don't assume the party of good PCs will attack.

Odds are good, setting expectations about the letlhality and cautiousness level, communicating about difficulty levels (and perhaps allowing for retreat) would help prevent having to fix things inside the encounter on the fly.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 15, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> the terrible and inevitible logic of dungeon settings.



There's an interesting parallel between ear-seekers, rooms full of silent monsters and the like and the belief that in d20 D&D, the PCs only meet monsters that will provide a level-appropriate challenge. In both cases the environment is changing, in fairly implausible ways, to fit the PCs. The environment seems to know about the PCs and warps in strange ways so as to always challenge them. There's a really clear example of this from Dragon #26, Notes From A Very Successful D&D Moderator (sorry Janx) -



> One of my favorite devices is the pit. However, my players, after
> having several promising players impaled at the bottom of one, got
> together and brainstormed on a solution to the problem. Their solution:
> tie everyone together in mountain climber fashion so that when a player
> ...




The old crazy dungeon with its traps arms race, and the new tailored encounters are both examples of gamism. Encounters are always a challenge, no matter what counter-measures the PCs employ or what level they are, relative to where they go. Both are criticised for a lack of verisimilitude. The counter to this is simulationism - ear seekers don't exist, traps don't escalate, encounters aren't tailored.


----------



## awesomeocalypse (Apr 15, 2010)

I won't "save" the PCs in the sense of fudging rolls or Deus Ex Machina, and my monsters make a sincere attempt to kill the PCs. However, I'm a DM who is naturally inclined to reward creativity, and this trait gets ratcheted up to 11 in "near-TPK" situations, such that if the players can hit upon a creative way to save their asses that is even remotely within the rules/what would be plausible, I'll almost always let it work, in a way that I perhaps wouldn't in less dire situations.

For example, I once ran in a campaign set in an evil empire, in which the PCs ran afoul of the secret police who answered directly to the empire. I mean "directly" completely literally--each member of the secret police had a constant enchantment on him that allowed the emperor to deliver orders to him directly, as though he were talking right into their ear.

In a fight with said secret police, my PCs were getting their asses kicked, such that a TPK seemed innocent. The party wizard asked if he could use ghost sound to whisper a command into one of the secret police's ear, pretending to be the emperor, and call them off by saying "leave them for now, I have future plans for these ones, return to my side at once."

Now, normally I wouldn't let that fly. It's somewhat creative, but its also an encounter breaker if done before the start of a fight, and seems like far too great an effect for a cantrip. If the PCs were about to ambush the secret police and wanted to use that trick, I'd probably have ruled that the secret police knew their emperor's voice too well, and didn't fall for it.

But with the part on the brink of a TPK, I okayed it. The wizard used ghost sound, succeeded on his bluff check, and the secret police left. Afterwards, I ruled that the emperor was outraged by what had occured, and had established a system of daily passwords to prevent anyone from impersonating him again. So it worked one time, but could never be tried again, but that one time it worked saved the party's bacon.

Thats how I generally handle TPKs. If you can come up with a creative way to save your asses, I'll let it work, even if I normally wouldn't.


----------



## Janx (Apr 15, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> There's an interesting parallel between ear-seekers, rooms full of silent monsters and the like and the belief that in d20 D&D, the PCs only meet monsters that will provide a level-appropriate challenge. In both cases the environment is changing, in fairly implausible ways, to fit the PCs. The environment seems to know about the PCs and warps in strange ways so as to always challenge them. There's a really clear example of this from Dragon #26, Notes From A Very Successful D&D Moderator (sorry Janx) -
> 
> 
> 
> The old crazy dungeon with its traps arms race, and the new tailored encounters are both examples of gamism. Encounters are always a challenge, no matter what counter-measures the PCs employ or what level they are, relative to where they go. Both are criticised for a lack of verisimilitude. The counter to this is simulationism - ear seekers don't exist, traps don't escalate, encounters aren't tailored.




I don't mind the quotes, so much as holding them as sacred law.  Umbran summed it up really well, but I must spread some XP around before I can give him some.

With the story you cite, my beef with it isn't verisimulitude, it's the GM is playing adversarially and using out of game knowledge to boot.  The jello story is just funny, and a rational line can be traced as to how an NPC might know it and target the PCs (or adventurers in general).  

But the pit trap is a clear case of deliberately thwarting player planning for the sole purpose of making them go into a pit trap.  That's a railroad.  And the sad thing is, he's chewing up PCs, just so he can have the perfect pit trap that kills a PC.  

One positive trait though, is that it seems like the GM isn't changing the pit trap mid-encounter, thus if they outsmart him, they get past the trap.  But the next trap will more than likely be designed to thwart those PCs and their latest solution, despiite the trap being centuries old and the thought never would have occurred to the creator unless he saw the PCs latest innovation (which he would have employed on the first trap in the first place).

The result of this pit-trap shennigans is that eventually your PC will diie from a pit trap of some sort.  And so will your next one.

Certainly, it can be a fun mental challenge to face a trap that you have to outwit.  But the story demonstrates the GM bad behavior that is analagous to the PC Chain-Fighter.  One trick ponyism.  Which the GM is technically allowed as many one-trick ponies as he wants.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 15, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> The old crazy dungeon with its traps arms race, and the new tailored encounters are both examples of gamism. Encounters are always a challenge, no matter what counter-measures the PCs employ or what level they are, relative to where they go. Both are criticised for a lack of verisimilitude. The counter to this is simulationism - ear seekers don't exist, traps don't escalate, encounters aren't tailored.




_One of the possible_ counters to this is simulationism.  It is not the only counter.

Another possible counter is Drama - ear seekers are rare (they might be a cool story element once, but we don't make a habit out of them 'cause that makes for a lame story), traps don't escalate (because that's kinda hokey).  And we tailor the encounters or not to meet the group's particular desires with respect to dramatic tension.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 15, 2010)

Janx said:


> With the story you cite, my beef with it isn't verisimulitude, it's the GM is playing adversarially and using out of game knowledge to boot.



Yeah. I took note of that article when I first read it because it seemed such appallingly bad DM-ing, by my standards at any rate. It looks like the PCs are actually being killed by the traps, so it's Killer DM-ing, which I regard as a degenerate form of gamism. It's gone beyond challenging the players to killing their characters no matter what precautions they take.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 15, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Well, if you are going to appeal to Gygax in the DMG as your authority...



I believe that's your shtick.



> If one doesn't know it when one sees it, then what does one know?



The limits of my own knowledge and ability? Particularly when I'm called on to make a snap judgment on game night after a long week at work?


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> What he suggests is passive-aggression, rather than just coming out straight and saying, "Guys, please speed things up, you're boring the arse off me here."



I think it would be more accurate to take that as _said_! There is no confusion; the players are screwing around "despite the obvious displeasure you express"!

[edit]: Gary was writing for the Advanced players of 1979, not the audience of 2009.

The response, I think, is more a hint of Gygax's pretty openly and _actively_ aggressive personal style as DM. The indication I've seen from people who played with him back in the day is that he took great delight in the "antagonist" part of the job. I expect that "hard, but fair" -- a characterization of another famous DM of the time, Dave Hargrave -- would be appropriate.

No compunction about killing characters, no "easy pitches" to experienced players. If they were not entertaining him, then he would entertain himself. Wasting time should not be an issue if players _have their stuff in one sock before the session_. How many times does the PHB advise that a group had better have an objective, a plan?

It is a game of *a*d*v*e*n*t*u*r*e*. If you come in with high-level characters and "pixel bitch" to clean out the 1st-3rd-level dungeons, then not only is it a drag for the referee to moderate the sessions but _then he's got to restock the dungeons!_

Therefore, (A) you'll get pennies on the dollar for XP, and (B) he is going to mock you, and (C) there is going to be an upping of challenge down the line.

[edit]: Also, for training, I think we're looking at Poor ratings all around. Kiss that cash goodbye!

What he does *not* do, however, is change the environment utterly at whim in the midst of an encounter. There _will_ be potential "payback" set up down the line, "but that is the stuff of later adventures."

When players in such manner throw down the gauntlet to such a DM, they should not be surprised to find that, "Ha! Ha! See how we pwn your dungeon!" elicits a response demonstrating Gygax's view that "Treasure and experience gained must be taken at great risk or by means of utmost cleverness only."

If one instead wanted even a character's survival, much less success, to be a basic entitlement, then I am pretty sure that gaming with Gary would have been a poor choice.

*The Tomb of Horrors* and *The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth* were not, last I checked, all about "saving" PCs on the presumption that if they were getting killed then something was wrong with the DM!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 15, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I expect that "hard, but fair" -- a characterization of another famous DM of the time, Dave Hargrave -- would be appropriate.




You ain't kiddin! He might spare your character's miserable life but it will cost you a buttock.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2010)

I would like to point out that I have had players specifically _request_ "fudging the dice" for Wandering Monsters when they seem in order for "meta game" reasons.

They did not, when they reflected on it, really want to waste time. They tended to get wrapped up in things that were fascinating at the moment, and _lose track of_ time. Looking back at a whole session, they would find that they had accomplished less than they might have hoped.

A fundamental problem really was that they did not _set out_ to accomplish anything specific!

"Skilled players always make a point of knowing what they are doing, i.e., they have an objective."

Back in the days when our DMs would not even schedule a session without that prerequisite, and well-organized parties could get in frequent play indeed, that would probably have been nipped in the bud.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 15, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> It is a game of *a*d*v*e*n*t*u*r*e*. If you come in with high-level characters and "pixel bitch" to clean out the 1st-3rd-level dungeons, then not only is it a drag for the referee to moderate the sessions but _then he's got to restock the dungeons!_
> 
> Therefore, (A) you'll get pennies on the dollar for XP, and (B) he is going to mock you, and (C) there is going to be an upping of challenge down the line.
> 
> ...



So you're saying D&D is a better game when the challenges are level-appropriate?


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 15, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> *The Tomb of Horrors* and *The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth* were not, last I checked, all about "saving" PCs on the presumption that if they were getting killed then something was wrong with the DM!



They are also not, last I checked, the only example of adventures available for the game. Or even representative of the 'typical' adventure, even at the time.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2010)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Another possible counter is Drama



Yes, definitely!

There's a _lot_ of interesting stuff in _Amber Diceless Roleplaying_. It's definitely a different mix of priorities and techniques than Gygaxian D&D (or a lot of other quite distinctive things). I think both are in the nature of phenomena that arise prior to, or in disregard of, the neat pigeon holes of theory. They are built up of pragmatic responses to needs in play, wherever those may lead.

I see two different but related topics running through the thread.

1) One is the idea -- pretty firmly embraced in some recent games -- that each encounter should be "balanced" especially for particular players and/or PCs, so that in itself it offers a certain level of challenge. Taking that to an extreme, one might find even the treatment of Daily Powers and Healing surges in 4e unsatisfactory because it introduces an element of unpredictability from one encounter to the next.

On that view, one might make adjustments to the _odds_ in an encounter, but not care about the _outcome_. One might prefer a system in which it is easier to figure out what the odds _are_, which might or might not be the latest hot system.


1B: An opposing view is that it is the _strategic_ game requiring a proper "balance" that is really a state of _dis_equilibrium among potential encounters. There must be better and worse choices.

I think this also tends to be better suited to a big campaign than the "tailored encounter" approach, and the Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns had certainly been big!


2) Second, there is a view of just _how_ challenging the game should be -- more specifically, how lethal; even more specifically (for reasons not quite clear to me) whether a "TPK" should be allowed.

The general question, though, seems to be the fundamental one. At an extreme, the "save the PCs" leaning seems often to assume some standard not of opportunity but of results. It is then _the outcome itself_ that indicates the DM "screwed up". As the _wrong_ outcome (the PCs die) is clear, so is the _right_ outcome.

I don't think it otherwise likely that the DM supposedly so incompetent as to have set up a "wrong" encounter should be trusted to recognize a "right" one at all. The more competent the DM, the less plausible it is that a situation simply on _odds_ should be so wrong, much less that it should go unrecognized until "TPK" is imminent.

Then again, I have not been a DM much for certain game systems that I admit look a bit more complicated than old D&D.

2B: An opposing view is that more frequent (relative to other view) loss, even of PCs, is an expected part of a game in which victory is supposed to be hard-won. Probability is part of that, the reason for rolling dice. The full expression of chance along with the full expression of skill gives a game that is fascinating for its challenge as well as for the often surprising turns of event.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> So you're saying D&D is a better game when the challenges are level-appropriate?



I'm saying that my impression is that Gygax thought it was a better game when you needed all your skill just for a _chance_ to get out with treasure, or maybe even _alive_ -- rather different, I think, than what "level appropriate" means since even the 3e designers' view got shot down as too tough.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 15, 2010)

Once upon a time, I tried to save the PCs in my game, and I think I did it too often, because _I_ liked the characters too much. 

Since then, I've changed two things: I roll all dice in the open (to resist the temptation to fudge) and PCs have a limited number of Fate Points which can be used to avoid otherwise deadly situations (examples of use: change critical hit to normal hit, add +10 to AC against a single attack, reroll a failed check, add +10 to a check in advance, etc). 

I think this is working nicely - the players can control their characters' destinies and I don't have to fudge myself. Of course, there is a limit on the number of times Fate Points can be used (1/encounter, no more than 2/session), and Fate Points are a *very* limited resource, so players tend to really save them for the "use this or die" type situations.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 15, 2010)

marcq said:


> In this case, we have the universe of the "strict simultion-ist" and everyone else.



Actually, it's you and *Janx* playing the "no true Scotsman" card.

I'm done with this thread now. See you in the funny papers.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 15, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Actually, it's you and *Janx* playing the "no true Scotsman" card.



We'll have to defer to Doug on that one, I think.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 16, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> There's a really clear example of this from Dragon #26, Notes From A Very Successful D&D Moderator (sorry Janx)




That's a great story and underscores how an adversarial game can be great fun for the right group. The "arms race' can in fact be the point, be where the fun is found. Not for all groups, or even the majority of them, but certainly for some. Being competitive in nature, it is both challenging and rewarding for the DM in ways that a more "referee" or "storyteller" style can't.  It's also hard: it is way too easy for an adversarial DM to "win" unfairly, which isn't fun for anyone.

As to the issue of whether EGG thought the game should be "level appropriate" I always got the sense that the milieu should be "simulationist" (he wouldn't say that but in the way we use the term today, i think it fits) but the game should be tailored (but if the PCs wander down too many levels in hopes of great rewards, they are on their own).


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 16, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> The old crazy dungeon with its traps arms race, and the new tailored encounters are both examples of gamism. Encounters are always a challenge, no matter what counter-measures the PCs employ or what level they are, relative to where they go. Both are criticised for a lack of verisimilitude. The counter to this is simulationism - ear seekers don't exist, traps don't escalate, encounters aren't tailored.




There is another counter... basic unpredictability. If it is taken as a given that monsters may have surprising capabilities, and there is no good way to know when, if, and how an area is trapped, players have to resort to logic. The end is still to challenge, but within the logic of the setting. This is an area where simulation and game-oriented constructs converge, and thus another example of where GNS both fails to differentiate between the agendas and fails to describe what works about D&D (since GNS claims D&D doesn't work). Appropriate level challenges need not be implausible or arbitrarily manipulated.

Risk aversion is futile, as Gygax pointed out with his hyperbolic and fairly humorous example. But equally, as he acknowledges, good decision-making should be non-trivial, as well.

I think the single thing that fuels so much contention in these debates is a disagreement on which way the ball rolls down the slippery slope. Does excessive fiat lead to unsatisfying, arbitrary resolutions dictated by the GM? Does a slavish reliance on dice rolls lead to discontinuity, illogic, and anticlimax? Either saving the party or letting them perish could serve a useful entertainment purpose. There is no right answer based simply on what school of thought you belong to with regard to resolution. The question is almost wholly one of lethality, in most cases. I would not fudge a die roll to deal with such a situation, but I might deal with it in another way. Another GM might fudge a die roll to achieve a similar end. 

How you feel about TPKs and how you feel about fudging are almost entirely two separate issues.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> There is another counter... basic unpredictability. If it is taken as a given that monsters may have surprising capabilities, and there is no good way to know when, if, and how an area is trapped, players have to resort to logic. The end is still to challenge, but within the logic of the setting. This is an area where simulation and game-oriented constructs converge, and thus another example of where GNS both fails to differentiate between the agendas and fails to describe what works about D&D (since GNS claims D&D doesn't work). Appropriate level challenges need not be implausible or arbitrarily manipulated.




It really doesn't.  If the end is to challenge then it's "Step on Up", aka Gamism.  I like this blog post about it: Challenge-based adventuring « Game Design is about Structure  It's a pretty good run-down of impartial DMing, I think.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 16, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> It really doesn't. If the end is to challenge then it's "Step on Up", aka Gamism. I like this blog post about it: Challenge-based adventuring « Game Design is about Structure It's a pretty good run-down of impartial DMing, I think.




There is also the important difference when discussing the idea of challenge. Whom or what are you challenging? A set of mathematical probabilities (the character), the abilities of a person (the player), or both?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 16, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> There is also the important difference when discussing the idea of challenge. Whom or what are you challenging?



Gamism is always, I believe, about challenging the player. But there are many different ways a player can be challenged. Some would say that 3e primarily challenges character 'build' skills, whereas 4e is also rules-based but much more to do with mastery of the tactical battle game. You can't 'win' 4e at the build stage as you can with 3e. 3e is won on the character sheet, 4e on the battlegrid.

The above is an exaggeration ofc, battlegrid mastery is not unimportant in 3e, liberal use of 4e's famous pg 42 could completely change the way combats are won, and, depending on play style, many other skillsets can be challenged too. One could be challenged to solve a riddle or logic puzzle for example, or by political intrigues or a murder mystery. But it serves to highlight different forms of gamism.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 16, 2010)

Some interesting quotes from Gary Gygax's Role-Playing Mastery, published in 1987. Page 48-49.



> The dedicated GM is not only an impartial judge of events, but at the same time he is an active force championing the cause of both the preservation of PCs not bent on self-destruction and the continued satisfaction of players who do not seek to see the campaign ruined.






> there are times when the GM will bend or break the rules of the game system in order to allow his players to maintain their characters. Just as he sometimes metes out punishment for infractions, the GM at other times intervenes benevolently, spreading his aegis over the PCs to save them from probabilities gone awry. To put it bluntly, when play is at a low ebb, or it is quite likely that the players' characters are about to suffer undue loss or extinction, the GM cheats and decrees otherwise. Opponents miss their blows, PCs manage to strike their foes, and various sorts of miracles occur. This is wrong only when it is done too liberally or when it is unwarranted.





And from page 43



> What sorts of challenges are appropriate? How stiff should the opposition be? Generally, these are questions the GM will answer by examining the game materials, assessing the prowess of the PCs and their players, and then selecting and combining elements of the game rules and the milieu so that the strength of the opposition is tailored to the capabilities of those who will contest against it.




Interestingly, the 3e DMG uses the exact same word, 'tailored', when drawing a distinction between tailored and status quo encounters.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I think the single thing that fuels so much contention in these debates is a disagreement on which way the ball rolls down the slippery slope. Does excessive fiat lead to unsatisfying, arbitrary resolutions dictated by the GM? Does a slavish reliance on dice rolls lead to discontinuity, illogic, and anticlimax?



I'm not sure that this is _the_ single thing. I rely on the dice - but there are parts of D&D 4e that are not dictated by the dice, such as encounter design and other aspects of scene framing, and also the question of whether a monster kills PCs or knocks them unconscious.

So relying on the dice doesn't settle the question of whether or not PC death - and especially TPKs - are on the table.

It's also not just _GM_ fiat. For exampe, the last time in my campaign the entire party was taken down in a fight, I asked the players whether they wanted their PCs saved or wanted to bring in new PCs. One wanted to bring in a new PC, so his PC died - the others were taken prisoner.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 16, 2010)

@ the OP:  No, I do not save the PCs.  Either the players save the PCs, or the PCs do not get saved.

(In some cases, the addition of an NPC/other creature as a wandering monster may aid the PCs in getting out of hot water, but it is never an auto-save, and always has to be paid for in some way.......i.e., "Well, the T. Rex took out the velociraptor, but now we have to deal with the T. Rex".)


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 16, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Interestingly, the 3e DMG uses the exact same word, 'tailored', when drawing a distinction between tailored and status quo encounters.



More great quotes, Doug. They also illustrate the trouble with quoting Gygax as support for one's position: he said different things at different times. But the advice here is sound.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 16, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure that this is _the_ single thing. I rely on the dice - but there are parts of D&D 4e that are not dictated by the dice, such as encounter design and other aspects of scene framing, and also the question of whether a monster kills PCs or knocks them unconscious.
> 
> So relying on the dice doesn't settle the question of whether or not PC death - and especially TPKs - are on the table.
> 
> It's also not just _GM_ fiat. For exampe, the last time in my campaign the entire party was taken down in a fight, I asked the players whether they wanted their PCs saved or wanted to bring in new PCs. One wanted to bring in a new PC, so his PC died - the others were taken prisoner.




But I don't think those are contentious. Maybe I'm misreading, but you seem to be agreeing with my central point, that the dice are not the central issue. Where I perhaps diverge is in generalizing that the debates on dice and TPKs seem to pivot on the use of dice, when in fact those are two fairly independent issues that interact rarely except when you ask, "Do you alter dice rolls to avoid a TPK, and how does that affect your decission-making prior to?" Subtract the dice, and you still have the decision-making.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 16, 2010)

I do not "quote Gygax in support of my position". Certainly that is _at least_ as plausible an interpretation of what Doug McCrae does!

I _recommended_ the Mastery books as _part_ of what one might read, _because_ they give different views from a different time. Gygax's next game, Dangerous Journeys, would be very different from AD&D. For one thing, it takes a lot longer to generate a DJ character (which also starts a lot more powerful). His final game, Lejendary Adventures, was something else yet again (much lighter on rules than DJ).

It is of course possible to apply what one _personally prefers_ to all RPGs. It is no special hurdle if that happens to _change_ from one year to another! However, I do not think it coincidence that, even had he stayed with TSR, Gygax anticipated notable changes (such as a "skills system") in _his_ version of a Second Edition. DD, DJ and LJ are designed to do different things, and tend (like other tools) to do best the jobs to which they were fitted.

The point, to my mind, of reading those books, is the same as why I read rulebooks for games I do not mean to play. Seeing many different approaches enriches one's intellectual tool-kit. It is not for the sake of elevating anyone else to a blindly followed "authority", but for the sake of making _one's own_ way.

If Mr. Gygax may be trusted to speak as to his own intent, in his monumental _Dungeon Masters Guide_ he "made every effort to give the reasoning and justification for the game." The reason he _wrote_ it is the reason to _quote_ it.

The DMG is not the beginning and end of Gygax's (or anyone's, I should hope) views on RPGs as a genus. It _is_ as comprehensive a treatment of the views that went into the design of Advanced D&D as one might find in a single volume.

The fundamental concept that the referee's object is to provide a good challenge had from the start been expressed in such terms as these:



			
				Vol. 3 said:
			
		

> The fear of "death", its risk each time, is one of the most stimulating parts of the game. It therefore behooves the campaign referee to include as many mystifying and dangerous areas as is consistent with a reasonable chance of survival (remembering that the monster population already threatens this survival).






			
				Holmes Basic said:
			
		

> Traps should not be of the "Zap! You're dead!" variety but those which a character might avoid or overcome with some quick thinking and a little luck.
> ... Try to keep the dangers appropriate to the levels of the characters and the skill of your players. The possibility of "death" must be very real, but the players must be
> able to win through with luck and courage, or they will lose interest in the game and not come back.




That's the game I play, and it requires no lengthy explanation (of which there is plenty more in the AD&D books and elsewhere) for me to see that it was indeed designed so.

Now, clearly some people have a very, very different view of the risk of character death (and often of player skill as well). That is fine. Let them be content to go forth and add and and subtract, and play their own games, and call them good.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 16, 2010)

Dangerous Journeys.  Ah memories. I still have a promotional poster for 
_Dangerous Dimensions _before TSR made him change it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 16, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I do not "quote Gygax in support of my position".



You'll forgive me, but your very reasoned response here is at odds with the aggressive stance you took earlier in the thread. The whole quoting thing, IIRC, started when you said "_E. Gary Gygax and others have devoted many words to describing it, but a  little fraction of which had been written when I learned to play_." in describing your playstyle. This smacks of an appeal to authority, and the reaction followed that.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 17, 2010)

DJ, on which Gygax was already at work in 1986, is a very complex game. To my mind, it surpasses FGU's _Space Opera_ and _Aftermath_ in that regard.

"Heroic Personas" get "Joss Factors" that players can spend. As a rule of thumb, from 5 to 6 points will cause "an almost earth-shaking change" in the game's reality, in favor of the HP. At most 5, I think, would guarantee a result other than death from a Shock roll.

So, there's a handy tool for the _players_ to save the PCs. One can get more Joss in the course of play (mainly with GM-awarded "Exceptional Performance Accomplishment Points"), having up to 14 JF at one time.

However, the initial supply depends on a single roll giving almost equal chances for any number from 2 to 14! Most are 8%, but the chance dips to 7% for values of 5, 6, 8, and 11. Why it's such a curious pattern beats me, except that the power to shape Kismet is by its nature uncanny.

Considering how much work it is to create a DJ character, I would definitely not want it to get wiped out in the first scene! I have had that happen to Rolemaster and GURPS characters, and considered it a bit of a drag, and even the "light" Mythus Prime rules seem to me roughly on that order.

Chapter 14, "The Campaign and Gamemastering", is throughout a great example of the _nuance_ Gygax seemed most of the time to bring to the subject, encouraging deep _understanding_ of the issues and a _thoughtful_ approach to adapting the game to the tastes of the participants.

On Realism Versus Playability:


> Remember playability when you consider realism and vice versa, and when you feel expert in the systems, do what is necessary to bring both into the right balance for you and your players.




On Interpretation of Rules:


> What seems simply an arbitrary rule, one not well considered perhaps, might actually be there to make the game both more realistic and playable overall. The GM with such wisdom can only be a successful one.




On Gamemaster Only Versus Group Adjudication of Questions:


> Many rules aren't questioned by players until after they are enforced. If they weren't objectionable before, why now? Is it because the players may have sour grapes because they are adversely affecting their characters? In such situations, the decision should ultimately be the GM's.
> 
> If a rule is obviously disagreeable to you and your group, use the guidelines given below to try to fix it, or ignore it entirely. But remember to be careful, for there might be other related rules that depend on it.




On Creating Specific Case "House Rules":


> In any case, house rules must always be applied with consistency by the GM, or else they are not rules at all. And without rules there can be no game.




On Gamemaster Encouragement of Players:


> _Game-Play Reminders:_ A GM can often help a group stay in character by doing the same during the gaming session. When this fails, a tactful and brief reminder to the wayward player(s) may be necessary. It is not the Gamemaster's responsibility to continually keep the players in character. If a player is being particularly troublesome, more direct means should be helpful. Extra random encounters with beasts (or even a bolt from the blue) will soon encourage such players to mend their ways.




Now, that bit is pure "Gygax, circa 1992"!


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 17, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> This smacks of an appeal to authority, and the reaction followed that.




It smacks of referring to what are in fact the closest sources to "authorities" on the subject of "the method of play" of TSR-D&D. That, not "my playstyle", was the matter at hand. 

Do I ever "choose something"? Do I even "place monsters in locations"?

The answers, as far as I am concerned, can be found in Gygax & Arneson (1974), or Holmes (1977). I have  met plenty of people who found in all _essentials_ the same instructions in Gygax (1979), Moldvay (1981) and Mentzer (1983).

I had already given my statement of what being a "referee" means to me in the relevant context. On _that_, I am most assuredly the authority!

As the early texts took for granted understanding of the term, one must look *prior* to them for the understanding they assumed.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 18, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Maybe I'm misreading, but you seem to be agreeing with my central point, that the dice are not the central issue. Where I perhaps diverge is in generalizing that the debates on dice and TPKs seem to pivot on the use of dice, when in fact those are two fairly independent issues that interact rarely except when you ask, "Do you alter dice rolls to avoid a TPK, and how does that affect your decission-making prior to?" Subtract the dice, and you still have the decision-making.



The misreading was probably on my part.

Wrt the decision-making: OD&D, BD&D and 1st ed AD&D had rules for encounter/adventure design using dice. They also has wandering monster rules, which are dice-driven. So in relation to those cames, "leting the dice fall where they may" probably extends beyond action resolution into the GM's decision-making efforts. And dice in action resolution extend to morale checks.

A game like 4e, which expects the GM to engage in non-random decision-making for scene-framing and elements of action resolution (no morale checks, for example) probably increases the scope for the GM to be more or less generous to the players in making those decisions.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 18, 2010)

Do I save the PCs? I'm tempted to say "no" - but the problem is that the question really obscures the *actual* question, which is this:

*Do I save my campaign?*

That's the question I'm really asking myself at that point. And the answer to that question is in turn going to depend upon my level of interest and work that went into the campaign and the players' level of enjoyment and interest in it too. Those are the real metagaming factors that needs to be assessed as to whether or not to save the PCs. 

If the campaign is something I want to save, then I'll save the PCs; if the state of the campaign is such that the answer to "Do I save my campaign" is not clear - I'll be inclined to let 'em die if they were being stupid about it.  

I might add - I usually work in safety valves into my campaigns well ahead of time so that the strategic "magic" resources are there within the party to avoid TPKs should a screw up happen. But "stuff happens" I suppose.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 18, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> *Do I save my campaign?*
> 
> That's the question I'm really asking myself at that point.




I don't think that's a universal question, tho. "Campaign" can mean a lot of things, but for me it doesn't generally mean one story about one group of protagonists, because, if it does, then a TPK does end the campaign.  I prefer a game where there's enough going on, situationally, that even if there's a TPK the players are invested enough in those situations, the setting, etc... enough that the campaign lives on.

This is easier in an old megadungeon or sandbox, surely, but even in an AP "picking up" where the TPK'd group left off by other interested parties shouldn't be impossible.


----------



## Janx (Apr 18, 2010)

steel wind brings up an excellent point, on which I must spread some XP around before I can give it to him.

Saving a PC may be driven by saving a campaign.  I think a DM would do this if killing the PC would pretty much crater the quest.  And there are some quests that are extremely personal.

to cover Reynard's point about new PCs picking up the quest, in my games, which are more story driven, I try to make the story revolve around the PCs.

That isn't to say I make a PC a long lost descendant of the great hero and only he can wield the sword, that's a definite GM trap for plot immunity, among other things.

Instead, I make a story that is based on the local stuff the PC wants to be doing.  For instance, I had a monk PC, and I created a storyline where he was interested in a girl, who happened to be the sister of a monk in a rival (and not nice) dojo.  It just kind of worked out that way (kinda stereotypical, but the player kept digging into it).  The monk's personal quests and such were about him and stuff that had happened to him.

If he died, a replacement PC wasn't going to know about those pieces, let alone pick them up.

However, in being so personal (and not applicable to the whole party), if the monk died, the party would probably not even know they were abandoning it.

I try to make the whole-party storylines drive the same way.  By basing them on what's happened to the party before and what they as a group (presumably with iintertwining business and personal goals) want to do.

Kill off the party, and nobody outside that party cares, at least not without some serious hammering into position of new actors.

Given the examples of that we see in Babylon 5 with Sinclair/Sheridan and Lita/Talia where original actors couldn't return, so some adjusting had to be done to bring in a replacement.


----------



## Janx (Apr 18, 2010)

pemerton said:


> The misreading was probably on my part.
> 
> Wrt the decision-making: OD&D, BD&D and 1st ed AD&D had rules for encounter/adventure design using dice. They also has wandering monster rules, which are dice-driven. So in relation to those cames, "leting the dice fall where they may" probably extends beyond action resolution into the GM's decision-making efforts. And dice in action resolution extend to morale checks.




That might shape some people's impression that everything in OD&D was randomly and "impartially" generated.  I'm not sure GMs truly ran that way, though on the other hand, even today, I'll make a game out of a randomly generated dungeon populated with random monsters and treasure.

But I make up all the fluff to get the PCs there or justify what's there, or adjust what came up randomly if I didn't like iit.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 18, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Do I save the PCs? I'm tempted to say "no" - but the problem is that the question really obscures the *actual* question, which is this:
> 
> *Do I save my campaign?*




In my campaigns, the PCs are important, but generally replaceable. I work under the assumption that long, difficult quests have serious staffing issues and plan accordingly. Also, it is permissible for the good guys to lose.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 18, 2010)

Not all DMs' styles are the same. I tend to go in for complicated metaplots, mysteries that unfold over a dozen or more sessions. In short, a lot more plotting and a lot less sandboxing, I guess.

Also, Ive found over the years that tying the metaplot closely into many of the backgrounds of the characters of the campaign makes the players far more invested and engaged in it.  (If you haven't tried this in a while - you really should. Put some effort into it - your players will reward you for it.)

So for example, in a 3.5 campaign I ran in Krynn just prior to  the _War of the Lance_, the campaign was very much about two of the PCs, who were brothers in game and their struggles. They were noble wannabe Knights of Solamnia. The campaign keyed into politics invovling their family, their investigation into how their father died and the recovery of their father's armor and sword over the span of the first 12 sessions or so.

There was more to it than that that engaged other members of the party and their backgrounds - but it was clearly a very focussed campaign which we started to refer to as "_Knights of the Lance_". Had there been a TPK - that campaign would have died, no question about it.

If there had been a TPK in the _Age of Worms_? Ok - I'm with you. Not so big a deal.

My current _Star Wars: The Old Republic _campaign has certain elements to it that are tied into specific aspects of the characters and their backgrounds as well. It's very early going, so a TPK would not necessarily wreck the campaign at this point. I think I could adjust without much difficulty.

But ten sessions, say, from now? I expect my answer would be very, very different.

The answer to "*Does this kill my campaign?*" is going to be answered differently by different DMs and GMs - and ever the same DM/GM may well will give you a different answer depending upon the campaign in question, the metaplot and the stage the campaign is at. So it's not a one-size-fits-all analysis, to be sure.

But none of that changes the fact that the underlying question is more complicated than punishing/rewarding good roleplaying and tactics in game by the players.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 18, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> In my campaigns, the PCs are important, but generally replaceable. I work under the assumption that long, difficult quests have serious staffing issues and plan accordingly. Also, it is permissible for the good guys to lose.




Individual PCs can often, even usually, be replaced, I'll grant you.  But some campaign structures don't deal well with replacing the entire party at once. 

As you say, it is permissible for the good guys to lose.  But I think that's aside the question of whether the campaign is saved.

A campaign can represent a significant investment of time (leisure time, at that, which is scarce for some folks these days), effort, and possibly even money.  If all the folks concerned don't get sufficient return on that investment, they may not come back for another round. 

The return doesn't have to be in terms of success - there are many kinds of return in an RPG.  The issue is whether any of the kinds have happened, and if they haven't, do you save the campaign to allow them to happen or not.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 18, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Individual PCs can often, even usually, be replaced, I'll grant you.  But some campaign structures don't deal well with replacing the entire party at once.




OK. I'm kind of of left saying, "So what?" If it's a pathy kind of campaign, then I guess Sauron wins. If it's a Vampires in New Orleans thing, then I guess it's time to get some new vampires. If the campaign appears to hinge at certain very specific actions being successful, or certain characters having certain kinds of interactions at some point, I'm going to put forward the suggestion that the game is likely to lead to disappointment in some aspects. Good GMing is like any relationship; you focus on the things that you have control over. 

I, personally, feel there is no substitution for real nail-biting anxiety, so I like to roll the dice in the open. But, as noted above, that is different than the notion of introducing real danger, itself. If the players know, based on the premise, that they are going to get to points A, B, and C, that is a very different kind of game. If the players know that the only thing that can really get their characters killed is doing the wrong thing, I think that is likely to shift focus onto the GM's expectations.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 18, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I, personally, feel there is no substitution for real nail-biting anxiety, so I like to roll the dice in the open. But, as noted above, that is different than the notion of introducing real danger, itself. If the players know, based on the premise, that they are going to get to points A, B, and C, that is a very different kind of game. If the players know that the only thing that can really get their characters killed is doing the wrong thing, I think that is likely to shift focus onto the GM's expectations.




I agree with this completely. I don't roll behind a screen either. So the traditional fudgery to allow the PCs to survive is not something I am inclined to do.

Does not mean there are not other ways to accomplish the same task, mind you. The best ways to preserve the PCs lives in the event of disaster is to encourage them not to end up there in the first place. On this, I think we can both agree.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 18, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> OK. I'm kind of of left saying, "So what?"




So what?  So, some of us don't have infinite leisure time to develop new content, is what.  



> If the campaign appears to hinge at certain very specific actions being successful, or certain characters having certain kinds of interactions at some point, I'm going to put forward the suggestion that the game is likely to lead to disappointment in some aspects.




What I'm talking about has nothing to do with specific actions being successful.  

As for the matter of interaction - yes, that's exactly the point.  A game that is built around who the characters are becomes disappointing if they all die.  This is hardly surprising.  However, some players and GMs find such play far more engaging and satisfying than a game where everyone is easily replaceable.  So, for them, techniques to avoid that disappointment are useful.


----------



## Janx (Apr 18, 2010)

I agree with Steel Wind and Umbrans posts right above this one, that I can't hand out more XP for yet...

I don't think my players think they have plot immunity, they are generally afraid of dying (they act like it).  Perhaps because they have no idea if I think "today is a good day to die" for them.  

It's not that i seek out specific endings or outcomes, so much as I apply editorial control to prevent an undesirable outcome when it becomes apparent.

Which doesn't mean I expect them to always take the left corridor, and never die.  So much as when they start digging a tunnel into the dead end corridor because it leads somewhere, or a fight turned south in a horribly disastrous way, I make some changes because sticking to what's written down wouldn't make for a good story if retold (except perhaps as a tale of stupidity).

I might also fudge things for a newbie.  Just last night, a friend wanted to try D&D for the first time, so I whipped up a PC for both, and a simply "kill some goblins who are ambushing travellers" adventure.

I had to fudge the rolls several times to reduce the damage I inflicted.  Why?

Because it was tedious enough making a PC for the new player, let alone, having to do it again, AND set up the hook again to get them out there.  It wasn't worth it.  I would rather a new player's first session be one of success, than a PC meat-grinder.  Especially when dealing with a person who was not a gamer, or used to anything in that genre, but had tried WoW and was curious about this other game.

A player can experience PC death and tougher expectations when they have a grasp of the basic  rules and concept of the game.  That's yet another reason to save a PC.  To do otherwise, when you're effectively recruiting a shiny new player is bad marketting.  Just ask anybody who is really good at demoing games at conventions.  Let the potential customer win.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 19, 2010)

Janx said:


> That might shape some people's impression that everything in OD&D was randomly and "impartially" generated.  I'm not sure GMs truly ran that way



When I used to GM AD&D and Basic I used some random generation, and some designed and placed deliberately - increasingly the latter under the influence of mid-80s Dragon magazine articles.

In changing in this way, I think I was an instance of a more general trend in approaches to fantasy RPGing, away from "Gygaxian"/"Pulsipherian" play and towards a more PC-protagonism centred approach.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 19, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> I agree with this completely. I don't roll behind a screen either. So the traditional fudgery to allow the PCs to survive is not something I am inclined to do.
> 
> Does not mean there are not other ways to accomplish the same task, mind you.



Agreed - I've been saying this over several posts.



Umbran said:


> A campaign can represent a significant investment of time (leisure time, at that, which is scarce for some folks these days), effort, and possibly even money.  If all the folks concerned don't get sufficient return on that investment, they may not come back for another round.
> 
> The return doesn't have to be in terms of success - there are many kinds of return in an RPG.  The issue is whether any of the kinds have happened, and if they haven't, do you save the campaign to allow them to happen or not.



Also agreed - for me and my group, at least, it's about the aesthetic satisfactoriness, or otherwise, of a TPK. 



pawsplay said:


> OK. I'm kind of of left saying, "So what?"



The "what" is the aesthetic satisfaction of the participants in the game.



Janx said:


> It's not that i seek out specific endings or outcomes, so much as I apply editorial control to prevent an undesirable outcome when it becomes apparent.



Putting to one side the question of introducing new players - something I haven't done for many years - I don't especially like using this sort of editorial control. I prefer a mechanical system that allows other ways of preventing the undesirable outcome - eg one that allows the monsters to take prisoners rather than kill. This is part of my reason for having shifted games from RM to D&D 4e.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 19, 2010)

Janx said:


> It's not that i seek out specific endings or outcomes, so much as I apply editorial control to prevent an undesirable outcome when it becomes apparent.



I like the way you've put it here. If something's going to happen that none of us are going to enjoy, you try to head it off. The point it to have fun, so fun is the goal, not some specific in-game result.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 19, 2010)

Janx said:


> It's not that i seek out specific endings or outcomes, so much as I apply editorial control to prevent an undesirable outcome when it becomes apparent.




For some players, any outcome that occurs as a natural result of play is a desirable outcome.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 19, 2010)

Umbran said:


> So what?  So, some of us don't have infinite leisure time to develop new content, is what.




And I do?



> What I'm talking about has nothing to do with specific actions being successful.




Sorry, I'm guess I'm not clear on what you're advocating.



> As for the matter of interaction - yes, that's exactly the point.  A game that is built around who the characters are becomes disappointing if they all die.  This is hardly surprising.  However, some players and GMs find such play far more engaging and satisfying than a game where everyone is easily replaceable.  So, for them, techniques to avoid that disappointment are useful.




Certainly there are games that have been dissatisfying because everyone lived, too. 

Maybe you can walk me through this.

I've played everything from kick-in-the-door D&D to sprawling Vampire games to superhero parodies to Victorian horror, and even drawing on this palette, I am having trouble imagining the kind of game in which this situation does not represent a breakdown in campaign design. I am imagining, however, that you are describing a style of game which you have found satisfying in the past, so I therefore conclude that either I am not understanding what you are saying or that I would not find such a game satisfying. Anything is on the table, up to and including die fudging. 

How does a campaign get to be too big to fail? It just sounds futile to me. If the campaign is predicated on uncertainty, then it needs to be real uncertainty. And if it's predicated on the continued survival of the PCs, then the uncertainty needs to be dialed down. If you are really interested in the soap operatics, to the detriment of risk-exploration, then something like a "random ghoul encounter" should just never happen.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 19, 2010)

pemerton said:


> The "what" is the aesthetic satisfaction of the participants in the game.




In that case, the "how" needs to be based on realistic expectations.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 19, 2010)

Janx said:


> I agree with Steel Wind and Umbrans posts right above this one, that I can't hand out more XP for yet...
> 
> I don't think my players think they have plot immunity, they are generally afraid of dying (they act like it).  Perhaps because they have no idea if I think "today is a good day to die" for them.




I don't want my players wondering what I think. I want them wondering if they are ready to face that dragon, visit that city, draw a sword in anger. 



> It's not that i seek out specific endings or outcomes, so much as I apply editorial control to prevent an undesirable outcome when it becomes apparent.




To me, excessive editorial control is an undesired outcome.



> I might also fudge things for a newbie.




Is that a kindness? The day they stop being a newbie, will they thank you for it? Assuming adults here.



> Just last night, a friend wanted to try D&D for the first time, so I whipped up a PC for both, and a simply "kill some goblins who are ambushing travellers" adventure.
> 
> I had to fudge the rolls several times to reduce the damage I inflicted.  Why?




Because the goblins did too much damage?



> Because it was tedious enough making a PC for the new player, let alone, having to do it again, AND set up the hook again to get them out there.




Whatever happened to the ol' Bart the Fighter II routine? Or just saying, "Look, I don't want to go through character generation again, so we're just going to say you're unconscious here instead of you being dead, which is what would normally happen?"


----------



## pemerton (Apr 19, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> If you are really interested in the soap operatics, to the detriment of risk-exploration, then something like a "random ghoul encounter" should just never happen.



I agree.



pawsplay said:


> In that case, the "how" needs to be based on realistic expectations.



This is a little cryptic for me. But if you're talking about "ingame realism" eg if you don't want PC deaths, don't have PCs take excessive risks, then I disagree. It's possible to have fantasy RPG mechanics that allow for the PCs to take actions that are, within the parameters of the imaginary world, risky, but which are, in the metagame world of the players at the table, rather non-risky _provided that_ the players use their game-mechanical resources effectively. I think 4e combat provides an example of this. So does mid-to-high-level Rolemaster combat (ie at a level where the PCs have big enough numbers to make meaningful choices about OB/DB split, and also have the capacity to mitigate the worst effects of random and potentially deadly criticals).

Is a game that drives this sort of wedge between player and PC risks and expectations exciting? In my experience, yes, but I play with players who also enjoy (for example) competitive board games and card games, which are exciting even though there is no risk to the player other than the very mild social sanction of being a loser rather than a winner at an essentially trivial recreational pursuit. The excitement comes from engaging the rules of the game in order to mitigate the risks and therefore succeed at the challenge. An RPG, unlike a boardgame or cardgame, adds the exciting colour and drama of a story unfolding in response to the players' decisions.

If I misunderstood what you meant by "the how", then the above might all be irrelevant. Sorry if that's the case.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 19, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> For some players, any outcome that occurs as a natural result of play is a desirable outcome.




^^^^This^^^^^

It isn't the "right" way to play, but it is my preferred way.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2010)

On the "Gank the Newbie" thing.

I had a new player show up to my World's Largest Dungeon game.  He was very new.  First time using Virtual Tabletop stuff, had played a little bit of 3e, but not very much.  Very, very newbie.

First encounter - dies in the first, maybe the second round.

I played it straight.  Didn't pull any punches.  Whacked the newbie.  Never saw him again.  He quit my game, and, judging from the website where I picked him up, I'm not sure if he quit GAMING after that.  

Playing with kids gloves, at least for a little while, isn't a bad thing.  If you want to play again with someone, it's a good idea to let them win at least once.  



			
				EW said:
			
		

> For some players, any outcome that occurs as a natural result of play is a desirable outcome.




And that's perfectly fair.  But, it's certainly not the only way of playing.  Nor is it the "right" way either.  I think all that people are saying here is, that there are different styles, some of which might entail a bit of fudging to save the PC once in a while.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Playing with kids gloves, at least for a little while, isn't a bad thing.  If you want to play again with someone, it's a good idea to let them win at least once.




That's a good way of getting me not to show up.  If I find out someone "let" me win, I doubt I'd ever be back.   I find the very notion abhorrible.  Winning is only fun when it's earned.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 20, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> That's a good way of getting me not to show up.  If I find out someone "let" me win, I doubt I'd ever be back.   I find the very notion abhorrible.  Winning is only fun when it's earned.




It's not just about letting someone win. It's about teaching them the fundamentals without them dying right off the bat. 

It's like beginner soccer without a score. Half the kids don't even know which way they're going so there's no point in keeping score anyway. But you teach them a little about ball handling, field boundaries, and passing. Once they've got a clue about those, you add the scoring.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 20, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> That's a good way of getting me not to show up.  If I find out someone "let" me win, I doubt I'd ever be back.   I find the very notion abhorrible.  Winning is only fun when it's earned.




C'mon man. Don't take the quote out of context. He explains *exactly *how and why that approach is appropriate -- and he's right about it too.

Given the context in which the example arises, I would go do far as to not only say that it is appropriate - but that "let the dice fall as they may" in those circumstances was clearly *inappropriate.*

If you are cheating to save the player in such an overt and obvious fashion that the player knows it, the REAL problem at the table isn't the noobie player - it's the incompetent DM who hasn't learned how to pull his punches without appearing to do so.

Yes. Cheating to aid the overall aim and fun of the players  while not _appearing_ to be doing so is an important acquired DM skill.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 20, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I agree.
> 
> This is a little cryptic for me. But if you're talking about "ingame realism" eg if you don't want PC deaths, don't have PCs take excessive risks, then I disagree. It's possible to have fantasy RPG mechanics that allow for the PCs to take actions that are, within the parameters of the imaginary world, risky, but which are, in the metagame world of the players at the table, rather non-risky _provided that_ the players use their game-mechanical resources effectively. I think 4e combat provides an example of this. So does mid-to-high-level Rolemaster combat (ie at a level where the PCs have big enough numbers to make meaningful choices about OB/DB split, and also have the capacity to mitigate the worst effects of random and potentially deadly criticals).
> 
> ...




I agree with you. The potential problem I was alluding to is when the metagame is setup in such a way that the desired outcome is unlikely. For instance, if you have a long thread in mind, but you put several dicey encounters in the middle, you would seem to be defeating your own purposes.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> That's a good way of getting me not to show up.  If I find out someone "let" me win, I doubt I'd ever be back.   I find the very notion abhorrible.  Winning is only fun when it's earned.






billd91 said:


> It's not just about letting someone win. It's about teaching them the fundamentals without them dying right off the bat.
> 
> It's like beginner soccer without a score. Half the kids don't even know which way they're going so there's no point in keeping score anyway. But you teach them a little about ball handling, field boundaries, and passing. Once they've got a clue about those, you add the scoring.




Unfortunately, I can't posrep Billd91 again.  But, yeah, it's ridiculously easy to splatter some newbie at any game.  So, when teaching someone a new game, perhaps not crushing them by check mating in seven moves the first time out is a good idea no?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 20, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> The potential problem I was alluding to is when the metagame is setup in such a way that the desired outcome is unlikely. For instance, if you have a long thread in mind, but you put several dicey encounters in the middle, you would seem to be defeating your own purposes.



Agreed. I personally find "filler" encounters to be just about the worst feature of published D&D modules, and when I run those modules I do my best to get rid of them, either by ignoring them, or - where they are necessary to the pacing and overall XP budget - changing them from "filler" encounters to encounters that actually contribute to the overall flavour/storyline of the adventure.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Unfortunately, I can't posrep Billd91 again.  But, yeah, it's ridiculously easy to splatter some newbie at any game.  So, when teaching someone a new game, perhaps not crushing them by check mating in seven moves the first time out is a good idea no?




Well, pulling back is a bit different than letting them win.  Shaving points is fine, after all you don't have to dunk on the seven year old every time, a jump shot will suffice, but "letting them win" is not cool.  As a kid, I absolutely HATED it if someone let me win, and I've learned more from losing than I ever did from winning.  It's simple enough to run mock combats and whatnot, explain that if it were for real, his pc would  be dead.  But flat out letting him win just rubs me the wrong way.   Unless he's a wookie.  But yeah, maybe my post was a bit more incendiary than I intended, for that I apologize.


----------



## steenan (Apr 20, 2010)

I strongly agree with JRRNeiklot.

When my dad taught me chess, he, at first, played without rooks and queen. Then, as I got better, he added the pieces, until it was a normal game. But he always played to the full with what he had available and I needed to fight for every victory. Similar approach worked when I taught Go to my wife.

And I think it is how you should get newbies into RPG, if you are decided to use a gamist game for that. Choose a system that makes it hard (or impossible) to die or be permanently disadvantaged, but still has the failure as a possibility. Play it, see them win and lose - and let them have fun by winning against the odds by their own ingenuity.
If you play a lethal game with newbies, but then you fudge and ignore rules to save their characters, you'll make them feel entitled to winning. They will expect you to continue doing it - and get frustrated when you don't. That's not a way to get a healthy campaign.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 20, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> That's a good way of getting me not to show up.  If I find out someone "let" me win, I doubt I'd ever be back.   I find the very notion abhorrible.  Winning is only fun when it's earned.



Quoted for truthiness. But, 'must spread XP around, blah'. 

On the other hand. . .



			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Cheating to aid the overall aim and fun of the players while not appearing  to be doing so is an important acquired DM skill.



This is rubbish. The vast majority of roleplayers I have met IRL would agree, incidentally. And all of those I would ever wish to game with.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 20, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Given the context in which the example arises, I would go do far as to not only say that it is appropriate - but that "let the dice fall as they may" in those circumstances was clearly *inappropriate.*





Sorry, but I have to disagree.

Using an area set up for experienced gamers was inappropriate; once that choice is made, though, letting the dice fall where they may was not.

What Hussar should have done (ideally) was set up a "training ground" area, where the newbie could experience the thrills of first-time playing without meeting the same level of danger the "old hands" expect.  

When I taught my daughter to play D&D, I set up her first adventure in exactly this way.  It was designed to give basic concepts, to include a bit of thinking, include a bit of easy combat, and to teach basic game skills.  The scenario culminated in a harder combat that could be bypassed or taken in stages, as she desired.  The scenario is still available here on EN World......somewhere.

So......set up an easier scenario?  Absolutely.

"Let them win"?  Absolutely not.

(IMHO and all that jazz.)

RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 20, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but I have to disagree.
> 
> Using an area set up for experienced gamers was inappropriate; once that choice is made, though, letting the dice fall where they may was not.
> 
> ...




A very solid approach.

My first experiences with D&D were filled with characters that had the life expectancy of a fruitfly. It wasn't because the DM felt like killing off the newb or that I was forced to face impossible challenges. My characters died a lot at first due to stupid decisions on my part. Rolling up a new character frequently made me more familliar with the process, appreciate the fact that the game can continue even if your character dies, and most importantly, that thinking before acting is something worth doing.

A fudged game that let me keep going, making the same mistakes would not have been more fun. A false sense of accomplishment would have been resented once I found out about it.  If someone is interested in doing something only so long as it results in fabulous success regardless of knowledge or skill how long will that interest be maintained?  Do we as gamers really want to teach new players that the game is only worthwhile as long as victory is assured? 

Its been said before here and it is still true: If circumstances in the game can only get so bad then they can also only get so good.


----------



## Janx (Apr 20, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I don't want my players wondering what I think. I want them wondering if they are ready to face that dragon, visit that city, draw a sword in anger.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If I had to apply EXCESSIVE editorial control, I'd assume I was doing something wrong.  As it is, if I have to apply any editorial control, I ponder what went wrong, and what I could have handled better.

In the case of the newbie example, I didn't prepare any material, I simply decided there would be goblins, and made up 3 encounters of them.  The new player wanted to play a spell caster of some sort (not recommended for a newbie anyway), so it was already going to be complicated.  It was easier to fudge than to design a more balanced mini adventure of the top of my head (I do not normally run a full impromptu session).

I'd rather she understood what was going on in her first session, than to be expected to learn all the "smart" tactics in her first session, or repeatedly go through characters.

On top of that, this person was not a gamer.  I don't think I should have let the dice fall where they may really understand that not all new players are suited for D&D Unfiltered.  Imagine Eric's Grandma trying D&D for the first time, and not being big into anything you've ever read, played or seen.  There's a huge culturual and mindset difference between a gamer and their approach to a game, and somebody who didn't know the Lord of the Rings movies were based on a book (let alone that the first movie was part of a trilogy).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 20, 2010)

Janx said:


> If I had to apply EXCESSIVE editorial control, I'd assume I was doing something wrong.  As it is, if I have to apply any editorial control, I ponder what went wrong, and what I could have handled better.
> 
> In the case of the newbie example, I didn't prepare any material






Seems like you figured out what went wrong, all right.  



> I'd rather she understood what was going on in her first session, than to be expected to learn all the "smart" tactics in her first session, or repeatedly go through characters.




OK, easy questions:  What did you want here to learn?  What did you want her to understand?  Could you have prepared encounters/material that directly taught what you wanted her to learn/understand?  Did you give any thought to what you explicitly did _*not*_ want her to learn, such as (say) a reliance on the DM saving her or a reliance on DM "editorial control"?

Because, when I teach someone RPGs, one of the most important lessons I am trying to impart is "Your decisions make a difference; they have consequences for good or ill."  I might start them off with _*easy*_ decisions, of course, but that doesn't mean that they aren't _*real*_ decisions.

OTOH, once the GM starts "editting" mid-encounter, those decisions are not real, nor has the player learned anything related to what decisions are good to make.  You are either teaching the player to rely on the GM, or you are teaching the player to fail.

IMHO, you aren't doing anyone any favours.  And when the same player encounters a GM who doesn't hand-hold, everyone involved will certainly pay the price.



RC


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2010)

OTOH, splatting newbie PC's teaches players to not bother engaging in any role play at all, since, well, your character is only going to die anyway, so, why bother?  Backstory?  Pfft.  If I'm changing characters every three sessions (or more often) then my backstory is going to be a sentence, if that.  Talk to people in the setting, build relationships?  Again, pfft.  Why bother?  Any relationship I build is only going to vanish when I have to bring in yet another PC.

Like Pawsplay, I too started off with characters with a half-life measured in minutes.  That's exactly what I took from the experience.  It took YEARS before I grew out of that and started actually spending any time engaging in the setting or with NPC's.  Again, why should I possibly bother if I'm just going to have to do it all over again a couple of sessions down the line?

Now?  Now I want to teach a new player that building those relationships, engaging in the setting and the plot is the main point of gaming.  Developing a character is why I game.  Developing a shared story where the characters and their relationships are not disposable, interchangeable and ultimately completely bland and generic (because doing anything more than that isn't worth the bother) is the point of gaming.

And if that means, from time to time, I fudge the dice or go soft, then so be it.  Note the time to time part of that.  No one here is saying that you should do it each and every time.  Just once in a while, when appropriate.

Then again, I think this is why I've moved away from GMing D&D (I'll play it or run one off's, but I can't see myself developing a serious campaign for it in any edition for the foreseeable future) into systems which place the fate of the PC in the hands of the players.  Systems where the player can decide for himself if it's important enough or not to risk the life of his or her character by upping the stakes.

I can't really see myself running a serious campaign in D&D.  The fact that D&D relies on the idea of disposable characters just breaks it for me.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 20, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim.  Yet, they won't run away.  So what do you do?
> 
> If you are GMing and the PCs get themselves in a pickle, but through poor judgement, overconfidence or just plain stubbornness they refuse to leave a losing encounter and a TPK or similar fate seems imminent, do you save them? Do you fudge the dice or have some deus ex machina event save them? Or do you leave them to cruel fate?



The latter. Time to roll up new pcs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> OTOH, splatting newbie PC's teaches players to not bother engaging in any role play at all, since, well, your character is only going to die anyway, so, why bother?




Too true.....but your argument suggests that "splatting newbies" or "fudging the dice or going soft" are the only two options.  They are not.  They are not even remotely the only two options.


RC


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 20, 2010)

> _Blah blah blah_ from three posters to the effect of, "DM cheating, editing, fudging bad; some other hard-ass way of dealing with the situation good."



First off, let's not get sucked into the semantics game. "Pulling back" is okay but "letting him win" is not?

That's splitting hairs and having it both ways in the context of the post, imo. 

Pulling back is okay - but editing adroitly mid-battle so that the player does not even detect that a change has been made is a bad way of handling it? No other DM you have met in Real Life handles an encounter gone wrong that way?

I got some news for you: *yes they do*. Not often - sometimes it happens with experienced GMs only once over the course of several years.  But does it happen? Yes, it absolutely happens. If you haven't figured that out by now - you're either being willfully blind, or more likely, the GM in question is so skilled that you didn't detect it. Which is - by the way - how it is _supposed _to work out. You aren't _supposed_ to notice.

Then a few of you guys chime in with words to the effect of  "A better way to handle it would have been to run some entirely other and different encounter and learning game."

Sure. No argument. I agree. But that ISN'T WHAT HAPPENED. You don't get to retcon an encounter that was actually run. This isn't theory - *this is discussing an actual factual event.* You need to deal with the facts as they happened - not make up some other "new facts" that fit your theory better.

In the actual circumstances described by the poster, the hard-ass  approach you advocate ended up in the death of the character and the departure of the noobie player from the hobby after a few minutes of play  - for good.

This, apparently, is seen by some of you as a good thing. 

*cough* I think we must be judging "success" by a very different standard. 

Anyways, Hussar seems to have his own defence well in hand. But suggesting that it would have been better had the DM in question run some entirely other and different encounter -- instead of the one he actually DID run -- is no answer to how to best deal with the unfolding disaster, midstream, on a practical basis.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 20, 2010)

On the issue of new players, I think the best advice I have (actually it's good advice overall...) is don't be a jerk. There are plenty of ways for a GM to not go out of his way to target the characters for new players.

You don't have to cheat, but giving good advice and not always going for the throat can go a long way to keep things fun.

--Steve


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 20, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> First off, let's not get sucked into the semantics game. "Pulling back" is okay but "letting him win" is not?




No semantics game here.

Bobby wants to learn how to hit a ball, you teach him using soft lobs or T-ball.

What you do not do is throw him into a major league game and tell everyone else to play down to Bobby.

It is hoped that what Bobby learns in T-ball and soft lob is applicable later, with more competitive types of ball.

Susy wants to learn how to play D&D, you teach her using a kinder, gentler location with real decisions and real consequences for those decisions.  Dying is harder to accomplish, but certainly possible.

What you do not do is throw Susy into an ongoing game with experienced gamers and then fudge results so that she does well.

It is hoped that what Susy learns in the "newbie" dungeon is applicable later, with more complex decisions that have larger consequences.



> Then a few of you guys chime in with words to the effect of  "A better way to handle it would have been to run some entirely other and different encounter and learning game"
> 
> Sure. No argument. I agree. But that ISN'T WHAT HAPPENED.




No, it isn't what happened.  _*It is what should have happened.*_

Throwing Susy into an ongoing game with experienced gamers is a screw up of the kind that throwing Bobby into a major league game is.  But in neither case is the "solution" actually solving anything.

The DM could have said, once he saw how things were going, "Susy, that was my fault for throwing you into deep water.  I should know better.  Let me set up a game just for you, where you can get your feet wet before swimming with the sharks.  How does that sound?"

That would have been acceptable, and far, far better than fudging the dice.

The difference is that Susy gets the results she earns; her decisions matter.  She actually learns what decisions will be rewarded, and which will not.  She doesn't learn to rely on the DM changing things to accomodate poor decisions.  She learns that she, and she alone, has to deal with the outcome of her choices....and that she, and she alone, gets to bask in the glory of success.

Because if the DM solves your problems for you, the DM is also the only one who actually "succeeded" when all is said and done.  You have nothing to feel good about.  You have nothing to be proud of.  You have won nothing.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 20, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> You don't get to retcon an encounter that was actually run. This isn't theory - *this is discussing an actual factual event.*




We know that this is what happened; we are saying it _*should not have happened*_.  The error was made prior to having to make a decision about whether to fudge or not to fudge.

Hussar's fudging in this case is an attempt to cover/undo an earlier error.  However, it compounds the problem rather than resolves it.  In media res, as soon as he had realized the error that he had made ("Whoa!  Susy's not ready for the WLD yet!") he should have dealt with the reality of that error.  

Had he been upfront about that error, Susy wouldn't be left with any illusions about what decisions will be rewarded in future games.  Instead, Hussar made up some other "new facts" that fit his theory better, as you say.

In the actual circumstances described by the poster, the hard-ass approach would be to stop the game, admit that you made an error, and then deal with the fallout of that.  

If you disagree, I do indeed think we do judge "success" by different standards!


RC


----------



## Reynard (Apr 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> OTOH, splatting newbie PC's teaches players to not bother engaging in any role play at all, since, well, your character is only going to die anyway, so, why bother?  Backstory?  Pfft.  If I'm changing characters every three sessions (or more often) then my backstory is going to be a sentence, if that.  Talk to people in the setting, build relationships?  Again, pfft.  Why bother?  Any relationship I build is only going to vanish when I have to bring in yet another PC.




I have to strongly disagree. I started with the Red Box. That starter dungeon killed me and my two brothers (dad was DMing) a half dozen times each. Twenty five years later I am still playing and running D&D, creating meaningful characters no matter which side of the screen I am on.

Show newbies what's fun about D&D and they'll come back. And one of the things that is fun about D&D is getting eaten by a carrion crawler under the old fallen gate.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Susy wants to learn how to play D&D, you teach her using a kinder, gentler location with real decisions and real consequences for those decisions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The DM could have said, once he saw how things were going, "Susy, that was my fault for throwing you into deep water.  I should know better.  Let me set up a game just for you, where you can get your feet wet before swimming with the sharks.  How does that sound?"



There a whole lot of assumptions being made here about what is involved in "learning how to play D&D". One of them is that Susy and the GM both have the time and inclination to turn up for a solo session, as opposed to have Susy play at the same time as all their other mutual RPGing friends.

I'd be surprised if that assumption holds for most adult (or even many teenaged) new players. I think most would want to be part of a social event with friends - the niceties of the game that is part of that social event would be secondary, and something in which an interest is developed over time (if at all - if not, Susy either continues on as a Watcher, to use the 4e DMG's terminology, or leaves the gaming group and socialises with her friends out of gaming time).


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I have to strongly disagree. I started with the Red Box. That starter dungeon killed me and my two brothers (dad was DMing) a half dozen times each. Twenty five years later I am still playing and running D&D, creating meaningful characters no matter which side of the screen I am on.
> 
> Show newbies what's fun about D&D and they'll come back. And one of the things that is fun about D&D is getting eaten by a carrion crawler under the old fallen gate.




Y'know, I had pretty much the exact same experience.  For me it was a friend of my brother's and myself running four magic users into the cave in the Keep on the Borderlands that had stirges.  Died in like 30 seconds.  And I came back for more.

My brother's friend?  Never played again.

To me, I see no difference between softballing a dungeon or just running a special softball dungeon.  The player is going to learn pretty much exactly the same thing - after all, in a softball dungeon, the PC shouldn't really be threatened by anything other than blinding stupidity.  (which, unfortunately, does come up rather often.   )

So, the player learns that his character can take on all comers and is Superman.  Then he goes off to a "real" dungeon, and gets smoked in the first five minutes and we're right back where we started.

Me, I'd rather just gloss over a bit, and let the player learn as we go.  For one, I don't have the time to run special sessions to teach newbies.  I barely have enough time to run the games that I do run.  For a second, like I said, I'd much rather the player learn good role playing, rather than roll playing, skills - like talking to people, making relationships, engaging with the other players and NPC's.  Learning the meta-gaming skill of "player skill" can come later.

And, just to be clear, I'm not saying you should fudge everything.  Like Steel Wind said, it's fudging a few times, or perhaps only once, just to smooth out the bumps.  If it's every time, well, then it's time to have an out of game conversation with the player.  But, through no fault of the player, if the dice gods declare the player dead in the first five minutes of the first session ever?

DON'T DO IT.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I think this is why I've moved away from GMing D&D (I'll play it or run one off's, but I can't see myself developing a serious campaign for it in any edition for the foreseeable future) into systems which place the fate of the PC in the hands of the players.  Systems where the player can decide for himself if it's important enough or not to risk the life of his or her character by upping the stakes.
> 
> I can't really see myself running a serious campaign in D&D.  The fact that D&D relies on the idea of disposable characters just breaks it for me.



Hussar, what games are you playing instead?

I agree with you that disposable characters undermine serious campaigns. For a long time (2 campaigns of 9+ years each) that was why I played Rolemaster as my regular game rather than D&D - it has a system that produces very flavourful characters, and although it doesn't have relationship or similar mechanics, the intricacies of the skill development system come close to guaranteeing that a backstory about relationships will be part of every PC, which is then available to call on in the game.

The problem with Rolemaster is that at low levels (and mid-levels for some parties) the combat system is just too deadly without a bit of friendly GM fudging of crit rolls. Only at mid to high levels do PCs have the mechanical ability to mitigate those effects. Therefore, when I GM low level Rolemaster I am a cheating cheater of a GM!

My group has now moved to D&D 4e, which also has flavourful PCs (not quite as flavourful as RM, but pretty good) and even at low levels hasn't required me to cheat to avoid PC deaths. I'm hoping that the campaign will develop to be as serious as those RM campaigns.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 21, 2010)

OK... I want to open this post with the MAJOR DISCLAIMER that this is not a value judgement about what is better or not, what is correct or not.

I cheated more dice rolls in 1e, 2e and 3e than I ever have had with 4e.  I actually roll fully out in the open now with 4e.  But, I had to fudge sometimes in 3e (and lower) when I had a PC that a player really liked, and the dice screwed him for not even making bad decisions... just arbitrarily.  Sorry, but it's the truth in my experience.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2010)

Catsclaw227, agreed - except that my fudging was in low level RM rather than 3E. The mechanical robustness of 4e to deliver the sort of play experience me and my players want is a big part of what attracts me to it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 21, 2010)

pemerton said:


> There a whole lot of assumptions being made here about what is involved in "learning how to play D&D". One of them is that Susy and the GM both have the time and inclination to turn up for a solo session, as opposed to have Susy play at the same time as all their other mutual RPGing friends.




Really?

How does "It is best to learn how to read when you are young" assume that you have the time or inclination to do so?  

How does "It is best to be a good GM" assume that you have the time or inclination to do so?  

"I have no time or inclination" may be a _*reason*_ for suboptimal performance, but that reason doesn't somehow make that performance optimal.  Choosing the lesser of two evils is better than choosing the greater, but it is still not as good as choosing no evil at all.


RC


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking, "best" doesn't always mean "most conducive to optimal performance at a fundamentally complex task". I think when Hussar and others are saying it is best to pull punches for a new player, they mean "most conducive to success at the social endeavour of having that player become a continuing participant in RPGs".

Furthermore, even if "best" did mean "most conducive to optimal performance", there is a whole lot of what is at stake in RPGing - cooperation and interaction with fellow players, mechanical integration of PCs, etc - that Susy is not going to get in a solo training session but that (as Hussar has pointed out) she will get in a session in which some mechanical punches are also pulled.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 21, 2010)

Again, disagree.  There is no reason that other players cannot help the prospective GM by taking the roles of NPC supporters, so long as they are on the same page.  The other players give advice, but never direct the action.  They also get to (possibly) die dramatically as red shirts.

What is "most conducive to success at the social endeavour of having that player become a continuing participant in RPGs" is not "pulling punches" in the sense of giving the player a false sense of accomplishment, but rather "pulling punches" in the setup itself, so that the framework is relatively easy to deal with, but any accomplishment is real.

That is what "optimal performance" in this sense is:  the performance most conducive to success at the social endeavour of having that player become a continuing participant in RPGs.

(There is also a body of evidence which suggests that intermittant reinforcement is very effective -- people do not become addicted to gambling because they win all of the time, nor is it necessary [or even desireable] for players to expect to win all of the time in an RPG.  In fact, I would go so far that, if the outcome [win] is known and the rules change [fudging] over the course of the activity to accomodate that outcome, then what you have is not a game at all [although it is a pastime, hobby, whatever].)

I strongly disagree that fudging the results helps the new player, or anyone.  AFAICT, all it does in the case cited is help the GM avoid acknowledging an error in judgment.

This is, of course, IMO, IME, and all that jazz.



RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> What is "most conducive to success at the social endeavour of having that player become a continuing participant in RPGs" is not "pulling punches" in the sense of giving the player a false sense of accomplishment, but rather "pulling punches" in the setup itself, so that the framework is relatively easy to deal with, but any accomplishment is real.



I think you're splitting hairs here. It's okay to pull punches - but only in certain specific ways and not others.

Any accomplishment in an RPG is false, of course, because it's just a game. There's no real accomplishment to be had. So differentiating between "false" accomplishment at a difficult task and "real" accomplishment at an easy task is meaningless. Especially since the DM sets the difficulty to begin with.



Raven Crowking said:


> I strongly disagree that fudging the results helps the new player, or anyone.



But fudging the setup is okay? I fail to see any real difference.


----------



## C.W.Richeson (Apr 21, 2010)

Nope.  For harsh games, the possibility of death makes it more interesting.  Though even in that case we may give the player more narrative control over how exactly they died, perhaps with a slightly more interesting narration than "the goblin stabbed you."

For other games death simply isn't an option.  Being taken out or losing the encounter could mean injury, forced retreat, capture, or any of a number of different outcomes.  It still hurts because the PCs failed to achieve their goal, and it tends to generate more interesting long term consequences to failure.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 21, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> It's okay to pull punches - but only in certain specific ways and not others.




There are a lot of things that are okay only in certain specific ways and not in others.  In fact, it is a nearly universal truism.  Next time you go through an intersection when the light is red, be sure to tell the officer that he is just splitting hairs.  



> Any accomplishment in an RPG is false, of course, because it's just a game. There's no real accomplishment to be had.




That is obviously untrue.

It is so obviously untrue that one wonders why it continually rears its head as the last, false hope of "fudging" not being a damaging choice for a Game Master to make.

A bare minimum of consideration demonstrates its falsehood:

If one accepts that chess is a battlefield simulation, then winning at chess does not mean that you have won a real battle.  It does, however, mean that you won at chess.  That is a real accomplishment.

If I play you chess, but I spot you my queen, and you beat me, it is still a real accomplishment (though not so great an accomplishment as it would be if I had not spotted you my queen).  OTOH, if I engineered the game so that, no matter what you did, you would win, there would be no accomplishment (minor or major) on your side at all.

In the case of a role-playing game, overcoming obstacles is an accomplishment regardless of how easy or difficult those obstacles may be.  The degree of accomplishment is, of course, directly related to the degree of difficulty....just as in the chess example, just as in the baseball example upthread.

No, getting the Gold Crown of Hoopla from the sinister dragon Hufflepup doesn't give you a real crown in the real world.  But neither does it need to in order to be an accomplishment.

EDIT:  I wonder if you also believe that Olympic gold medallists have accomplished nothing, because they were just playing a game?  Or the team that wins the Stanley Cup?  Or the World Chess Champion.  Etc., etc., etc.



> But fudging the setup is okay? I fail to see any real difference.




Shennanigans.

How, exactly, is the setup being "fudged"?

Are you saying that you see no difference between your winning a game of chess with me after I spot you the queen, and your winning a game of chess with me because I engineered it?  Really?

EDIT:  Let's take this a bit further.  I want you to "stick with" chess, so I continually engineer the games so that you will win.  You feel a real sense of accomplishment because you don't know I am doing so.  What happens to your self esteem once you play against someone else, who doesn't consider it a favour to engineer your victories?  What happens when you discover that, far from being a great player, you've been trained to make moves that cause opponents to easily defeat you?  How do you think you would feel about those chess games we played then?  How do you think that the average person would feel?

Again, this does no one a favour, except the GM, who gets to hide his or her errors, and that (usually) only for a while.  Perhaps Susy will have moved when she discovers what you have done, and you will not have to explain why you did it to her.



RC


----------



## Nagol (Apr 21, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> But fudging the setup is okay? I fail to see any real difference.




You don't 'fudge' a setup; you design a less risky encounter set.  Typically, this will involve low challenge creatures with appropriate rewards in the encounter.

The big difference from my perspective is one method allows the player to begin to build play experience on a foundation that is true to the game engine.  This will help the player to develop expectations that fit the actual risk/reward levels in the game and aids the player in formulating appropriate choices in light of known information.

The other method provides an experience that is unlike the generalised play experience in the game engine.  This can lead the player into developing expectations that differ from risk/reward levels seen in games closer to the generalised game engine expectations.  This may be fine if the GM is going to consistently rule in a particular way (at which point as a player I would expect the courtesy of being informed of the house rules in play) and the player expects to play under no other GM.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 21, 2010)

Well put, Nagol.


----------



## Kingreaper (Apr 21, 2010)

FUdging a first play session is perfectly reasonable IMO.

But effort should be made to make it unneccessary. A scenario with a 1 in 400 chance of PC death, fudging to avoid death is sensible with a newbie, because death wouldn't give them an accurate idea of what the game is NORMALLY like. (they'd come to believe death was common, and that might put them off, even though it's not true)

A scenario with a 1 in 3 chance of death? No, death is to be expected if you design a scenario like that, fudging will give the player a false sense of what the game is like.


----------



## coyote6 (Apr 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If one accepts that chess is a battlefield simulation, then winning at chess does not mean that you have won a real battle.  It does, however, mean that you won at chess.  That is a real accomplishment.
> [...]
> In the case of a role-playing game, overcoming obstacles is an accomplishment regardless of how easy or difficult those obstacles may be.  The degree of accomplishment is, of course, directly related to the degree of difficulty....just as in the chess example, just as in the baseball example upthread.




Your analogy fails for me in that chess is a game that can be won; you can't win an RPG. Personally, I don't play RPGs to "accomplish" imaginary things; it seems like a silly idea to me. I play RPGs to have fun; that's the only accomplishment that matters, in the end. 

For me, running a special "training mode" adventure just for a new person would be a time-sink I wouldn't be interested in participating in. Teach someone how to play the game, sure; maybe run a one-shot with others as taste-test, okay; but run a special training session? 

Besides, that's _so_ video-gamey!


----------



## Janx (Apr 21, 2010)

I much ado is being made about nothing.

When next I speak to my friends, I'll ask them if they care if the DM fudges die rolls to save their PC, or if they even notice that it HAS happened in games they have played (even where I was a player).

I'm pretty sure the answer will be, "no, they don't care."  After the game, nobody talks about how the Gm fudged a roll that totally saved the day.  Much like somebody letting out a fart, it is quickly forgotten.

Those of us with tactical minded brains probably get a sense of satisfaction out of playing through a scenario where the details of our choices matter (do we tap the floor with a 10' pole or mark the wall with charcoal instead of chalk, because it's harder for another monster to notice it).

Most of my friends care about that kind of thinking.  I've got a few friends who are "dumber" than the rest.  They don't think that about such things.  Playing full on "D&D is a mental puizzle" with them for their first game would not be a fun experience for them.

That doesn't mean they couldn't stand to benefit from learning to think about such things, but the first session is NOT the forum for that.  You got to entice them into the water with some successes first.

While you can learn a lot from D&D, and it can reshape and expand people's minds, it is not expressly a teaching tool.  It is not my job as GM to TEACH players to think tactically in order to navigate the game space.

Thus, I have no problem putting on some training wheels for some players, so they can at least go for a bike ride with the other kids.  I don't want to have to do that forever, but if I have to pull some strings so my friends can have some fun, so be it.  It's not like fudging a die roll is guying to hurt me or them.  Not unless they are som mentally fragile that maybe they shouldn't play with others.


Really it comes down to "know your audience".  I know mine.  Odds are good other casual gamers don't care about fudging to save their PCs.  The audience on ENworld is more likely to be serious gamers and smarter than the average person.  That's a different audience, and given most of us are old hands, we don't need training wheels.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 21, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> Your analogy fails for me in that chess is a game that can be won; you can't win an RPG. Personally, I don't play RPGs to "accomplish" imaginary things; it seems like a silly idea to me.





And, yet, this entire thread is predicated on the premise that some outcomes are prefereable to others.  If one cannot "win" or "lose" within the context of an RPG (a premise I believe to be false), then why bother fudging to save the doomed newbie?  

The answer is obvious -- some outcomes are "wins" and some are "losses".  To use the chess analogy again, sessions of the game are like individual chess matches within a tournament (this is esp. true in the case of an AP set-up, where there is an "end" to the game where the PCs either accomplish their goals or do not).  Simply because part of the overall structure continues (the tournament, or the game) does not mean that you didn't "win" or "lose" a match, an encounter, or a session.

Sorry, but I call shennanigans.


RC


----------



## coyote6 (Apr 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, yet, this entire thread is predicated on the premise that some outcomes are prefereable to others.  If one cannot "win" or "lose" within the context of an RPG (a premise I believe to be false), then why bother fudging to save the doomed newbie?




(A) I'm not sure you can't "lose" -- having a game crash to a halt by any number of means, and no one had a good time, seems close enough to losing to me. 

(B) I didn't say I bought the premise of the thread, either.



> Sorry, but I call shennanigans.




Shenanigans is a supervillain in my M&M campaign; you don't want her calling back.


----------



## francisca (Apr 21, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim.  Yet, they won't run away.  So what do you do?
> 
> If you are GMing and the PCs get themselves in a pickle, but through poor judgement, overconfidence or just plain stubbornness they refuse to leave a losing encounter and a TPK or similar fate seems imminent, do you save them? Do you fudge the dice or have some deus ex machina event save them? Or do you leave them to cruel fate?




I kill the hell out of them, and add an appropriate amount of skull and crossbones stickers to my DM screen.

We're talking D&D, not an exercise in self-esteem building.


----------



## Kingreaper (Apr 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, yet, this entire thread is predicated on the premise that some outcomes are prefereable to others.  If one cannot "win" or "lose" within the context of an RPG (a premise I believe to be false), then why bother fudging to save the doomed newbie?




Because you want them to understand how a NORMAL game goes, and experience that, rather than get a completely inaccurate impression of what gaming involves?

If you're playing paranoia or similar, where dying is a major part of a normal session, fudging it is silly. If you're playing D&D, and normally have a death every 20 sessions or so, then fudging it is sensible, because they're going to get the wrong end of the stick otherwise.


----------



## Janx (Apr 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, yet, this entire thread is predicated on the premise that some outcomes are prefereable to others.  If one cannot "win" or "lose" within the context of an RPG (a premise I believe to be false), then why bother fudging to save the doomed newbie?
> 
> The answer is obvious -- some outcomes are "wins" and some are "losses".  To use the chess analogy again, sessions of the game are like individual chess matches within a tournament (this is esp. true in the case of an AP set-up, where there is an "end" to the game where the PCs either accomplish their goals or do not).  Simply because part of the overall structure continues (the tournament, or the game) does not mean that you didn't "win" or "lose" a match, an encounter, or a session.
> 
> ...




I think that from a generic player perspective, they consider a session a win if:


1) their PC is in a  better situation than the start of the session.
2) their PC is not dead.
3) the player had a good time.

Obviously, that doesn't cover a really good game with an Empire Strikes Back ending (where the PCs are worse off, because this is the "setback" session.  But then, it still qualifies as a win, because nobody died.

A "good" PC death might also invalidate my overly simplistic summation of what a player might consider a win.  But then, condition 3 would be kicking in, did the player have a good time.

Despite, differences in GM opinion on what's really going on behind the screen, I think my summation of the player's opinion is probably close enough for government work.


----------



## Janx (Apr 21, 2010)

I wonder if the divide in "yes fudge, or no don't" is also fed by a desire for "realism/simulationism".

Adventuring is dangerous work.  If the game is more lethal to reflect that, it rewards more cautious players.  it "might" punish more carefree players (I don't want to say risk taking), where they may try crazy stuff, because they act like they are in a movie.

In a video game, say Oblivion, which does a pretty good jobb of simulating a solo RPG game world, it is really easy to play a sneaky assassin type.  The game design rewards someone who hides well, and can backstab, because it is ridiculously easy when you pump those skills.  This is the "cautious" behavior is rewarded.  Uncautious behavior can get you killed, because you might not see a trap, or be able to fight off all the monsters you woke up.

However, in Oblivion, unlike D&D, if you die, you reload from your last game save.  It is completely forgotten that you died.  Therefore, there is no real penalty to dying and playing more aggressively (plenty of people do and I've seen it work just as well as my sneaky way).

In D&D, just charging ahead, and playing 'move-mode" rather than "simulation mode" can get you killed if a GM chooses to play that way.  it's not just fudging die rolls, its a matter of does the GM knitpick the player's preparations.  Does the GM put in a greater level of detail in the dungeon that rewards the cautious explorer, and punishes the "retreat forward" rusher?

Given that I play my way, and other people play it completely different, and we're both happy at our respective tables, it's obvious that the game itself is pretty flexible.

I also don't think anybody is seriously harmed by playing in one style.  Yes, it means they might have culture shock when they visit another table, but then I am surprised when I meet people who DON'T expect to find different play styles and house rules when they visit another table.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 21, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Because you want them to understand how a NORMAL game goes, and experience that, rather than get a completely inaccurate impression of what gaming involves?




Just to make my XP comment clear, I don't disagree about wanting them to understand how a normal game goes.  However, I disagree with this part:



> If you're playing D&D, and normally have a death every 20 sessions or so, then fudging it is sensible, because they're going to get the wrong end of the stick otherwise.




Either you've done a poor job in the setup (as GM) or the player has had a really poor run of luck, or the player has done something phenomenally stupid.  Let's look at each of these in turn.

1.  Poor setup.

You, as GM, have set the player up for encounters way out of her league.

Proper Solution:  "Wow.  I've really mangled that setup; I'm sorry.  Normally, you wouldn't encounter these sorts of problems yet.  Give me 10 minutes to adjust my setup, and we'll try this again."

2.  Poor Luck.

The player has a phenomenally poor run of luck, resulting in the PC's death.

Proper Solution:  

Long before PC's death:  "Wow.  You are really having a poor run of luck here.  Would you like to stop now, and maybe come back at this later, with an NPC or something?"

When the die is cast (and by this time, the GM has already failed, so we are only looking at how to ameliorate that failure):  "Wow.  That was a really bad run of luck.  Usually, if the dice were falling like normal, you'd have done really well.  Still, chance is part of this game.  Would you like to try again with another character?  I've got a couple premade......"

3.  Player does something very stupid.

The player does something like jump in lava.

Proper Solution:  "Are you sure you want to do that?"  If the player is sure, "Your character dies.  Jumping in lava works in the game pretty much like it works in real life."


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> There are a lot of things that are okay only in certain specific ways and not in others.  In fact, it is a nearly universal truism.  Next time you go through an intersection when the light is red, be sure to tell the officer that he is just splitting hairs.



It's never okay to go through an intersection _when the light is red_...your analogies are quite weak here.



Raven Crowking said:


> That is obviously untrue.
> 
> It is so obviously untrue that one wonders why it continually rears its head as the last, false hope of "fudging" not being a damaging choice for a Game Master to make.
> 
> A bare minimum of consideration demonstrates its falsehood:



I'd ask that you be more condescending and dismissive, but I fear that would be impossible.



Raven Crowking said:


> If one accepts that chess is a battlefield simulation, then winning at chess does not mean that you have won a real battle.  It does, however, mean that you won at chess.  That is a real accomplishment.



Yes, because there is a defined goal in chess: to win, using the specific rules of the game. It makes a terribly poor analogy for D&D, of course, which neither is competitive nor does it have a single defined goal.



Raven Crowking said:


> OTOH, if I engineered the game so that, no matter what you did, you would win, there would be no accomplishment (minor or major) on your side at all.



True, and I see what you're trying to say here. But try not taking it to the ridiculous extreme that no one (as far as I can tell) is actually proposing here.

Even Gygax suggested that fudging may be called for _at times_. That's all I'm suggesting. Sometimes, fudging is okay, if the circumstances call for it. I would say it is infinitely better than stopping a game mid-stream with the DM saying "oops, I messed up, can we start again?" That can kill any kind of investment the players have made to that point. (It might also lead the players to ask "why can't _we_ start over if _we_ mess something up?")



Raven Crowking said:


> EDIT:  I wonder if you also believe that Olympic gold medallists have accomplished nothing, because they were just playing a game?  Or the team that wins the Stanley Cup?  Or the World Chess Champion.  Etc., etc., etc.



You know the answer to this. They're competing against other participants using defined rules to achieve a defined end. Not remotely comparable.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> 2.  Poor Luck.
> 
> The player has a phenomenally poor run of luck, resulting in the PC's death.
> 
> ...



Are you suggesting that the DM should be able to predict a bad run of luck? Since it's luck, it can change at any time. Consecutive natural 1s can be followed by consecutive natural 20s.

There's no reason to think that a bad run of luck will continue, and lead to a PC's death. How is either the player or the DM supposed to predict that? Your "proper" solution involves the DM predicting the future. That's not a viable solution.


----------



## Kingreaper (Apr 21, 2010)

> 2. Poor Luck.
> 
> The player has a phenomenally poor run of luck, resulting in the PC's death.
> 
> ...




This was the situation I was dealing with. Player stupidity and GM stupidity both shouldn't result in fudging.
Because they'll both be there in normal play.

But in this case: Okay, they have a run of bad luck, and die. You say "wow, you were really unlucky"
They go "uh-huh". They don't realise just how different the game normally plays out, because they have no frame of reference, they're a newb. To them, this is how the game plays out.

It's like a person who goes to McDonalds, and gets a rancid burger with unmelted cheese on top. They're not going back, no matter how much you tell them that that was an unusual event.

And you can't really know they're losing until they actually do so. My first 4e GMing experience, with new players, they thought they were dead meat in the boss fight. Some of them were preparing to flee. Then, they hit the dragon with an immobilising attack, ongoing damage, and a forced move. Boom, it was dead before it recharged it's breath weapon.
I didn't have to fudge that. And I probably wouldn't have even if they were going to die (they'd won three combats first, and I'd warned them that as it was a one-shot the final combat was epic victory, or death; thus explicitly informing them it wasn't regular play)


----------



## Shoe (Apr 21, 2010)

a part of being a good RPG'er is knowing when to RUN AWAY!  I rarely pull punches, but depending on the battle they die in, there are alternatives to death as long as the whole party isnt at -10.  In Illithid battles for instance, the illithid may be full and save the PC's for leftovers, but if you are fighting an unintellegent monster you are usually just dead


----------



## Janx (Apr 21, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> You know the answer to this. They're competing against other participants using defined rules to achieve a defined end. Not remotely comparable.




To further emphasize:

winning a Medal at the Olympics is a big deal.  You get your face on a box of Wheaties, and people want to combine genetic material with you.

Winning a chess tournament is a big deal, because you have now been crowned the smartest nerd in town.

Winning at Texas Hold 'Em is a big deal, because you now have 10 times more money than when you started the game.

Winning at D&D is only meaningful to those who participated.  Nobody at the game shop wants to hear about it.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is so obviously untrue that one wonders why it continually rears its head as the last, false hope of "fudging" not being a damaging choice for a Game Master to make.




I think I understand why.  

In a debate such as this, when one side seems to categorically refuse to accept any argument as valid, the other side will run through every possibility it can think of to find some foothold. They will, eventually, be left with poor alternatives, but they are the only ones left to try.

So, the question isn't why one hears that argument repeatedly.  We instead have a pair of questions:

1) Why does one side seem to be refusing all arguments?  

2) Why does either side continue to engage in the discussion when loggerheads have been reached?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 21, 2010)

Umbran said:


> 2) Why does either side continue to engage in the discussion when loggerheads have been reached?




That one's easy. In a 1 on 1 conversation, there's no point in continuing. A message board, almost always with a substantial number of participants and lurkers, is not a 1 on 1 conversation. There may be other people who will be convinced by your argument.


----------



## Janx (Apr 21, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I think I understand why.
> 
> In a debate such as this, when one side seems to categorically refuse to accept any argument as valid, the other side will run through every possibility it can think of to find some foothold. They will, eventually, be left with poor alternatives, but they are the only ones left to try.
> 
> ...




Answers to those questions in no particular order or assignment:

because we're stubborn.

because we're not listening

because we're not trying to understand the other side

because we don't want to be wrong

because we want people to do it our way

because nobody can kick out/split the thread to people who derail or get in the way of discussion.

Because even though we don't use X, we still have to jump in on the how to use X thread and talk about how we don't use X


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 21, 2010)

> I wonder if the divide in "yes fudge, or no don't" is also fed by a desire for "realism/simulationism".



Not in my case.

*Villains & Vigilantes* has falling damage that is IMO way too deadly for the superhero genre. Apart from that, and maybe a handful of powers, though, "accidental" death even of the Norman Schlubs of the world (much less the powered-up PCs) is not going to happen unless you get careless with nuclear bombs -- and even Schlub has a 40-50% chance of surviving the blast from a "small" one.

It's easy to keep characters alive in a comic-book game. It can be even easier than V&V's Power Points. Giving each PC one or more "lives" to spend, basically a way for the _player_ to "fudge" without fudging, is one way to go. Renew those  periodically, but let  the players know that pressing on without one is playing without a net. (Of course, trademarks in comics are rarely allowed to lapse, and so a good character seldom *stays* dead!)

The original _Dungeons & Dragons_ was, quite simply, designed to be deadly to low-level characters and to present a risk of "permanent" death even to the most powerful and longest-played. That was just the game, not any kind of universal statement about anything.

I can see "fudging" as part of an approach that comes from seeing the business really as "collaborative improvisational theater" or the like, but that's not where I'm coming from. I don't want the mere appearance of a game, as some sort of aid to story-telling. I just want to sit down and play an actual game. If it's a game about telling a story, then I want the same thing.

If I want my character "saved", then I will take the resources to do it _myself_, thank you very much!


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 21, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I can see "fudging" as part of an approach that comes from seeing the business really as "collaborative improvisational theater" or the like, but that's not where I'm coming from.



Can you also see it from the "not wanting to be frustrated by a pastime that's supposed to be fun" angle?


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 22, 2010)

> Either you've done a poor job in the setup (as GM) or the player has had a really poor run of luck, or the player has done something phenomenally stupid.



It depends on what game you're playing. In OD&D, none of the above need go any further than giving a monster a chance to make an attack. Sure, it's _more likely_ to kill ya the first time if you're a magic-user with no armor and just one hit point -- but you can get killed just as dead just as quick with plate and shield and six hit points.

Random factors are sometimes, well, random; that's what they are _supposed_ to do. The idea in OD&D is that you take a fresh character and the game goes on.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 22, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Can you also see it from the "not wanting to be frustrated by a pastime that's supposed to be fun" angle?



I can see a lot more easily going for a game I actually consider fun in the first place. That might include one "fixed" with the addition of any one of the many _other_ ways to reduce character mortality without depending on GM fiat.

I mean, it's not as if "critical hits" and other stuff going the _other_ way have to be done that way! People can write down rules, and apply them.

Here's a really, really simple rule:

*Your character shall not die unless you consider that fun.*

_I_ would call that done and done, but hey -- what matters in _your_ thing is _your_ idea of fun.


----------



## Janx (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is so obviously untrue that one wonders why it continually rears its head as the last, false hope of "fudging" not being a damaging choice for a Game Master to make.




I think the core foundation to your opposition to fudging and "saving" the PCs, is that you think damage is being done.

Whereas, I, and I suspect all of the people I have regularly gamed with do not think any damage is done, let along give it any thought.

Right or wrong, it isn't giving us cancer, making us stupid or lazy, or addicted or impacting or invalidating the results of your game.

We are having fun.  Heck, according to Doug's quote, we're playing the way Gary intended (which is nebulous and varying)

That seems good enough


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 22, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Can you also see it from the "not wanting to be frustrated by a pastime that's supposed to be fun" angle?




 I can't.  Because I love baseball, I'll use another baseball analogy here.   If I can't strike out, then getting a hit is no fun.  Striking out is frustrating, but without the frustrating moments, the exciting moments lose their luster.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I can't.  Because I love baseball, I'll use another baseball analogy here.   If I can't strike out, then getting a hit is no fun.  Striking out is frustrating, but without the frustrating moments, the exciting moments lose their luster.



Once again: competitive game, specific set of rules, clear object (score more runs than your opponent). Not in the same ballpark.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 22, 2010)

> Once again: competitive game, specific set of rules, clear object (score more runs than your opponent). Not in the same ballpark.



Well, if good old D&D --
- contending for possession of treasure with monsters, traps, etc. (and possibly other players)
- specific set of rules
- clear object (score XP)
-- is not in the same ballpark, then neither is pinball or Pac-man. So, obviously both of those (and all other games of the ilk) need some "fudge" to "save" the players.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 22, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Once again: competitive game, specific set of rules, clear object (score more runs than your opponent). Not in the same ballpark.




D&D is just as competitive.  You compete against the monsters, the traps, and most importantly, yourself, much like other games or sports.  The rules are for the most part clear, as is the object (stay alive at the end of the day).


----------



## Reynard (Apr 22, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Because you want them to understand how a NORMAL game goes, and experience that, rather than get a completely inaccurate impression of what gaming involves?
> 
> If you're playing paranoia or similar, where dying is a major part of a normal session, fudging it is silly. If you're playing D&D, and normally have a death every 20 sessions or so, then fudging it is sensible, because they're going to get the wrong end of the stick otherwise.




I'm not so sure this is a "normal" game. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that if you go 20 "typical" sessions with only 1 character death, your game is atypical. Either it isn't geared toward dangerous adventuring type activity, or the DM avoids difficult challenges or, more likely, you're already fudging (which then makes fudging with a newbie a "normal" session).  The dice alone are going to demand a sacrifice every few sessions, IME, if not more often.

Away from the subject of new players, the issue of fudging is always an interesting one because arguments about it inevitably -- and usually quickly --  tackle the question of whether it makes the game less fun for those that were fudged for. But in my OP I specifically was asking the DM, because it is quite possible -- perhaps even more common -- to save the PCs without their knowledge. A few adjustments or changed dice rolls behind the screen and all's well that ends well. Taking the player -- who may be enraged or appreciative, depending on his perspective -- out of the question still leaves the DM.

Also, one other thing I notice having cropped up here and there in this discussion: There's a difference between fudging and house ruling. Ignoring a crit or halving the bad guy's hit points mid combat is fudging; removing crits by "un-named" villains and giving enemies low hit-points-per-die are house rules.  In my experience, if one is hoping to achieve a certain style and.or tone of game, judicious use of house rules can nearly eliminate the need for fudging.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 22, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> D&D is just as competitive.  You compete against the monsters, the traps, and most importantly, yourself, much like other games or sports.  The rules are for the most part clear, as is the object (stay alive at the end of the day).




More to the point, even if D&D lacks the sort of head-to-head competetiveness of chess or baseball doesn't mean that it is without "victories" or that mastery of the game and its rules can not or do not provide participants -- players and DM alike -- with fun.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I think I understand why.
> 
> In a debate such as this, when one side seems to categorically refuse to accept any argument as valid, the other side will run through every possibility it can think of to find some foothold. They will, eventually, be left with poor alternatives, but they are the only ones left to try.
> 
> ...




I think some of the problem may be confusing earning respect for your position with earning agreement. I can understand and respect a viewpoint while still disagreeing with it. If, however, you take my disagreement as a sign of disrepect, unproductive arguing ensues, aside from any other complicating issues in the discussion.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 22, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Like Pawsplay, I too started off with characters with a half-life measured in minutes.  That's exactly what I took from the experience.  It took YEARS before I grew out of that and started actually spending any time engaging in the setting or with NPC's.  Again, why should I possibly bother if I'm just going to have to do it all over again a couple of sessions down the line?




I feel it would be worthwhile to state that i'm in the process of wrapping up a 3.5 -> Pathfinder game after four years, playing from level 1 to level 19, involving an epic quest to defeat an eldritch evil. One of the PCs has been with the group since the beginning, and all have a substantial history within the campaign, to say nothing of the thick, thick folder I have of campaign notes. Challenges have ranged from roving packs of fiendish worgs to assaults on powerful dragons to court cases. If you think my philosophy is antithetical to good stories, continuity, or long-lived campaigns, I urge you to set that misconception aside.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Well, if good old D&D --
> - contending for possession of treasure with monsters, traps, etc. (and possibly other players)
> - specific set of rules
> - clear object (score XP)
> -- is not in the same ballpark, then neither is pinball or Pac-man. So, obviously both of those (and all other games of the ilk) need some "fudge" to "save" the players.



Are pinball or Pac-man comparable to baseball? I wouldn't say so. They're more like golf, where you try to beat other people's scores but don't compete directly against them (ie, they can't do anything to prevent you from accomplishing your goal).

But still, nothing like D&D. There is no winner in D&D. The player with the most XP does not win. The other players are not hoping they beat you. It's just not remotely comparable.



JRRNeiklot said:


> D&D is just as competitive.  You compete against the monsters, the traps, and most importantly, yourself, much like other games or sports.  The rules are for the most part clear, as is the object (stay alive at the end of the day).



The monsters and the traps are 100% imaginary. The object is to have fun, regardless of whether your imaginary PC stays alive or not. It's not an accomplishment to defeat imaginary opponents in your imagination, regardless of whether you use dice to do it or not.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I think some of the problem may be confusing earning respect for your position with earning agreement. I can understand and respect a viewpoint while still disagreeing with it. If, however, you take my disagreement as a sign of disrepect, unproductive arguing ensues, aside from any other complicating issues in the discussion.



True. That's probably why I'm still arguing. I perceive several on the "other side" to be stating not only that they do things differently than I do, but that the way I do them is plainly wrong. Even harmful in some way.

Since it's clearly a matter of personal preference, that's plainly disrespectful.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 22, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> But still, nothing like D&D. There is no winner in D&D. The player with the most XP does not win. The other players are not hoping they beat you. It's just not remotely comparable.



There is no more a winner in pinball, Pac-man, or any similar solitaire game.
As in those games, players might indeed be hoping to beat you.
Unlike in those games, they might take steps to have their pieces _literally_ beat yours, even to death or worse.

In any case, how on Earth do you imagine this to be an argument for the necessity of "fudging"?

What have you got against, for instance, the rule I proposed that directly answered the problem you expressed?



> It's not an accomplishment to defeat imaginary opponents in your imagination, regardless of whether you use dice to do it or not.



Or a joystick, eh? Playing Chess against a computer doesn't count, even if it can beat the world champion? Solving a Chess, Go, Sudoku, crossword, or other puzzle is no accomplishment?

In other words, all of us who take such pleasure in playing a game without "fudging" are "plainly wrong?"


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 22, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> True. That's probably why I'm still arguing. I perceive several on the "other side" to be stating not only that they do things differently than I do, but that the way I do them is plainly wrong. Even harmful in some way.




Okay, I'm with you here.



> Since it's clearly a matter of personal preference, that's plainly disrespectful.




... and this is where you take a long leap I cannot follow. Surely they can _think_ you are wrong, if you are allowed to think you are right.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> ... and this is where you take a long leap I cannot follow. Surely they can _think_ you are wrong, if you are allowed to think you are right.



Since we're talking about a game of make-believe, I submit that anything like this must necessarily be a matter of personal preference. My personal preference in how I and my friends pretend to be an elf causes no harm to anyone, and simply cannot be "wrong". It is simply one of many possible ways of playing.

To say it's wrong is disrespectful. To say it's actually harmful goes beyond that.

I can think I'm right (in the sense of my playstyle being a valid one) without thinking you're wrong, since any number of playstyles are valid ones. They're not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> There is no more a winner in pinball, Pac-man, or any similar solitaire game.



There are high scores in pinball and Pac-man, whereas there are no XP leaderboards that I've ever seen. Solitaire games are a different animal; they'd be similar to a solo D&D game.



Ariosto said:


> In any case, how on Earth do you imagine this to be an argument for the necessity of "fudging"?



That's not my argument. There's no necessity to fudge in D&D. But there's nothing wrong with it either.



Ariosto said:


> Or a joystick, eh? Playing Chess against a computer doesn't count, even if it can beat the world champion? Solving a Chess, Go, Sudoku, crossword, or other puzzle is no accomplishment?



They are different, again because there is a specific goal there. There is only one solution to a particular Sudoku or crossword puzzle.



Ariosto said:


> In other words, all of us who take such pleasure in playing a game without "fudging" are "plainly wrong?"



No, not at all. I'll be clear, since some seem to be missing it.

I consider fudging to be a perfectly valid way to play the game; one of many valid ways to play the game. I have never said playing your way is wrong. "Your" side (perhaps not you specifically, I don't recall) have argued that "my" way is simply wrong, should not be done, and can even be harmful if you do it.

If you want to play without fudging, more power to you. I know that some people like to play like that. But if they tell me I'm just plain wrong for not liking the same, I will refute that.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 22, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I'm not so sure this is a "normal" game. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that if you go 20 "typical" sessions with only 1 character death, your game is atypical. Either it isn't geared toward dangerous adventuring type activity, or the DM avoids difficult challenges or, more likely, you're already fudging (which then makes fudging with a newbie a "normal" session).  The dice alone are going to demand a sacrifice every few sessions, IME, if not more often.




Careful with your assumptions. Players can get pretty good at avoiding death even in a combat-heavy game (perhaps especially in a combat-heavy game) once they get enough hit points to survive a single greataxe crit and have the sense to stock up on healing supplies. 

If you're seeing a lot more deaths than 1 every 20 or so sessions, perhaps we should be assuming something about you or the people you play with. That makes no less sense and is no more obnoxious than making the assumption that a DM seeing few deaths is "more likely" already fudging the dice.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 22, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Since we're talking about a game of make-believe, I submit that anything like this must necessarily be a matter of personal preference. My personal preference in how I and my friends pretend to be an elf causes no harm to anyone, and simply cannot be "wrong". It is simply one of many possible ways of playing.
> 
> To say it's wrong is disrespectful. To say it's actually harmful goes beyond that.
> 
> I can think I'm right (in the sense of my playstyle being a valid one) without thinking you're wrong, since any number of playstyles are valid ones. They're not mutually exclusive.




So let's take this idea to it's conclusion. Since we're talking about a game of make-believe, I submit that anything someone else thinks about your personal preferences is a matter of preference. What someone thinks of your play style causes no harm to anyone, and simply cannot be "wrong." It is simply one of many possible opinions about paying. To say it's wrong is disrespectful. To say it's actually harmful goes beyond that. 

I'm pretty sure that boat won't float. In any case, calling your playstyle inferior is not the same as calling it invalid. I've had inferior pizzas; that doesn't make them not-pizzas. The everyone-is-entitled-to-their-opinion position, in addition to being uncomfortably amoral to my tastes, inevitibly leads to contradiction. 

I think fudging is a perfectly valid approach to certain GMing problems. I don't think it's bad, per se. However, I think other things are better. In any situation, I would prefer to solve the problem in another way, and I am convinced that in the vast majority of situations, I can. Someone else may have a different opinion, surely informed by their own thoughts and experiences. I completely respect that opinion. However, I remain rooted in my own opinion, and any time I am asked, i will say the same thing: My advice is not to do it.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 22, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> D&D is just as competitive.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The rules are for the most part clear, as is the object (stay alive at the end of the day).



This is not the only possible goal of D&D play.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 22, 2010)

billd91 said:


> If you're seeing a lot more deaths than 1 every 20 or so sessions, perhaps we should be assuming something about you or the people you play with. That makes no less sense and is no more *obnoxious* than making the assumption that a DM seeing few deaths is "more likely" already fudging the dice.




Emphasis mine.

Really? We need this to turn into a fight? To what end? Why not just discuss?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> It's never okay to go through an intersection _when the light is red_...your analogies are quite weak here.




It is always okay to go through the intersection when the light is green; it is never okay to go through the intersection when the light is red.  (Well, actually both of those statements are false -- there are circumstances under which it is not okay to proceed through the green, and where it is okay to go through the red....)  Likewise, it is always okay to devise the set-up as you will, and never okay to fudge die rolls.

My analogy is weak only because it is a rebuttal to a weak argument, intended specifically to make that weakness obvious.



> Yes, because there is a defined goal in chess: to win, using the specific rules of the game. It makes a terribly poor analogy for D&D, of course, which neither is competitive nor does it have a single defined goal.




I can play chess to try to engineer your win; I could then claim that chess is neither competitive (as I am trying to make you win), and that it doesn't have a single defined goal (as I have just made a new one).

Again, neither would make my behaviour acceptable.



> Even Gygax suggested that fudging may be called for _at times_.




I know.  In this instance, IMHO, Gygax was wrong.



Fifth Element said:


> Are you suggesting that the DM should be able to predict a bad run of luck? Since it's luck, it can change at any time. Consecutive natural 1s can be followed by consecutive natural 20s.
> 
> There's no reason to think that a bad run of luck will continue, and lead to a PC's death. How is either the player or the DM supposed to predict that? Your "proper" solution involves the DM predicting the future. That's not a viable solution.




In any edition of D&D, a "run of bad luck" means a reduction in survivability.  When setting up a newbie area, the DM should make certain that the creatures/hazards encountered therein are of the kind where there are multiple decision points prior to death.

So, in this case, a "run of bad luck" need not be predictable, prior to character death, to be responded to.



Kingreaper said:


> This was the situation I was dealing with. Player stupidity and GM stupidity both shouldn't result in fudging.
> Because they'll both be there in normal play.




Well, we agree here.



> But in this case: Okay, they have a run of bad luck, and die. You say "wow, you were really unlucky"
> They go "uh-huh". They don't realise just how different the game normally plays out, because they have no frame of reference, they're a newb. To them, this is how the game plays out.




And this is sometimes true.

There is a good reason, in D&D, as the game normally plays out, to get used to the idea that you will not always win.  

You will note that I recommended that the GM then provides "normal" context.

I will further note, as I did above, that the GM did a poor job of setting up a newbie area if the challenges encountered killed the newb due to a run of bad luck, and withdrawal prior to death could not have been suggested.



> And you can't really know they're losing until they actually do so. My first 4e GMing experience, with new players, they thought they were dead meat in the boss fight. Some of them were preparing to flee. Then, they hit the dragon with an immobilising attack, ongoing damage, and a forced move. Boom, it was dead before it recharged it's breath weapon.




I think it is pretty fair to say that you can tell whether the PCs are:

1.  In good condition to go on,
2.  Hanging on a thread, or
3.  Done like dinner.

I accept that this might be harder to know in 4e, because of the way the resource management paradigm has changed.  However, I do not accept that, even in 4e, it is impossible to set up a newbie area that allows you to know these things.

AFAICT, that is what D&D Encounters is all about.



Janx said:


> I think the core foundation to your opposition to fudging and "saving" the PCs, is that you think damage is being done.




I do.

Nor does something have to give you cancer to do you harm.

Nor does my opinion alter how you play your game, unless you should happen to decide that you agree with me.  If you do not agree with me, then does my opinion do you harm?



Fifth Element said:


> Since we're talking about a game of make-believe, I submit that anything like this must necessarily be a matter of personal preference.




Every game is a game of make believe.  Including chess, baseball, whathaveyou.  If you accept that my tricking you into thinking you are great in chess is harmful, then the "game of make-believe" argument is inconsistent, at the very least.



> To say it's wrong is disrespectful. To say it's actually harmful goes beyond that.




Pawsplay already did a much better job of answering this than I am capable of doing.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> EDIT:  Let's take this a bit further.  I want you to "stick with" chess, so I *continually *engineer the games so that you will win.  You feel a real sense of accomplishment because you don't know I am doing so.  What happens to your self esteem once you play against someone else, who doesn't consider it a favour to engineer your victories?  What happens when you discover that, far from being a great player, you've been trained to make moves that cause opponents to easily defeat you?  How do you think you would feel about those chess games we played then?  How do you think that the average person would feel?
> 
> ...




Bold and underline mine so it doesn't get missed yet again.

Show me one single time that I stated anything about constantly or consistently fudging?  You keep building the house of straw that fudging once or in one encounter, or heck, even in one adventure is the same as constantly weakening every encounter.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> D&D is just as competitive.  You compete against the monsters, the traps, and most importantly, yourself, much like other games or sports.  The rules are for the most part clear, as is the object (stay alive at the end of the day).




I would go so far as to say that if this is the only objective in your games, you might want to consider broadening the palette a bit.  This is only true if your game revolves around nothing but combat.



pawsplay said:


> I feel it would be worthwhile to state that i'm in the process of wrapping up a 3.5 -> Pathfinder game after four years, playing from level 1 to level 19, involving an epic quest to defeat an eldritch evil. One of the PCs has been with the group since the beginning, and all have a substantial history within the campaign, to say nothing of the thick, thick folder I have of campaign notes. Challenges have ranged from roving packs of fiendish worgs to assaults on powerful dragons to court cases. If you think my philosophy is antithetical to good stories, continuity, or long-lived campaigns, I urge you to set that misconception aside.




Never said anything about you.  I said, the lesson that I took from high lethality and PC turnover was that I should never really bother engaging in the setting or the character because, well, why bother?  I'll just be rolling up another character in a couple of weeks anyway.

I note you only mention the one character that survived.  How about the other ones?  Are they as engaged in the campaign as your one survivor?  How long did they survive?  Were they creating new characters every four or five sessions, or did they survive for long periods of time.

Because, if they did, then my point about character turnover does not actually contradict you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Show me one single time that I stated anything




Hussar, what makes you think I am talking (in the bit you quote) about what *you* stated?  Or, for that matter, what _*anyone*_ stated?

What you quote was intended to help build a general case, in which specific cases could then be addressed.  So long as "cheating causes no harm" is the predominant meme of the discussion, there is no way to discuss or describe harm done.  It is dismissed.  

By demonstrating that cheating can cause harm, and by then examining how and why that harm is caused, as well as what that harm is, one can then determine whether or not it applies (and to what degree) in a secondary case.

That is the purpose of the quote you pulled:  It is a direct counter to the argument that cheating can cause no harm, because it is "just a game".



> You keep building the house of straw that fudging once or in one encounter, or heck, even in one adventure is the same as constantly weakening every encounter.




Not at all.

Just as in the chess example, I don't need to plot to make you win if you are actually winning, the fudging GM has no need to fudge unless his expectations for how the encounter will play are somehow thwarted.  Because fudging goes both ways:  making an encounter easier to get the outcome you want, and making an encounter harder to get the outcome you want.

What if it was a player cheating once or in one encounter, or heck, even in one adventure?  What is the relationship between that and cheating constantly in every encounter?

My overwhelming experience is that a person who cheats to get the outcome they want tends not to cheat just the one time.  Especially not if they feel it is "okay" the cheat anyway.

Does your experience differ?  If so, would you like to buy a bridge?


RC


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 22, 2010)

Just wanted to say that we appreciate everyone working hard to be polite, even when you don't agree with the other people. Interesting thread.

What do people think about fudging dice to make an encounter _harder_?


----------



## Nagol (Apr 22, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I would go so far as to say that if this is the only objective in your games, you might want to consider broadening the palette a bit.  This is only true if your game revolves around nothing but combat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Of course, I can’t speak for Pawsplay, but it sounds like my current campaign is similar.  The campaign is six years old playing about 20-25 times a year..  The characters started at first and the highest are now almost 15th.  There has been a death or retirement probably once every 4-5 sessions, on average.

Of the six players, two have original characters.


One player has an original character.  That character has never died, but been very close to death a few times.
One player has an original character.  The character had died twice.
Two players are on their second characters having retired the first.  The first characters died maybe once and the second has died once.
One player has had had 4 different characters.  One was retired and the others stayed dead.  When she joined the group she was new at D&D (but not RPGs) and at sandbox play.  It took her a while to get used to the game flow since she was used to strong DM narrative control prior to joining this group.
One player has had 5 different characters.  All his previous characters have stayed dead.  He plays extremely recklessly.  It is rare for that player to have a character resurrected, but it has happened.  The player has dealt with death probably ten times or about 1/12 sessions on average.  His first death and first character loss happened in the first session, first encounter when he took a longbow critical from an encounter I thought was going to be resolved non-combatively.  The players involved had other ideas and voila! One dead character.

About 4 session ago, there was a near TPK when having received the answer “Don’t” when divining the question “What will happen if we raid the temple controlled by the nymph?” and proceeded to attack anyway.  I didn’t pull punches – not even when an epic monster appeared on the scene.

The players seem quite engaged in the campaign.  The most engaged seems to be the most death-ridden.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 22, 2010)

Unlike Gary Gygax, I don't fudge die rolls and I strongly prefer it if the GM doesn't. But I have no problem with other groups doing it if that's what works for them. I don't see the point in attempting to construct a logical system which proves that what those groups are doing doesn't work, even though they say it does.

The case of a GM fudging things in a subtle way, such that the players don't notice, is an interesting one. I have to admit that what I don't know couldn't hurt me, so if a GM managed to do this and as a result made the game more exciting/dramatic/better, it's hard to say that that's not a good thing. Provided I never found out about it.

Piratecat raises an interesting point about fudging in both directions. While I don't fudge when I GM, I find I still have vast influence over events, even when I do stick to the rules (sometimes I don't), thru the GM's ability to control ad hoc modifiers, make rulings, and decide the actions of NPCs and the way the environment operates. Not to mention being the player's only source of information. That's massive, colossal, gigantic power right there. A power I definitely abuse, almost always to make fights closer than they would otherwise be. In other words I make easy fights harder and really hard fights, where it looks like the PCs are going to lose, easier.

I remember reading in some edition of Champions that the best fights are those where the PCs find it tough, but just manage to scrape a win. Pretty much the way a lot of fights are in fiction. Something like that is, I think, what I'm attempting thru my abuse of GM's authority.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 22, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Just wanted to say that we appreciate everyone working hard to be polite, even when you don't agree with the other people. Interesting thread.
> 
> What do people think about fudging dice to make an encounter _harder_?




I treat it the same way as making the encounter easier.  I don't do it.  In my view, fudging is a method of wresting narrative control away from the group onto a path the DM would prefer.

Although I may like a character, I don't want to take the narration choice and those consequences arising from those choices away from the group and diminish the value of the risks undertaken.

Although I may like an NPC/organisation/future possible encounter set, I don't want to take the narration choice and those consequences arising from those choices away from the group and diminish the value of the rewards earned.


----------



## Janx (Apr 22, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Just wanted to say that we appreciate everyone working hard to be polite, even when you don't agree with the other people. Interesting thread.
> 
> What do people think about fudging dice to make an encounter _harder_?




As a player, I don't like it, as of course it increases the danger that I may have worked hard to mitigate.  Basically undoing my efforts.

As a DM, I don't recall ever doing it.  I generally follow a rule of thumb for "level appropriateness" for the range of threats.  Once I pick the threat, if the PCs make it look like a cake walk, well, that's my mistake to their benefit.

Now my friend and old DM on the other hand, even just recently, admitted to me that he kept adding HP to the BBEG his party faced a few sessions back.  Some big bad demon in the 9 hells, and the party was high level, and plowing through him too fast.  He wanted to scare the players that this guy was no pushover (though they did beat him, as he expected).  Bear in mind, his players are the power-gamers of my old crew, so these are the guys who love to build a PC to crank out damage and over-power encounters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> What do people think about fudging dice to make an encounter _harder_?




My opinion is unchanged.

Harder, easier; both are the GM fudging die rolls to make the encounter resolve in accordance to his wishes.

What do you think about a _*player*_ fudging die rolls?


RC


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 22, 2010)

This becomes particularly relevant with 4e groups who experience "grind," when the battle is pretty clearly won but the monsters are stubbornly, and boringly, sticking around. 

I wonder how big a divide there is for the GM between fudging die rolls in either direction vs. adjusting the number of monsters or hit points of monsters on the fly. For instance, I don't like fudging dice but I don't mind using six or eight minions instead of the normal four-per-monster. Is this at all equitable to fudging dice? Is die fudging (either harder or easier) a bigger "sin" than other sorts of on-the-fly monster adjustment?

I'm not sure I have a great answer. I know that adjusting minions on the fly to make a fight more exciting (or occasionally reducing hit points to make a non-challenging fight end more quickly) is more palatable to me than adjusting dice rolls.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 22, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Here's a really, really simple rule:
> 
> *Your character shall not die unless you consider that fun.*



I would amend that to:
*
No PC may die without that player's consent.*

It's interesting to note that one could run a game under that rule that could look exactly like a hardcore, old school, tougher-than-softie-Gygax game, *provided* the players always gave permission. Which they may well do if that's the sort of challenging game they're after.

I pretty much ran my last campaign with that rule, though it was never written down, and even then I had two permanent PC deaths over 20 sessions (and this was a superhero game). The players were not exactly overjoyed for their PCs to die but they fully accepted it as the consequence of situations, die rolls and so forth. I would say that they gave their consent to their PC dying.

For my current group, I think I'd have to have a rule like that as one player is very much of the 'if I die, I die' mindset, while another really, really wants his PC to keep on existing, no matter what. So, gotta leave it up to the players.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> My opinion is unchanged.
> 
> Harder, easier; both are the GM fudging die rolls to make the encounter resolve in accordance to his wishes.
> 
> ...




Players are not given the authority within the rules to fudge die rolls.  DM's are.  Specifically so in some editions, but certainly covered in Rule 0 of pretty much every RPG out there.  In most RPG's, you'll find a paragraph or two in there that gives at least tacit permission to the DM/GM to alter things to make the game better.

I don't recall ever seeing an RPG given such permission to a player.  Then again, I also don't recall any RPG specifically giving a player a screen to hide die rolls behind either.

AFAIC, I think that you're splitting hairs.  If you engineer the encounter at the outset so that the player will face much reduced threat, or you simply change the encounter mid stream to reduce the threat, the end result is identical - an encounter with a reduced threat.  

Put it another way.  Is there a significant difference between spotting me a queen and both rooks at the beginning of the game and spotting me the same pieces after the first move?  How about the second move?  Tenth?  At what point is it unacceptable to spot me those pieces?

And, if there is a difference between spotting me the pieces before play or during play, what is that difference?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 22, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Is this at all equitable to fudging dice? Is die fudging (either harder or easier) a bigger "sin" than other sorts of on-the-fly monster adjustment?



I think the idea is that a GM's power is so easy to abuse, it's a good idea to restrict oneself with some rules, such as "Prepared written material is fixed once the session starts". Lines that even the GM can't cross, for fear of sliding down a slippery slope.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Unlike Gary Gygax, I don't fudge die rolls and I strongly prefer it if the GM doesn't. But I have no problem with other groups doing it if that's what works for them. I don't see the point in attempting to construct a logical system which proves that what those groups are doing doesn't work, even though they say it does.




IME, GMs who think their players don't know they are fudging are seldom correct.  The odds are, IMHO and IME very, very good that, sooner or later, they will catch on.

YMMV.

The point, as far as I am concerned, is that "those groups" are not some form of bastion-like monolith.  The players in "those groups" join other groups.  What is done in "those groups" can (and does) affect what happens in other groups.  I have firsthand experience of retraining players from some of "those groups"....and the general consensus has been that the players would rather the fudging had never occured.

ASIDE ONE:  I play chess.  When I am teaching chess, or playing someone I know not to be as good a player as I, I frequently give them the opportunity to "take back" a move.  

Why could the GM, introducing a newbie, not simply say "In normal D&D, there are no takebacks.  But, since this session is just to get you up to speed on the game, I'm going to allow takebacks, so that you can try different things and see what works."?  See, no dishonesty, no risk of a string of bad luck ruining everything, no fear of PC death.

IOW, what is the motive for the dishonesty?

ASIDE TWO:  2e strongly recommended fudging, and I tried to follow the 2e guidelines.  The result was an almost total loss of interest in the game, a hiatus in playing that lasted almost three years.


----------



## Imaginary Number (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> My overwhelming experience is that a person who cheats to get the outcome they want tends not to cheat just the one time. Especially not if they feel it is "okay" the cheat anyway.




"Cheating," I think, is pejorative as well as inaccurate, at least as applied to the sort of DM judgment calls we're discussing here.  I design adventures for my players with the general goal that they will be challenging but beatable.  The desired outcome of this is a certain level of dramatic tension with a reward or resolution at the end, i.e. "fun."  To maintain this "fun," my view as the DM is that it indeed is okay to "cheat" from time to time.  Sometimes it's in favor of the players:  fudging a die roll to avoid a crit that would kill a PC, taking a few monsters out of an encounter if the PCs engage it low on resources, removing an encounter (and treasure) altogether if the PCs can't beat it, whatever.  And, as Piratecat mentioned above, sometimes it's in favor of the opposition:  if I screwed up and the adventure I designed isn't presenting the challenge to the party that I expected it would, I'll adjust on the fly to add more monsters or do whatever else it takes to fully engage the players.  I don't feel dirty or immoral for doing it, and in almost thirty years of DMing I've never had a player complain about it.  Absolute faithfulness to the text of the game rules or of an adventure sometimes = boring, so I'd rather "cheat" in the interest of giving everyone at the table a fun evening of gaming than have everyone frustrated because they entered the wrong room of the dungeon at the wrong time, particularly now that real-life issues prevent our group from getting together as often as we used to.  YMMV, of course.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 22, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think the idea is that a GM's power is so easy to abuse, it's a good idea to restrict oneself with some rules, such as "Prepared written material is fixed once the session starts". Lines that even the GM can't cross, for fear of sliding down a slippery slope.




Also, I don't believe _my_ choices are inherently superior to consequences that happen from following through with the game results.  Something I think may be cool in the heat of play may be less compelling upon sober recollection and/or viewing the player responses to the event.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I wonder how big a divide there is for the GM between fudging die rolls in either direction vs. adjusting the number of monsters or hit points of monsters on the fly.




None.



> For instance, I don't like fudging dice but I don't mind using six or eight minions instead of the normal four-per-monster. Is this at all equitable to fudging dice?




Not if done as part of scenario design.



> Is die fudging (either harder or easier) a bigger "sin" than other sorts of on-the-fly monster adjustment?




No.



Doug McCrae said:


> I would amend that to:
> *
> No PC may die without that player's consent.*




That would not be my cup of tea, but it would not be objectionable.



Hussar said:


> Players are not given the authority within the rules to fudge die rolls.  DM's are.




That is irrelevant to my point.  If the player should not fudge, why should the player not fudge?  If the DM fudges to increase the chances of a desired outcome, surely the players know their desires better than the DM does.  It follows that the players, rather than the DM, should be encouraged to fudge.

If you can tell me why this should not be so, I suspect that you will understand why I also hold that the GM should not fudge.



> Put it another way.  Is there a significant difference between spotting me a queen and both rooks at the beginning of the game and spotting me the same pieces after the first move?  How about the second move?  Tenth?  At what point is it unacceptable to spot me those pieces?




There is a difference.

It is unacceptable to spot those pieces after the first move has occurred.



> And, if there is a difference between spotting me the pieces before play or during play, what is that difference?




Spotting the pieces before play sets up what the challenge is; spotting the pieces after play begins is a combination of "bait & switch" with the added insult that I decided you weren't up to the game we agreed to play.

Let me add, further, that in the case of the DM fudging, the player doesn't get a choice at the time of infraction.  So, not only do I spot you the piece and insult you, but you don't get to decide to continue the game we agreed upon.



Doug McCrae said:


> I think the idea is that a GM's power is so easy to abuse, it's a good idea to restrict oneself with some rules, such as "Prepared written material is fixed once the session starts". Lines that even the GM can't cross, for fear of sliding down a slippery slope.




Agreed.



RC


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 22, 2010)

I'm finding that I adhere to the philosophy that Hussar explains just up-thread in post #329. I'm the one who knows what's fun and challenging, and who knows how to pace a fight, and not my dice. While I prefer to run an encounter as originally planned, I reserve the right to tweak any number of factors on the fly to make the game a good one. 



Doug McCrae said:


> I think the idea is that a GM's power is so easy to abuse, it's a good idea to restrict oneself with some rules, such as "Prepared written material is fixed once the session starts". Lines that even the GM can't cross, for fear of sliding down a slippery slope.



It's a well-prepared game when I enter it with anything more than a half-page outline of what might occur. I definitely don't specify monster placement and quantity ahead of time. RC states his belief that it's fine to adjust monsters in scenario design but not once play starts; I disagree. I don't do scenario design per se and handle most of that on the fly, at the table. I see real advantages to deciding on the fly whether a second wave of monsters enters. I think those advantages - in tension, tactical challenge, and pacing - outweigh any consideration that this wasn't in my original plan for the attack.

But I still don't like fudging dice!  

That means I lean far more towards cinematic gameplay than simulationist play, and I'm comfortable with that. I'm very aware that other people find different play-styles more satisfying, but this one works very well for my players and me.

Interestingly, one thing that I've never had any interest in tweaking at all is skill challenges. I allow the players to be creative in skill use and aid another, but I really don't like the idea of fudging dice rolls or DCs. I think the trick there is to always have skill challenges that the PCs can legitimately fail without derailing your plot.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Imaginary Number said:


> "Cheating," I think, is pejorative as well as inaccurate, at least as applied to the sort of DM judgment calls we're discussing here.




Okay.  No intention to offend.

My overwhelming experience is that a person who fudgess to get the outcome they want tends not to fudge just the one time. Especially not if they feel it is "okay" to fudge anyway.


RC


----------



## Nagol (Apr 22, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> This becomes particularly relevant with 4e groups who experience "grind," when the battle is pretty clearly won but the monsters are stubbornly, and boringly, sticking around.
> 
> I wonder how big a divide there is for the GM between fudging die rolls in either direction vs. adjusting the number of monsters or hit points of monsters on the fly. For instance, I don't like fudging dice but I don't mind using six or eight minions instead of the normal four-per-monster. Is this at all equitable to fudging dice? Is die fudging (either harder or easier) a bigger "sin" than other sorts of on-the-fly monster adjustment?
> 
> I'm not sure I have a great answer. I know that adjusting minions on the fly to make a fight more exciting (or occasionally reducing hit points to make a non-challenging fight end more quickly) is more palatable to me than adjusting dice rolls.




For simple grind I've always had dice rolling stop at the table with mutual consent.  "Guys, the last few aren't going to surrender, but don't pose a real threat.  Do you plan on hacking them down?   OK.  It takes about another 30 seconds, but the last one falls."

I used this last session when the remaining spelllweaver was nauseated (incapable of taking any aggressive action) and the fighters moved to within melee range.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> <snip>
> It is unacceptable to spot those pieces after the first move has occurred.
> <snip>




I'd amend this to state It is unacceptable to spot those pieces after the first move has occurred without mutual consent and knowledge.

If about 5 moves in, it becomes obvious one person is a grandmaster and the other is not, the granddmaster can offer the reduction and the other can agree if it is acceptable.  

It is unacceptable for the master to simply place his pieces into jeopardy and let the other player take them and gain a feeling of unearned accomplishment.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2010)

RC said:
			
		

> IOW, what is the motive for the dishonesty?




What is the motive for characterizing this as "dishonest"?  

From what I can see, you largest objection to this is that it is somehow the GM "cheating".  Yet the mechanics of D&D specifically, and most RPG's generally, SPECIFICALLY allow the GM to do so.  How is it dishonest to use the mechanics as written?

Or, change it a bit.  When you come up with a house rule during play, is that dishonest or not?  You are changing the rules agreed upon at the outset of the session, or even the rules agreed upon at the outset of the campaign.  How is this not "bait and switch"?

We change the rules of games to make play smoother.  We make ad hoc rulings all the time to make the game smoother and more fun for everyone involved.  In the last session of 4e I played, the GM allowed a player to take a full action and then delay using an Action Point to take a later action (the paladin wanted to shove back the baddie, allowing a companion to escape and then use the action point to run.).  This is not allowed by the rules, but was allowed by the GM.

Is this fair or not?  After all, the GM here has changed the rules to suit the narrative of the game.  Is this different from changing the result of a die roll?

To me, the end result is what matters, not how you got there.  If spotting me a queen or allowing take backs or whatever, will make things more enjoyable, then by all means do it.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2010)

Nagol said:


> I'd amend this to state It is unacceptable to spot those pieces after the first move has occurred without mutual consent and knowledge.
> 
> If about 5 moves in, it becomes obvious one person is a grandmaster and the other is not, the granddmaster can offer the reduction and the other can agree if it is acceptable.
> 
> It is unacceptable for the master to simply place his pieces into jeopardy and let the other player take them and gain a feeling of unearned accomplishment.




So, when teaching someone to play chess, I should checkmate them as fast as I possibly can, because this will make them a better player?  That helping them out, pointing out possible moves they could make, asking them if they really want to do stuff, and yes, occasionally tossing a piece their way is never a good idea?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Nagol said:


> For simple grind I've always had dice rolling stop at the table with mutual consent.  "Guys, the last few aren't going to surrender, but don't pose a real threat.  Do you plan on hacking them down?   OK.  It takes about another 30 seconds, but the last one falls."




Absolutely fine.



Nagol said:


> I'd amend this to state It is unacceptable to spot those pieces after the first move has occurred without mutual consent and knowledge.
> 
> If about 5 moves in, it becomes obvious one person is a grandmaster and the other is not, the granddmaster can offer the reduction and the other can agree if it is acceptable.
> 
> It is unacceptable for the master to simply place his pieces into jeopardy and let the other player take them and gain a feeling of unearned accomplishment.




Agreed.



Hussar said:


> What is the motive for characterizing this as "dishonest"?




Are you telling the players you are changing the die rolls?  Or are you declaring the die rolls to be one thing when they are another?

The first is honest; the second is dishonest.



> When you come up with a house rule during play, is that dishonest or not?  You are changing the rules agreed upon at the outset of the session, or even the rules agreed upon at the outset of the campaign.  How is this not "bait and switch"?




Do you change the rules, but tell the players that the rules are as they were?  That would be dishonest.

Otherwise, yes, there is an element of "bait & switch".  If your new house rule or ad hoc ruling sucks, then the players certainly may say so.  Unless you are somehow hiding your new house rules and ad hoc rulings.



> To me, the end result is what matters, not how you got there.




Then why not roll the dice in the open, and tell the players when you are going to change the results?

For that matter, why roll the dice at all?


RC


----------



## Nagol (Apr 22, 2010)

Hussar said:


> <snip>
> 
> Is this fair or not?  After all, the GM here has changed the rules to suit the narrative of the game.  Is this different from changing the result of a die roll?
> 
> To me, the end result is what matters, not how you got there.  If spotting me a queen or allowing take backs or whatever, will make things more enjoyable, then by all means do it.




Yes it is difference is one of mutual knowledge and consent.  With a house rule, the players have agreed to the change.  With fudging, the players has made no such decision.

I would have no objection to fudging if the DM called out what was rolled and then called out his substitution to the result.

I wouldn't do it myself, but I would have no objection to that happening at a table I played at.

I do object to the DM attempting to deceive the players as to the result and his covert editorial control.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, when teaching someone to play chess, I should checkmate them as fast as I possibly can, because this will make them a better player?  That helping them out, pointing out possible moves they could make, asking them if they really want to do stuff, and yes, occasionally tossing a piece their way is never a good idea?




Easily answered:

_*So, when teaching someone to play chess, I should checkmate them as fast as I possibly can, because this will make them a better player? * _

Bad idea.  Remember that "newbie area" mentioned upthread?  No one advocates squashing newbs that I know of.  This is a strawman.
_
*helping them out*_

Yes.  Good idea.

*pointing out possible moves they could make*

Yes.  Good idea.

*asking them if they really want to do stuff*

Yes.  Good idea.  Further, you could point out the consequences of the move.

*occasionally tossing a piece their way*

No.  Bad idea.



RC


----------



## Nagol (Apr 22, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, when teaching someone to play chess, I should checkmate them as fast as I possibly can, because this will make them a better player?  That helping them out, pointing out possible moves they could make, asking them if they really want to do stuff, and yes, occasionally tossing a piece their way is never a good idea?




You can point out options for their if you wish, but otherwise correct.  I often discuss tactical choices before, during, and after battles with the players out of character and in-character.

If you want to give the other player a chance to win as opposed to simply teaching hem then you should arrange an even playing field prior to starting play -- i.e. spotting the queen and rooks.


----------



## Janx (Apr 22, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I'm finding that I adhere to the philosophy that Hussar explains just up-thread in post #329. I'm the one who knows what's fun and challenging, and who knows how to pace a fight, and not my dice. While I prefer to run an encounter as originally planned, I reserve the right to tweak any number of factors on the fly to make the game a good one.
> 
> It's a well-prepared game when I enter it with anything more than a half-page outline of what might occur. I definitely don't specify monster placement and quantity ahead of time. RC states his belief that it's fine to adjust monsters in scenario design but not once play starts; I disagree. I don't do scenario design per se and handle most of that on the fly, at the table. I see real advantages to deciding on the fly whether a second wave of monsters enters. I think those advantages - in tension, tactical challenge, and pacing - outweigh any consideration that this wasn't in my original plan for the attack.
> 
> ...




A lot of great points here.

It's easy to say run it like it's writ, when it's written down.  When the GM ad libs, it's more nebulous.  Furthermore, nobody audits the DM.  There's no IGMS to review your GM notes and game logs to determine that you've been running a clean game.

Also, though PC used the phrase "derailing your plot", I don't think he meant that in a railroady kind of way.  If the PCs are trying to find the culprit (Prof.   Moriarty) and the next skill check they need to make means they can continue the hunt, or they are totally stuck, and can't continue at all ever again on this case, that's a bad challenge design.  I think that's what he's saying he tries to avoid.  That's not the same as a skill challenge where if they fail, the PCs will have to think of a new approach to continue the case.

It doesn't mean a predetermined ending guided by the GM that the party WILL solve the case, simply that they get lots of opportunities of varying kinds to solve it, or fail to.  Not that 1 die roll blocks everything.

This might be another reason to "save the PCs", as being dead is the ultimate dead end (no pun intended).


I also wonder where RC blames "DMs who save PCs" for transitional problems for players who switch games, if it's not a STYLE issue.  After all, you don't know if the GM is fudging.  But what you do know is the GM rewarded cinematic risk taking (PC's game) and the new game is more simulationist and gritty.

As I said before, I look out for rules and style differences when I meet other groups of players.  I'm surprised that other players would be totally blindsided when they join another group.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> For that matter, why roll the dice at all?




It's not usually about deciding the outcome completely, it's about tweaking it here and there. That's why you'd roll everything but, from time to time, adjust a roll for a better fit of the circumstances and pacing of the situation.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> My opinion is unchanged.
> 
> Harder, easier; both are the GM fudging die rolls to make the encounter resolve in accordance to his wishes.
> 
> What do you think about a _*player*_ fudging die rolls?



As Hussar said, the DM has authority over the game. You have drawn a firm line between the application of this authority in setting up the game (which you say is perfectly fine), and the application of this authority when the dice are being rolled (which you say is not only wrong, but harmful). I see no such clear line; it's pure fabrication.

You have said that it would be alright for a DM to "start again" if it turns out that his planning was way off of what he intended. I see very little difference between that situation and an on-the-fly adjustment when the dice are being rolled ("fudging"). Certainly not enough of a difference to take it from "okay" to "harmful". I prefer the fudging method, if it's needed, since "starting over" would be far too metagamey for my tastes.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> For that matter, why roll the dice at all?



Because, (once again with feeling), we're discussing fudging *on occasion*, when the DM considers is necessary/desirable. No one has suggested that the DM simply decide the results of a battle. You seem to want to debate something that no one has actually said. I would suggest a new thread for that topic, since it's not what's being discussed here.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think the idea is that a GM's power is so easy to abuse, it's a good idea to restrict oneself with some rules, such as "Prepared written material is fixed once the session starts". Lines that even the GM can't cross, for fear of sliding down a slippery slope.



That's a fair comment, but "slippery slope" is generally considered to be a logical fallacy. If you have trust issues with your DM, that's typically not going to be solved by the ruleset.

If you trust your DM to not put you up against beholder liches at 1st level, can you not trust him with making on-the-fly adjustments in battle?


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 22, 2010)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> What do people think about fudging dice to make an encounter _harder_?



As in, "Oh, I didn't realize that _sleep_ could take out this monster, so guess what? Your one spell, which I gave you, doesn't work!"

As in, "I can't believe you took out so many so quickly. Well, guess what? They're, uh, _fanatics_ who never check morale. That's the ticket. Same with the horde of reinforcements that suddenly appears!" 

I do not like it in a house, I do not like it with a mouse.
I do not like it in a tree, being robbed of strategy.
Whether it ends in death or glory, I play to write
My _own_ darned story.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 22, 2010)

After years of rolling behind a screen playing _Rolemaster_, running 3.xx,_ Pathfinder_ and _Star Wars: SE_ all permit me to roll the dice in the open. I far prefer it that way as it increases tension.

If the encounter needs editing either to inrease or decrease the challenge, I would preer to be able to do that by:

-adding reinforcements
-adding one-shot magical resources available to the monsters (potion or scroll) on the fly
- increasing hit points or the to hit + or even damage of some of the monsters / NPCs or decreasing same

These are on the fly edits which are easy to accomplish without leaving the thing feeling entirely cooked up and railroady. I suspect my players never detect these on the fly edits.  As Piratecat mentions, I often edit to increase the challenge more than I do to decrease it.

Most combats that you get "wrong" are best left to be played out, as the consequences that go with too hard or too easy a fight are not that big a deal at the end of the day. Climactic boss battles however, are different.

Because of the competence of my players, I typically have them meeting encounters which are at least 4 ELs higher than their own level, and sometimes as many as six EL or even EIGHT ELs higher for a Boss battle if the players are lower to mid-level (the EL to 6 or 9+ is usually increased through the sheer number of foes they face, not massively inbalanced CRs) 

My players are excellent tacticians and know the 3.xx/Pathfinder combat rules extremely well.  They have survived such encounters routinely - though it's often a long and intense battle, to be sure.

Sometimes, I can overdo it, yes. Most of the time I let it go and play out and the players roll with it. There are LOTS of PCs who drop in to the negs and stabilize during combat, but as long as one person survives by encounter's end, it's all good. 

Overall, I prefer that sort of "holy crap" tension in boss battles, actually. It increases the feeling of "accomplishment" which I try to make available for the PCs to earn during a game session.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> So let's take this idea to it's conclusion.



I already did. I am drawing a line between what we (with our friends) imagine happens in a fantasy world, and what happens here in the real world (inasmuch as an internet messageboard can be considered to be the real world). What I pretend to do in my own fantasy world cannot possibly affect you, or what you pretend to do in your imaginary world with your friends.



pawsplay said:


> The everyone-is-entitled-to-their-opinion position, in addition to being uncomfortably amoral to my tastes, inevitibly leads to contradiction.



I agree, _when you're talking about something real_. Pizza is real. What I pretend to do in my imaginary world is not. There is an actual distinction there. When discussing real matters, an opinion can simply be wrong. But not when discussing purely imaginary things.



pawsplay said:


> However, I remain rooted in my own opinion, and any time I am asked, i will say the same thing: My advice is not to do it.



I have nothing against the advice, if phrased as such. I have nothing against anything you have said.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Every game is a game of make believe.  Including chess, baseball, whathaveyou.  If you accept that my tricking you into thinking you are great in chess is harmful, then the "game of make-believe" argument is inconsistent, at the very least.



You're _really_ stetching here.

"What you mean 'out'. That was a home run!"
"Yeah, but I _imagined_ it was an out."

But again, I think we should stay away from chess and baseball analogies, because they're very poor analogies for D&D. Being good at chess is relatively objective (if you're able to compare your abilities to the best players). Being good at D&D is not. There are no major-league D&D players, or grandmaster DMs. I'd suggest you stop making the comparisons, because they don't apply.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I would go so far as to say that if this is the only objective in your games, you might want to consider broadening the palette a bit.  This is only true if your game revolves around nothing but combat.



This is another point which I mentioned way back in the thread, and it seems to have gotten lost.

One of the reasons I don't mind fudging *at times*, *when called for*, is because surviving combat is not the only challenge in my games. Sometimes combat is a very minor part of a session.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 22, 2010)

> when the battle is pretty clearly won but the monsters are stubbornly, and boringly, sticking around.



Why??

I mean, _why_ are they sticking around?

What ever happened to _role-playing_?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Because, (once again with feeling), we're discussing fudging *on occasion*, when the DM considers is necessary/desirable.




This is followed directly by



> No one has suggested that the DM simply decide the results of a battle.




So, perhaps you can enlighten me as to when how the Miracle GM can fudge when he considers is necessary/desirable without by so doing deciding the results of a battle.



Ariosto said:


> I do not like it in a house, I do not like it with a mouse.
> I do not like it in a tree, being robbed of strategy.
> Whether it ends in death or glory, I play to write
> My _own_ darned story.




Excellent!  



Fifth Element said:


> I am drawing a line between what we (with our friends) imagine happens in a fantasy world, and what happens here in the real world (inasmuch as an internet messageboard can be considered to be the real world).




Sorry, but this doesn't remotely answer Pawsplay's objection.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 22, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Ariosto said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Apart from the rules-legalese phrasing, it's the same thing. (My phrasing was directly addressed to Fifth Element's "frustration in something that's supposed to be fun" stated rationale for fudging.)

Players get to suit themselves in the matter. In the _same situation_, Fifth Element can "save" his character while I "let the dice lie as they fall" for mine!


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, perhaps you can enlighten me as to when how the Miracle GM can fudge when he considers is necessary/desirable without by so doing deciding the results of a battle.



Because whether a specific PC dies or not in a battle is not the result of the battle. It is one of the results, certainly, and it can possibly affect the other results, but there's far more to it than that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Because whether a specific PC dies or not in a battle is not the result of the battle. It is one of the results, certainly, and it can possibly affect the other results, but there's far more to it than that.




See, here *I* think _*you*_ are splitting hairs!  

If "The result of a battle" is the sum of its parts, then changing any one of those parts perforce changes the sum.

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 =/= 5

I only need to change one numeral to change the result of the equation.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

If fudging is okay, and you believe your players also believe it is okay, why don't you let the players know when you think you should do so, and have a say at that point whether or not fudging shall occur?


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I only need to change one numeral to change the result of the equation.



I completely agree that such fudging *changes *the result of the battle. It does not, however, *decide *the result of the battle, which is what you suggested.

Saving a PC is not the same things as saying "All the bad guys are dead. You win." That would be deciding the result of the battle.

DMs decide *parts* of battles all the time: who a monster will attack, when a monster runs away, etc, etc. But deciding one part of a battle does not determine the final result. It's a complex system.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If fudging is okay, and you believe your players also believe it is okay, why don't you let the players know when you think you should do so, and have a say at that point whether or not fudging shall occur?



I've never suggested such a thing would be a bad idea. But on the other hand, I don't typically give players input into the adventure setup (one form of DM authority), so why give them input into another form of DM authority?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Well, if I were a player in a game, and I used my in-game resources (divination, etc.) to learn about the setting, I wouldn't expect "GM Authority" to prevent me from doing so, either.

If I decided my character would go left, and the GM just decided to move whatever was to the right to the left, I would be a bit miffed were I to discover it (and if I went back, and tried to go right, there is some chance that I would!).

DM authority can also decide to have the Tarrasque teleported in to face 1st level PCs, but that doesn't make it a good idea.


RC


----------



## Umbran (Apr 22, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I think some of the problem may be confusing earning respect for your position with earning agreement. I can understand and respect a viewpoint while still disagreeing with it. If, however, you take my disagreement as a sign of disrepect, unproductive arguing ensues, aside from any other complicating issues in the discussion.




Yes, there's some of that.  And then we must question - is the sign of disrespect being implied, inferred, or baldly stated?

Now, as we all know, anecdotal evidence is lousy for making generalizations.  However, it is still pretty good at _breaking_ generalizations.  In simple logic, if I assert that all horses are white, all we need to do is find one black horse to prove the assertion is false.

Let's try a statement - "Fudging is harmful".  

There's an unstated qualifier in there - the statement is more probably more precisely "Fudging is always harmful" or "Fudging is usually harmful".  If it is "always", all we need is to accept the anecdotal evidence from a single GM who found it not so to bust it down to "usually harmful". Then, we should (if we are reasonable people) need only accept anecdotal evidence from some number more GMs to bust that "usually" down to "sometimes".  

Is it so odd that people read disrespect when a bunch of them make observations that seem to not be taken into weight of evidence against a general statement?  

What it comes down to is this - if you aren't in the discussion to learn from the experience of others, and expecting (even actively seeking) to take their experiences to heart, that discussion is apt to go askew.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> DM authority can also decide to have the Tarrasque teleported in to face 1st level PCs, but that doesn't make it a good idea.



Let me ask you this. Say you have a character in a run of bad luck whose situation is looking dire. You think that fudging might be appropriate, for whatever reason. But instead of rolling the dice and ignoring the result, you decide that the monster attacks another PC instead, even though the hard-luck PC might be a more natural target.

Is that form of fudging alright? DMs have absolute discretion over monster tactics in battle. Can they fudge this way without it being harmful?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Now, as we all know, anecdotal evidence is lousy for making generalizations.  However, it is still pretty good at _breaking_ generalizations.




Driving through the red light is a bad idea.  That is a generalization.  It is also true that you might run through the red light without getting caught, hitting a pedestrian, or striking another vehicle.  I would go so far as to say that this happens very, very often.  But it in no way disproved the general claim.  Driving through the red light is still a bad idea.



Fifth Element said:


> Let me ask you this. Say you have a character in a run of bad luck whose situation is looking dire. You think that fudging might be appropriate, for whatever reason. But instead of rolling the dice and ignoring the result, you decide that the monster attacks another PC instead, even though the hard-luck PC might be a more natural target.
> 
> Is that form of fudging alright? DMs have absolute discretion over monster tactics in battle. Can they fudge this way without it being harmful?




If the hard-luck PC is the natural target, that doesn't change.  Players are very likely to notice switching targets like this, and I would suggest that this is in some ways worse than just fudging the die.

If the players want to save the hard-luck PC, it is up to them to do something.  It is not up to the GM.


RC


----------



## Umbran (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If fudging is okay, and you believe your players also believe it is okay, why don't you let the players know when you think you should do so, and have a say at that point whether or not fudging shall occur?




How about these apples - _because they asked me not to tell them_!

I kid you not.  Because of these discussions, I explicitly asked my players if they want me to fudge or not.  Nine out of nine questioned said they didn't mind if I fudged.  All also stated a preference to not know if/when I fudged.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> See, here *I* think _*you*_ are splitting hairs!
> 
> If "The result of a battle" is the sum of its parts, then changing any one of those parts perforce changes the sum.
> 
> ...




The imprecision of inputs into the events in a D&D game do not yield the same precise mathematic results as addition of integers. It's entirely possible to have:

Event A + Event B + Event C => Situation Z
Event A + Event B + Event D => Situation Z


----------



## Janx (Apr 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Yes, there's some of that.  And then we must question - is the sign of disrespect being implied, inferred, or baldly stated?
> 
> Now, as we all know, anecdotal evidence is lousy for making generalizations.  However, it is still pretty good at _breaking_ generalizations.  In simple logic, if I assert that all horses are white, all we need to do is find one black horse to prove the assertion is false.
> 
> ...




I'll buy that.

As speakers, I think we all tend to make a general statement or observation, and not qualify it.  like putting "usually" or "in my experience" in front of these bold statements.

We also tend to toss out words like "wrong" on topics that clearly somebody disagrees on.

If I say, "Fish can't swim in water".  That's quite clearly attempting to state a fact and it's wrong.  It's not an opinion.  It's a simple fact (not a complex one) that fish live in water, and they swim in it.

Wheras, on a complex topic like "fuidging causes harm", there's clearly 2 sides of the fence on this, and therefore does not lie in the realm of "hard or simple fact".  Furthermore, for the sake of diplomacy, it'd probably be best to avoid using the word "wrong", because it sets the other side on guard, and they stop listening.

Personally, I like discussing things with people who don't do it the way I do, but are able to ask open questions of my method, and explain WHY they use their method.  particularly when it is done in a way that gives me ideas to modify my method.

What makes these threads go south is when somebody escalates the defense of something, and stronger words get used, which in turn causes the other side to react in kind.  Oft times, it's one statement poorly worded, leads to a retort, and so on.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If the hard-luck PC is the natural target, that doesn't change.  Players are very likely to notice switching targets like this, and I would suggest that this is in some ways worse than just fudging the die.



The problem is that "natural target" is very subjective. There are any number of reasons a monster might switch targets - another PC being a greater threat, another PC attacking is more recently, etc. This seems to go back to the "DM purely as neutral arbiter" argument, which I think is flawed because the DM has so much subjective authority (such as complete control over monster actions) as to make it an impossible goal.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> How about these apples - _because they asked me not to tell them_!
> 
> I kid you not.  Because of these discussions, I explicitly asked my players if they want me to fudge or not.  Nine out of nine questioned said they didn't mind if I fudged.  All also stated a preference to not know if/when I fudged.



I'm quite sure my players are the same way. I've never said that I think my players don't know that fudging goes on - I'm 100% sure they do know. And yet, not one has ever complained about it.


----------



## Janx (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, if I were a player in a game, and I used my in-game resources (divination, etc.) to learn about the setting, I wouldn't expect "GM Authority" to prevent me from doing so, either.
> 
> If I decided my character would go left, and the GM just decided to move whatever was to the right to the left, I would be a bit miffed were I to discover it (and if I went back, and tried to go right, there is some chance that I would!).
> 
> ...




I think what's really being debated, are the GM's Rules of Engagement.

What is the DM allowed to do to craft an encounter, run an encounter?

What is the DM allowed to do to craft a story/create situations?


For me, when RC and others are wary of the GM influencing the outcome, I think that's inherent by virtue of there being a GM.  Furthermore, I think it is Player Entitlement to assume that the players have more right to the outcome than the GM (fine line in there).  Since the GM made the cake, he gets to decide the flavor, frosting, and who gets to have a slice.  Don't like it, find a new GM.  if it's bad cake, the GM won't have any takers.  Unless you are paying the GM, players don't get control over what the GM does, because the player is not the boss.

The corollary to that is, the GM can't ram cake down the player's throats.  And players won't eat another bite if it tastes bad.  And players can certainly suggest and influence the GM to make a certain kind of cake, or size of serving.

So if I want to make cake that I can share with my friends, and my friends apparently have different tastes than RC's, what are the rules of engagement should I use?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> How about these apples - _because they asked me not to tell them_!
> 
> I kid you not.  Because of these discussions, I explicitly asked my players if they want me to fudge or not.  Nine out of nine questioned said they didn't mind if I fudged.  All also stated a preference to not know if/when I fudged.




Excellent.

If you are willing to continue to supply anecdotes, please ask them why they have a preference not to know.


RC


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 22, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> As Hussar said, the DM has authority over the game. You have drawn a firm line between the application of this authority in setting up the game (which you say is perfectly fine), and the application of this authority when the dice are being rolled (which you say is not only wrong, but harmful). I see no such clear line; it's pure fabrication.



This, in my mind, is the difference between playing with a DM and playing a computer game. If my DM didn't take into account good or bad party performance and tactics when running an encounter, in the long run I probably wouldn't consider them a DM I wanted to play with. I want accidentally easy encounters toughened up a bit, and I don't want a boring fight because the DM accidentally chose insubstantial, weakening creatures when he laid out the encounter three days ago.


----------



## Janx (Apr 22, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> The problem is that "natural target" is very subjective. There are any number of reasons a monster might switch targets - another PC being a greater threat, another PC attacking is more recently, etc. This seems to go back to the "DM purely as neutral arbiter" argument, which I think is flawed because the DM has so much subjective authority (such as complete control over monster actions) as to make it an impossible goal.




This is one of the reasons why I feel that what happens in the game is an illusion, and the GM is inherently biasing the game.  Assuming perfectly balanced encounter, and open die rolling, I stiill get to make up what the monsters do.

And if that's the case, how do we trust what I decide the monsters do is fair?

What are some rules of engagement for running an encounter that some people seem to have?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Driving through the red light is a bad idea.  That is a generalization.  It is also true that you might run through the red light without getting caught, hitting a pedestrian, or striking another vehicle.  I would go so far as to say that this happens very, very often.  But it in no way disproved the general claim.  Driving through the red light is still a bad idea.




Wow.  And you were complaining about people bringing up weak points?  Do you imagine that if I break this generalization in my game, one of my players driven mad with despair will suddenly go careening through your session with a knife?

Please, find a more reasonable analogy, or describe to me how likening a fudged die roll to a situation where the risk is of death or horrible mutilating bodily injury is anything other than bald hyperbole.

"The logic is the same" is a defense valid on the planet Vulcan - a planet on which we do not currently sit.  To a reasonable person, levels of proof required should be in line with the risk involved.  The proof required to reject the red-light generalization needs to be proof we are willing to bet lives on.  The proof required to reject the fudging is bad generalization needs to be enough to bet... what?  That someone in someone else's game might have a bit less of a fun time?  

If I may add - there are some decent solid statistics in place about the correlation between running traffic lights and traffic accidents.  That's a basis for a risk assessment leading to a generalization.  In this debate, I'm betting you've got nothing better than your own assertions and anecdotal evidence - the same thing as your opponents. So how is your risk assessment any better than theirs? 

My point is this - If you want to stolidly take your own personal assessment over that of others, that's your choice, and I'll defend your right to make it for yourself.  But if you do it publicly, preachily and repeatedly to their faces, don't expect them to feel like you respect them when you do it.

By the way, I only address this to RC because he stepped up as the example at hand.  It goes for lots of others - both sides of the edition wars, and any other "game style wars" running around among them.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 22, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> As in, "Oh, I didn't realize that _sleep_ could take out this monster, so guess what? Your one spell, which I gave you, doesn't work!"
> 
> As in, "I can't believe you took out so many so quickly. Well, guess what? They're, uh, _fanatics_ who never check morale. That's the ticket. Same with the horde of reinforcements that suddenly appears!"



 No. Both of those smack of punishing the PCs for being successful, and I don't like that. I want the PCs to win, and I want them to be heroic.



> Whether it ends in death or glory, I play to write
> My _own_ darned story.



This? This I absolutely understand and agree with.

Problem is, it's not really your own story. It's the story of everyone who is playing. If the DM can make your story cooler by giving you more opportunities to be heroic, or by making the fight more tactically interesting, I have trouble seeing that as a bad thing. (Assuming you trust your DM; if you don't, and I've definitely had some like that, all bets are off.)



Ariosto said:


> Why??
> 
> I mean, _why_ are they sticking around?
> 
> What ever happened to _role-playing_?



Well, the last time this happened to me we were fighting ambulatory plants; not great tacticians, and they _suck_ at diplomacy. Your point is a good one, though. My PCs used intimidate just this week to shut down a battle early after they took out the leader of their foes.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 22, 2010)

If I wanted a DM to fudge, then I probably would not want to get told about it. As it is something that I do _not_ appreciate, having it above the board merely takes away some of the sting. I can easily see where in fact I have played well or poorly, and when minor tactics are all the choices I've got left that means a lot to me.

However, in that case I am already at a remove from role-playing, having to act in "meta-game" constraints for the sake of the "plot line".

If I happened to like the arrangement, then I would not want to _add_ such a distraction as the DM drawing attention to "fudging". Heck, I would probably prefer that all the DM's rolls be hidden, to minimize the chances of noticing.

I am not big on spending "joss factors" or the like, either -- but that is especially true in D&D, because that's not what D&D has ever meant to me. It's not what I want when I want D&D, any more than playing a planter in Puerto Rico would be what I want when I get a hankering to play Rail Baron.

The "karma" rules are a key part of Marvel Super Heroes, though. Moreover, I can't help but be a bit less "in the shoes of" a crime-smashing crusader in tights in a world of comic-book physics and identities kept secret by wearing glasses. I guess I play it more like She-Hulk than like The Watchmen.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> How about these apples - _because they asked me not to tell them_!
> 
> I kid you not.  Because of these discussions, I explicitly asked my players if they want me to fudge or not.  Nine out of nine questioned said they didn't mind if I fudged.  All also stated a preference to not know if/when I fudged.




That is an excellent reason.  Kudos for asking.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 22, 2010)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Problem is, it's not really your own story. It's the story of everyone who is playing. If the DM can make your story cooler by giving you more opportunities to be heroic, or by making the fight more tactically interesting, I have trouble seeing that as a bad thing. (Assuming you trust your DM; if you don't, and I've definitely had some like that, all bets are off.)



In that doggerel, I was not saying "story" with a straight face. It's a _game_. I don't want the GM pulling that stuff in Diplomacy, or in a Napoleonic miniatures campaign -- and it's no different in D&D.

A DM earns my trust by _not_ pulling stuff like that.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 22, 2010)

NOTE:  I have only read 22 pages, so if this has already been addressed... then never mind. 



Raven Crowking said:


> What you quote was intended to help build a general case, in which specific cases could then be addressed.  So long as "cheating causes no harm" is the predominant meme of the discussion, there is no way to discuss or describe harm done.  It is dismissed.



I think that there may be an unintentional strawman here.  This statement assumes that fudging == cheating.  If there are multiple statements in multiple editions about DMs/Gms/Referees fudging the dice or making changes on the fly in an attempt to aid the gameplay experience, how is it considered cheating?

I disagree that the predominant meme of the discussion is "cheating causes no harm".




Piratecat said:


> What do people think about fudging dice to make an encounter _harder_?






Doug McCrae said:


> Piratecat raises an interesting point about fudging in both directions. While I don't fudge when I GM, I find I still have vast influence over events, even when I do stick to the rules (sometimes I don't), thru the GM's ability to control ad hoc modifiers, make rulings, and decide the actions of NPCs and the way the environment operates. Not to mention being the player's only source of information. That's massive, colossal, gigantic power right there. A power I definitely abuse, almost always to make fights closer than they would otherwise be. In other words I make easy fights harder and really hard fights, where it looks like the PCs are going to lose, easier.



In my 4e games, since I roll out in the open now, have had almost no dice fudging in the past two years.  But...  I have made some on-the-fly modifications to damage expressions, remaining monster hit points, and/or the secret addition or removal of a monster power.

Sometimes this is done pregame if I think the session is a player short or if the PC party is stronger/weaker than originally expected.  

Sometimes I have done it mid-encounter.  Players don't know about it one way or the other, but it has helped to speed up grind, add some anxiety to an encounter that has seemed to be a breeze, and once to ease up on an encounter that was way to strong for the party and I couldn't tell just by looking at the stat-block prior to actually seeing the monsters and their effects in play.

[Note:  I am running Scales of War, so the encounters have been developed already.]


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Spotting the pieces before play sets up what the challenge is; spotting the pieces after play begins is a combination of "bait & switch" with the added insult that I decided you weren't up to the game we agreed to play.
> 
> Let me add, further, that in the case of the DM fudging, the player doesn't get a choice at the time of infraction.  So, not only do I spot you the piece and insult you, but you don't get to decide to continue the game we agreed upon.



What if you didn't design the encounter and are running a module or an AP?

In some rare cases it's difficult to assess the relative strength of an encounter until you have started running it and it turns badly.  Spotting the pieces in play, in this case, isn't a bait & switch, nor have the players agreed to play that particular encounter... they have agreed to participate in a game of D&D and expects that the DM will make the game engaging, exciting, fun, or whatever positive descriptor you want to use.

My players don't sign off or agree to each encounter.  They simply expect me, as the DM, to give them a good game.

And in these rare cases, an on-the-fly modification is not a breach of some gaming contract, social or otherwise.  It is the DM trying to bring the _[insert positive descriptor]_ to the game. How is modifying an encounter then an "insult"?  I still don't understand the insult part.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 22, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> What if you didn't design the encounter and are running a module or an AP?



Good point. No third-party author will ever know my party as well as I do. Nor do I expect them to. Adapting a module to my group is something I'll generally do on the fly.


----------



## Janx (Apr 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> How about these apples - _because they asked me not to tell them_!
> 
> I kid you not.  Because of these discussions, I explicitly asked my players if they want me to fudge or not.  Nine out of nine questioned said they didn't mind if I fudged.  All also stated a preference to not know if/when I fudged.




Similar to the response I'm getting, I started asking around last night.

My wife totally doesn't mind fudging (she used to also be more prone to pouting when she got hurt bad...)

One buddy I got ahold of was a bit more complex.  He didn't mind fudging to save his PC occasionally.  In the sense that he wouldn't remember it.  

What he didn't like so much (of our long time GM), was getting put up against mega-overwheliming odds and then the fudging that would occur to save us.

He preferred level appropriate challenges, something our common DM friend doesn't pay close attention to.   He felt the fudging that he was certain was happening so the 7th level party might win the battler versus epic dragons was what bothered him.

It might be easiest to say, "you'd have to play with our DM" to understand how the party ends up in such situations.  it's not as simple as we got stupid and looked for trouble, or sought out the biggest dragon in the land.  The chain of events ends up being we pursue a goal that seems logical to our characters, and the final obstacle is way out of our league, and running away isn't in character (or possibly even a solution).

What he does like (and PC alludes to it) is facing seemingly overwhelming odds, and through a clever solution/plan, we overcome and are victorious.

I haven't gotten ahold of all my friends, but I suspect they have similar views.

I think as players, my bunch prefers encounters be level appropriate.  With the hardest being "just on the edge" of what we can take.  that's not to say bigger stuff doesn't exist, only that it isn't on the logical path to the goal such that we get locked in to facing something way out of our league.

An over simplified example would be, a first level party confronts a highwayman, only to discover he's an ancient red dragon in disguise and he plans to kill them.  A more "realistic" example might be the party goes to confront a dragon that's causing trouble, and when they meet him, they discover his actual size.

Now the simple counter argument is, "just run away".  As a player, sometimes that just isn't an option.  Just like real life.  There are some problems you can't outrun.  I also haven't said that we don't run.  But sometimes you still gotta go back and fight it eventually.

It's also true in real life, that there are some problems that you can't beat, but I think the counter to that is "I ain't playin an RPG to suck as much as real life can".


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 22, 2010)

Part of it is choice of system. If you're using a system where fights are quick, and you have a lot of them each session, then it doesn't matter if some are easier, or harder, than expected. If you only have a few, big fights but they are more significant, such as a battle against a BBEG, it's more important to 'get it right'. Such a fight needs to be challenging. It sucks, imho, if the boss goes down to a failed save in round 1. (Though I concede that the player who wins the fight with his spell probably loves it, it gives a greater feeling of verisimilitude, and the unpredictability factor is also pleasing.)

One can make a case that rpgs should have multiple combat systems, or at least options, to make 'wandering monster' type fights quick, and big boss fights long. Though another solution would be just to dispense with wandering monsters and the like altogether.

I experienced an instance where I felt the GM should've fudged*, but didn't, along these lines. We were playing a oneoff, but very long, session of d20 Silver Age Sentinels, a superhero game. We'd never played it before so none of us knew the rules very well. There had been quite a lot of fights in the session, all pretty tactically interesting, and we'd won all of them, mostly with ease. We were confronting the end-of-session bad guy, a Galactus-like space giant. The BBEG, intended to be a very tough fight, had something like 7 attacks a round, but in the first round of combat a PC with debuffing powers used them to cancel the Big G's 'multiple attack' power and reduce him to one attack per round. This single move basically won the fight for us and, imo, was very anti-climactic. I'd actually have preferred it if we'd lost the fight, there's no prob with the PCs losing at the end of a oneoff and it would've, to my mind, been a pleasing contrast to our previous success. Brought low by our overconfidence!

I think the GM should've ruled that the debuffer only reduced Galactus's attacks to 6 or something. Not useless, and the debuffer could've kept debuffing each round if he wanted. Much more interesting. We later learned in fact that we'd got the rules wrong and the debuffer couldn't have done what he did, but that doesn't matter, it's what we believed the rules to be at the time.

*I realise I am contradicting what I said earlier in this thread about never wanting a GM to fudge. It may be wisest to ignore everything I say, as I clearly don't even know my own preferences.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 22, 2010)

> If there are multiple statements in multiple editions about DMs/Gms/Referees fudging the dice or making changes on the fly in an attempt to aid the gameplay experience, how is it considered cheating?



It is not mentioned in the Original Edition, any more than in the wargames campaign rules that preceded it. I don't recall even any mere mention in _any_ game handbook prior to the 1979 DMG, and I never met anyone until very recently who read the advice to "let the dice fall where they may!" as meaning just the opposite of what seems plain enough to me.

As far as I can tell, this notion of such intervention "aiding the gameplay experience" originated within a subculture of the subculture of D&D, part of the experimentation that the Original set -- not prescriptive but descriptive of an experiment -- very explicitly encouraged.

So, _sometimes_ the very simple answer as to how it is considered cheating is "as a value ingrained in us when we were very young and customs in many things were different."

On the other hand, someone who cut his teeth on _Vampire: the Masquerade_ or _Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Second Edition_ might take for granted that it is the DM's job so to intervene.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 22, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I never met anyone until very recently who read the advice to "let the dice fall where they may!" as meaning just the opposite of what seems plain enough to me.



I interpret Gary's advice in the 1e DMG to be "let the dice fall where they may! (Mostly.)"


----------



## Janx (Apr 22, 2010)

Continuing the concept of rules of engagement, which I think lead up to "will your PCs need saving":

for any given adventure/session, during the planning stage is the GM constained by anything?

What is the minimum CR/EL an encounter is allowed to be relative to the party?

What is the maximum CR/EL an encounter is allowed to be relative to the party?

how many CRs/ELs must the party face before being allowed a healing break (end of day, access to potions, clerics, etc)?

What guidelines do the monsters follow in determining their targets/tactics?

What non-combat alternatives must be made viable for this encounter?


I write that last one, because as a DM, I can manipulate things such that Combat is the most obvious and seemingly only viable choice, without the players even thinking to try something else.  I don't even have to say "No, that won't work".   Without actually shutting down anything (a railroad), I can fool the players into seeing combat as the only way out.  

I suspect a lot of DMs do this unintentionally, which I raise it as a "power" of the DM, that should be used carefully, or actively countered by the DM to prevent abuse and open up options.


Let's look at all this as a problem to solve in "my" game.  If something useful comes out of this, I'll incorporate it into my practices.

the problem I think I'm interested in solving, or establishing "how I should manage my game" guidelines, is that when the PCs decide to go stop the bandit leader and his gang of thugs from raiding caravans, that they don't see so many encounters before a healing break that they have no reasonable chance to survive.  And that when they get there, they face a credible foe, and have a feasible chance to beat him.  As opposed to undertaking a quest that they thought was "for them", getting there, and haviing to run away, and taking a hit to their reputation, all for trying to do the right thing and have a good time.

I also have an added constraint, that I do NOT like capturing the PCs.  Done poorly, it leads to railroading, and awkward game play as the GM is seldom prepared to run an impromptu jail break with all the necessary security holes to let the PCs wake up, escape, so they can get back in the groove.

I also don't like having to baby 1st levels, because they have too few HP, and knocking them out or killing them all the time just slows the game down each time they have to regroup.  Part of this is a game design issue (PCs need more HP), the other part is 1st levels need to face REALLY wimpy enemies that only do 1-2 damage, and anything that holds a weapon, does more than that.

I also don't like having a huge pile of house rules.  But I want to keep playing 3.5e D&D. That's a picky constraint, but honestly, I suspect any DM who fudges is operating as I describe.

I can't say what'll help the conversation, I suspect some of you will have some clever insights.  Some of you will go on a hostile tangent that I'm doing it wrong.  Given that overall, I don't ACTUALLY have a problem with how I do things, that line of marketting ain't gonna get your proposal a sale.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 22, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> It is not mentioned in the Original Edition, any more than in the wargames campaign rules that preceded it. I don't recall even any mere mention in _any_ game handbook prior to the 1979 DMG, and I never met anyone until very recently who read the advice to "let the dice fall where they may!" as meaning just the opposite of what seems plain enough to me.



Fair enough.  But there are a lot of people on this board that learned with 1e AD&D or later and in these cases, there were suggestions in certain extreme cases to fudge the dice or modify the results on the fly.



Ariosto said:


> As far as I can tell, this notion of such intervention "aiding the gameplay experience" originated within a subculture of the subculture of D&D, part of the experimentation that the Original set -- not prescriptive but descriptive of an experiment -- very explicitly encouraged.



And as far as I can tell, the notion of DM intervention (not just in rolls or encounter design or many other aspects of the game) was part and parcel to playing D&D, as this is how the first 2-3 DMs I learned from did things.

But then again, it is possible (and likely) that we had two different experiences with learning 1e AD&D.



Ariosto said:


> So, _sometimes_ the very simple answer as to how it is considered cheating is "as a value ingrained in us when we were very young and customs in many things were different."
> 
> On the other hand, someone who cut his teeth on _Vampire: the Masquerade_ or _Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Second Edition_ might take for granted that it is the DM's job so to intervene.



In this we agree. If the custom learned around the your* D&D table in the beginning was that when a DM fudged dice, or modifying encounters on the fly, was considered cheating or doing it "wrong", then that is what you learned and your first statement applies perfectly.

Some people didn't learn this though...

*the use of "your" here is in the generic sense... not specifically discussing the quoted poster's D&D table.


----------



## Janx (Apr 22, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> *I realise I am contradicting what I said earlier in this thread about never wanting a GM to fudge. It may be wisest to ignore everything I say, as I clearly don't even know my own preferences.




Or, we could acknowledge that for each of us, when describing how we do things, it is a general pattern, and sometimes there are exceptions.

I got no problem with you mostly not wanting fudging, but sometimes a situation comes up that should have been fudged.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 22, 2010)

Janx said:
			
		

> Continuing the concept of rules of engagement, which I think lead up to "will your PCs need saving":




Some basic assumptions of a set of later games, especially of WotC-D&D, look to me prominent here. If one has in the first place given something to the DM to dictate, then of course "with great power comes great responsibility". 

In the game I expect to play this weekend, the DM is pretty firmly of that school. Either we follow his "plot line", or he's got no game. When we get into a fight, it's because he has decided that's the next thing on the program.

A lot of stuff makes a sort of sense in that context, provided one accepts the initial premise as to what the DM decides. I think the initial premise is a drag, but not as much as it would be in the other games going -- and I like a break from being DM.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Please, find a more reasonable analogy, or describe to me how likening a fudged die roll to a situation where the risk is of death or horrible mutilating bodily injury is anything other than bald hyperbole.




I used an obvious example to show where you logic was at fault -- nothing more, nothing less.  You said (effectively) that one can disprove a generalization via anecdote.  I demonstrated that this doesn't follow.

As I asked before, if you are willing to continue to supply anecdotes, please ask your players why they have a preference not to know when you fudge.


RC


----------



## Reynard (Apr 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If the players want to save the hard-luck PC, it is up to them to do something.  It is not up to the GM.




This, a lot. A lot of times, these discussions veer toward the extreme sort of examples that never happen at an actual table. We forget that there are about a half dozen individuals around the table and every one of them has a decision point somewhere in the chain that leads to the "to fudge or not to fudge" choice. (Of course a singular crit or whatever can lead to doom, but to me that's a feature and not a bug, but if it is a big, I think it is better to change the rules of play than to fudge during play.)

If the fight is going poorly for the PCs, they need to act, to change their strategy or suffer the consequences of their decisions. If that means going to support a comrade rather than continue to hammer the BBEG, or to flee to fight another day, or whatever, so be it. It should not be incumbent upon the GM to make sure everyone has a rollicking good time regardless or in spite of whatever decision the players make.. They bear some responsibility for their own fun and the outcome of the game.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Reynard said:


> It should not be incumbent upon the GM to make sure everyone has a  rollicking good time regardless or in spite of whatever decision the  players make.



Speaking of veering to extremes...

(No one is suggesting this.)



Reynard said:


> They bear some responsibility for their own fun and the outcome of the game.



Of course they bear _some_ of the responsibility. The DM also bears some. As such there's nothing wrong with the DM using some of his game-given authority to fulfill this responsibility.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> As I asked before, if you are willing to continue to supply anecdotes, please ask your players why they have a preference not to know when you fudge.



I would suspect it has something to do with breaking their immersion in the game, similar to what would happen if the DM said "oops, can we start again?"


----------



## Eloi (Apr 23, 2010)

Have any of the characters gotten their hands on some "I really don't want to use this, but.." items, like a little glass sphere that can summon a Demon, if you are willing to "pay his price" afterward? The characters may have all the tools they need to change the situation from hopeless to "survivable, yet more complicated."

Here's how I'd see a situation like this turn from one "We're all gonna die" mode into another "Uh.. maybe not. Maybe." mode, with the GM playing fast and loose:

Monster lair. Major baddie, Jar-Snapper. Party has been fighting him a few rounds, Jar has big nasty friends, and he is demonstrating that he can probably win this one all by himself. Handily. It's clear that something drastic needs to be done.

A conscious PC pulls out (Rent-A-Demon) sphere, says to it, "All right, I need your help, come forth Krexus and fight my foes!"

The earth rumbles. (The GM gets a crazed look in his eye.) A previously less-noticed NPC, one of the uninvolved guards at a further-away tunnel entrance to the lair suddenly goes pale, and yelps,

"No. No! Crap!"

..and bolts away down an unexplored tunnel.

The big baddie is frozen, seeming suddenly shocked and deeply, deeply disturbed. A head suddenly erupts from the side of Jar-Snapper's neck.. a head which is larger than the baddie's. Much larger. The new head's sudden appearance arrests the attention of all the NPCs. (Combat ceases.)

The warty yet horrified face of Krexus, meanwhile, is frantically shaking itself from side to side in the sphere. He half-moans, "I'm not fighting *him*! You're on your own!"- and the sphere shuts down.

How do the conscious characters take advantage of the situation? And later: What exactly happened there? 

--and that's just one way a GM can "save" the PCs. Unexpected consequences, holdout items, disturbing new revelations, and opportunities to bluff or run - good times.

But it does rely on the characters to realize when it might be a good time to use the item "they'd rather not." Give the GM something to work with, people. When you have the chance to obtain that new, experimental "Wand of Greater Wonders", do it. Don't sell the Enigma Device.. hang on to it a while. Yes, it sometimes cries at night. Keep it anyway.

And for the love of wonder, doesn't anyone in the party have a maxed out Bluff skill? Preparation needs to meet Opportunity wearing a freshly-pressed suit with a rose in the lapel sometimes, it helps quite a bit.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I would suspect it has something to do with breaking their immersion in the game, similar to what would happen if the DM said "oops, can we start again?"




Ask.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I used an obvious example to show where you logic was at fault -- nothing more, nothing less.  You said (effectively) that one can disprove a generalization via anecdote.  I demonstrated that this doesn't follow.




I feel I addressed that.  If pure and honest logic were the only factor, nobody here on either side would be making the generalizations, as they'd admit that their sample size was too small for such.

We are thus already in a realm of less-than-pure logic.  In that realm, i think my statements stand pretty well.



> As I asked before, if you are willing to continue to supply anecdotes, please ask your players why they have a preference not to know when you fudge.




They already told me.

Most of them feel that such an announcement would serve to break suspension of disbelief, and generally throw a monkey-wrench in dramatic tension.

A couple of them recognize that occasional adjustment on the GM's part should not impact their tactical decisions.  The best way to ensure that it doesn't is that they not know the adjustment ever happened.

I should add - I also made my guesses as to what the answers were going to be before I asked the question.  All my guesses were spot on.  A couple even commented that they thought the question was a bit silly - that if they didn't trust me to deal with GM's stuff, they'd not play with me at all.


----------



## Kingreaper (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, if I were a player in a game, and I used my in-game resources (divination, etc.) to learn about the setting, I wouldn't expect "GM Authority" to prevent me from doing so, either.
> 
> If I decided my character would go left, and the GM just decided to move whatever was to the right to the left, I would be a bit miffed were I to discover it (and if I went back, and tried to go right, there is some chance that I would!).




If you decided based on actual evidence (ie. you looked at the paths, saw one was more worn, etc.) then I could understand that. The choice should have been meaningful.

But if you're going "Hmmm, I pick a direction at random, and I expect the GM to have decided what's in each direction already"
No.

The choice wasn't meaningful. You might as well have flipped a coin.

Meaningless choices shouldn't be put on that kind of pedestal, above the needs of GM, players, story, and gameplay.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Of course they bear _some_ of the responsibility. The DM also bears some. As such there's nothing wrong with the DM using some of his game-given authority to fulfill this responsibility.




Perhaps true, but that doesn't change the fact that discussions of fudging center almost entirely around the GM making that decision and, more importantly (as is very well evidenced by this thread), bearing the primary responsibility for the outcome of the fudging or lack thereof. My points were simply these:

1) If the rules ask you to fudge too often for your tastes, use different rules. Eliminate crits or save or dies or whatever, or otherwise modify things so that the unexpected TPK or even individual character death cannot occur. I can't for the life of me figure out why one would play with these options on the table if they were not permissible in play.

2) Whatever rules are in play, the Players are responsible for knowing them and using them. If crits are a possibility and the big, raging orc in front has a falcion,PCs aught figure out a way to deal with him that avoids being within swinging distance or accept the possibility one of them is going to get split in twain.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 23, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> If you decided based on actual evidence (ie. you looked at the paths, saw one was more worn, etc.) then I could understand that. The choice should have been meaningful.
> 
> But if you're going "Hmmm, I pick a direction at random, and I expect the GM to have decided what's in each direction already"
> No.
> ...




I think RC was suggesting that in his example there were no meaningful choices because there really was no choice. Left or Right were really both Straight because the "fudging" taking place was of the railroady kind, rather than the die-shifting kind.  Moreover, it seems his point is that if you place a lair in hex 8G, it's there whenever and however the PCs wander into that hex, even if they are short on resources and just hoping for a safe place to camp.


----------



## Kingreaper (Apr 23, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I think RC was suggesting that in his example there were no meaningful choices because there really was no choice. Left or Right were really both Straight because the "fudging" taking place was of the railroady kind, rather than the die-shifting kind.  Moreover, it seems his point is that if you place a lair in hex 8G, it's there whenever and however the PCs wander into that hex, even if they are short on resources and just hoping for a safe place to camp.




If you're playing a Hex exploration game, I expect you to make EVERY choice a meaningful choice.

In a Hex exploration game, where every step might bring disaster, I'm gonna have skills in whatever will give me a chance to see what I'm approaching. So, I'm not going to be picking at random, I'm going to have evidence.

If, after I have that evidence, and base my choice upon it, the result isn't really consistent with the evidence, I'll be annoyed. Because a meaningful choice has been changed.


But if I'm playing a dungeon-crawl as I normally do (rather than a hex-map dungeon-trawl), I likely haven't had enough evidence to pick my path based on. So I won't care if it's a schroedinger's path, because I didn't make a meaningful choice anyway; I just made a choice for narrative necessity


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Reynard said:


> Perhaps true, but that doesn't change the fact that discussions of fudging center almost entirely around the GM making that decision and, more importantly (as is very well evidenced by this thread), bearing the primary responsibility for the outcome of the fudging or lack thereof.



Since only the DM is given that authority by the game, I don't see that as an issue.

Does the DM bear primary responsibility for this aspect of the game? I'd say so. But again, since he bears the primary responsibility for the game as a whole, I don't see that as a problem.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I would suspect it has something to do with breaking their immersion in the game, similar to what would happen if the DM said "oops, can we start again?"



Yes, that's what I would figure.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> If the fight is going poorly for the PCs, they need to act, to change their strategy or suffer the consequences of their decisions. If that means going to support a comrade rather than continue to hammer the BBEG, or to flee to fight another day, or whatever, so be it.



Yes.

Now, a TPK is a _whole lot_ easier to come by in OD&D with 1st-level rolled-up HP (potentially as few as ~O~N~E~). It's still not as easy as, say, 1/4 to 1/3 KIA -- but I reckon plenty of people are really just concerned about that basic mortality rate (especially among their very own characters).

Even without the "segments" of surprise a la AD&D, it is sometimes possible for the monsters to get in a couple of rounds of attacks before the party gets to respond -- and in that case breaking off combat to flee would (by common convention from _Chainmail_, made explicit in Holmes) expose the survivors to attack against their backs.

Every once in a while, even a rear guard won't save the party. It's not that anyone did anything wrong, just fortune. "Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you."

If memory serves, "maximum on the first hit die" is Duh Uffishul Roolz in 3E. At any rate, it was universal custom in my experience. It might not guarantee survival of the first hit, but that's one great leap for first-level-kind!


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 23, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Never said anything about you.  I said, the lesson that I took from high lethality and PC turnover was that I should never really bother engaging in the setting or the character because, well, why bother?  I'll just be rolling up another character in a couple of weeks anyway.




Actually, you did. You said:



> Like Pawsplay, I too started off with characters with a half-life measured in minutes.




That seems to be saying that characters in my game have a half-life measured in minutes. Feel free to clarify.



> I note you only mention the one character that survived.




Yeah, over 19 levels. 



> How about the other ones?




Oh, most of them have only been with the campaign since level... 3. One of the other new characters was a late joining player, and I guess you can put him down for one death and resurrection. I've definitely had more characters rotate out due to players wanting to have a new character, and because of new players, each separately, than due to deaths. And even that's counting deaths were resurrection was possible, but the player elected for a heroic burial and to try a new character. 

This is the same campaign as the "It's only ogres" comment, so I'm not pulling punches, either. 

My campaign has been successful without fudged rolls. I guess that may be hard for some people to believe, but I tend to think that's because the conventional wisdom says that story-driven campaigns rely on it, so that's what people do. I'm not sure how many people try to run games the way I do, but in my experience, it's very doable.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Since only the DM is given that authority by the game, I don't see that as an issue.




Authority is granted by people, not games. I wonder why it would be different if a player fudged a roll "for the good of the story."


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Authority is granted by people, not games. I wonder why it would be different if a player fudged a roll "for the good of the story."



Sorry, I'm talking about the default assumption of D&D specifically, which is that the DM has final authority over the game.

If you agree amongst yourselves that players should also have that authority, that's fine. But I was using the default assumption of the game.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 23, 2010)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I wonder why it would be different if a player fudged a roll "for the good of the story."




Because it's the GM's story that counts? I dunno. Good question for them as give a hoot about "the good of the story"!


----------



## Reynard (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Sorry, I'm talking about the default assumption of D&D specifically, which is that the DM has final authority over the game.
> 
> If you agree amongst yourselves that players should also have that authority, that's fine. But I was using the default assumption of the game.




I don't think that the default assumptions of the game are built around fudging, especially as it relates to combat. In the 1E DMG, Gygax talks a lot about using and ignoring the dice at one's pleasure, but in the context of things like treasure rolls or random encounters, about allowing saving throws or just saying "200' fall? You're dead." The much vaunted Page 42 of 4E talks a lot about ways to quantify DM fiat. I cannot, however, think of a single example from any DMG that suggests the DM should toss out a damage roll mid combat -- but maybe I'm not reading that closely.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I don't think that the default assumptions of the game are built around fudging, especially as it relates to combat.



That's not what I said. I said the default assumption in D&D is that the DM has ultimate authority over the game.

How one applies that authority is the topic of discussion. I said nothing about there being an assumption that fudging will or will not occur.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 23, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> My campaign has been successful without fudged rolls. I guess that may be hard for some people to believe...



That's not hard for me to believe in the least. In fact, it's easier for me to believe than a campaign that involves a lot of fudged rolls, because I think players sometimes make stupid choices when they believe their DM won't let them die.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 23, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> That's not hard for me to believe in the least. In fact, it's easier for me to believe than a campaign that involves a lot of fudged rolls, because I think players sometimes make stupid choices when they believe their DM won't let them die.




There are things worse than death, bwahahahahahaah.


Dead not Dead that is so clean. Honestly in fact there are things that could happen to a character that ... dead or not I would cease being interested in playing them. 

Used to fudge... but then the systems were so swingy that wild dice killed easy (no I am not referring to an earlier D&D) and pcs were such a mixed bag of competence that trying to challenge one it was way too easy to kill another ... I refuse to not challenge them ... it was just a bloody mess.

I don't have any such problem with D&D now and level is a usable measure of character power.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 23, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Authority is granted by people, not games. I wonder why it would be different if a player fudged a roll "for the good of the story."




Player fudging is what hero points are for. 

But yes, games do set ground rules and, by selecting the game, the players do implicitly agree to them and the authority they entail. So the difference between authority being granted by the players or the game is fairly irrelevant. If they're players for that game, then they're pretty much giving the game master a considerable degree of authority based on the game's ground rules. If they weren't they wouldn't be there to play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I said the default assumption in D&D is that the DM has ultimate authority over the game.




The default assumption in D&D is that the DM has ultimate authority over any game he runs.  I would not presume to tell a DM that he _*couldn't*_ fudge die rolls for that reason, although I would _*advise strongly against it*_ if asked (such as in this thread).

That said, another default assumption in D&D is that if the DM abuses that authority, he will perhaps be running fewer games.  As you say, "How one applies that authority is the topic of discussion", which does not mean that fudging is okay simply because the game grants the DM authority to do so.

As I said upthread, 2e not only granted the authority to do so, it specifically suggested doing so.  I read the advice given to 2e DMs, and eventually ran a game where I followed it.  Following that advice caused me, for the first time, to feel like a bad DM.  It took away the excitement of what was happening in the campaign milieu.  Because (IMHO and IME) players can always tell when the DM is hand-holding, it damaged player satisfaction.  It destroyed my interest in the game.  Indeed, I stopped playing the game for a period of about 3 years, until 3e sparked my interest again.

Never again will I go down that route.



Umbran said:


> Most of them feel that such an announcement would serve to break suspension of disbelief, and generally throw a monkey-wrench in dramatic tension.




Umbran, thank you for asking them.  That's a good, pretty basic answer.  Why would such an announcement throw a monkey-wrench in dramatic tension?



Reynard said:


> I think RC was suggesting that in his example there were no meaningful choices because there really was no choice. Left or Right were really both Straight because the "fudging" taking place was of the railroady kind, rather than the die-shifting kind.  Moreover, it seems his point is that if you place a lair in hex 8G, it's there whenever and however the PCs wander into that hex, even if they are short on resources and just hoping for a safe place to camp.




Yes.

But let us say that it is a dungeon crawl, and let us say that I am thorough.  As soon as I finish off whatever happens to be to the left, I come back and go right.  And then......?  



RC


----------



## Umbran (Apr 23, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I wonder why it would be different if a player fudged a roll "for the good of the story."




The answer to that one is quite simple - it is different because the roles of DM and Player are different.  There's nothing at all strange about this.  In games where a referee (or arbiter, or other figure concerned with meta-game issues) that role is typically wildly different from that of other players.

On a thoroughly practical level, the DM should know far more about the context of the event and what is coming than the player does.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 23, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> That's not hard for me to believe in the least. In fact, it's easier for me to believe than a campaign that involves a lot of fudged rolls, because I think players sometimes make stupid choices when they believe their DM won't let them die.




Very true. Players do enough stupid things even when death is on the line. If they get a sense that the campaign actually rewards this approach then the ridiculous behavior gets worse. 

It is natural for players to test the waters and see what they can get away with before thier activities have a chance of killing them. The further away this threshold is from common sense, the more over the top silly things get (which could be just great if that's what you are looking for)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Very true. Players do enough stupid things even when death is on the line. If they get a sense that the campaign actually rewards this approach then the ridiculous behavior gets worse.
> 
> It is natural for players to test the waters and see what they can get away with before thier activities have a chance of killing them. The further away this threshold is from common sense, the more over the top silly things get (which could be just great if that's what you are looking for)




Indeed.

"You must spread XP around....etc., etc."

RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> That said, another default assumption in D&D is that if the DM abuses that authority, he will perhaps be running fewer games.



I would hesitate to call that an assumption of D&D specifically, but it is true. Of course, one man's "abuse" in this case is another man's "appropriate use".

The lack of appropriate use (while difficult to term "abuse", which is such a loaded word) may also result in a DM running fewer games. You will lose different players this way, but you will still lose players. From what I can see, for instance, my players would not enjoy a game that you DM, and they would stop playing. So it goes both ways.



Raven Crowking said:


> As you say, "How one applies that authority is the topic of discussion", which does not mean that fudging is okay simply because the game grants the DM authority to do so.



Also true. The reasons why it can be okay have already been discussed extensively in this thread, and they do not rely on "because you can."


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> My campaign has been successful without fudged rolls. I guess that may be hard for some people to believe



Not at all, because different people play different ways and enjoy doing so. My preference to play a different way does not mean that I can't comprehend that other people like to play that way. I don't assume that my preference is better or universal.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> From what I can see, for instance, my players would not enjoy a game that you DM, and they would stop playing. So it goes both ways.




Sure can.

Of course, my problems run in the opposite direction -- I have more players hoping to play at my table than I am currently running games for, something on the order of 3:1 or 4:1 at present.

So, the loss of a player who can't get over the DM _*not fudging *_is of little consequence to me.  

(EDIT:  And, yes, I am *absolutely sure* that there are people in the same boat on the fudging side of the Force.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

I am not at all surprised that, asked by the DM "Do you mind if I sometimes fudge" the answer comes back "I suppose you know what you're doing, but don't tell me about it."

I wonder what answer those same DMs would get to the questions:  "Would you prefer that I didn't fudge?"  and "Why?" or "Why not?"



RC


----------



## Janx (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am not at all surprised that, asked by the DM "Do you mind if I sometimes fudge" the answer comes back "I suppose you know what you're doing, but don't tell me about it."
> 
> I wonder what answer those same DMs would get to the questions:  "Would you prefer that I didn't fudge?"  and "Why?" or "Why not?"
> 
> ...




The answer I got was "I want and expect the DM to fudge, because the DM knows what will make for a fun game and cool story."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Janx said:


> The answer I got was "I want and expect the DM to fudge, because the DM knows what will make for a fun game and cool story."




That was quick.  I expect they gave that answer a lot of thought!



RC


----------



## Janx (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> That was quick.  I expect they gave that answer a lot of thought!
> 
> 
> 
> RC




You forget, like Umbran, I sent out calls and asked questions 2 days ago on this topic.  My buddy called me back yesterday, and that was close to exactly what he said.  He had gotten my message and had the day to think about it, and took the time to call me back, and that was the first thing out of his mouth.  he then expounded on it.

So yes, he gave it a lot of thought.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 23, 2010)

Janx said:


> The answer I got was "I want and expect the DM to fudge, because the DM knows what will make for a fun game and cool story."




I understand the possible reasons for this kind of answer but for me personally as a player the story is only cool and the game really satisfying when it happens without being overly manipulated.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> The answer to that one is quite simple - it is different because the roles of DM and Player are different.  There's nothing at all strange about this.  In games where a referee (or arbiter, or other figure concerned with meta-game issues) that role is typically wildly different from that of other players.




Why does the GM's role include fudging? I see the GM as the provider of the game world reality. Fudging to save a specific PC would make me wonder if they trust what they have created.

Conversely, a player has a vested personal interest in his PC. If anyone would have a reason for a specific PC to survive, it would be the player invested in them. 

Perhaps it actually would make more sense if players were in charge of fudging to save their own PCs and GMs weren't.



> On a thoroughly practical level, the DM should know far more about the context of the event and what is coming than the player does.




All the more reason not to subject the outcome to a GM's personal hesitancy. Such a decision carries with it an inherent bias, an imposition of the GM's preferences on the outcome. If a player cannot be trusted to fudge appropriately for their own PC, the GM certainly cannot be trusted to offer the players real freedom, as it is inevitible the GM's plans will clash with player choices, whether to a small or great extent. 

I don't think it's wrong or awful for a parent to pick their child's college major. However, I don't think it's a good idea, either. I think giving the GM, with all their authority and tools and knowledge of the game, encouragement to fudge is much the same kind of problem. Good intentions are not in question. The question is the willingness to let things unfold as they will. Just as a parent, without any spirit of domination, might continue to nudge their offspring toward the "correct" college major, if they hold ultimate choice in their hands, a GM, without any disprespect toward his players, will certainly and definitely nudge the outcome of a game toward his or her ideal, and at that, the actual ideal, not the spoken one. 

It is the dice that provide the GM an avenue to state truly, "This is your decision to make. You have a good estimation of the risks." Dice are democratic. They are also a blessing, a way of making possible what would be impossible: impartiality. Impartiality is the key that unlocks an imaginary reality in which choices matter. We already know that the imaginary world, being an invention of the GM, embodies his or her prejudices. The rules of the game transmute it into something apart from the personhood of the GM.


----------



## Janx (Apr 23, 2010)

To expound a little more, he had gone on to say, that he expects a good story out of it, and only the GM knows when a PC's death would make a good ending or not.  

Some of what he said, struck me as he expected the DM to be crafting a story such that the death was 'scripted".

I'm not fully comfortable with implementing that kind of  interpretation, though I do recognize that ultimately, a GM decision is behind every death.


I see gaming as telling a story.  One where as GM, I get a lot of influence, but where the Protagonists, not the dice, are my inspiration for what happens next.  The dice are sort of a social contract to play make believe together.  i don't really consider if a PC dying is a bad thing to be prevented until the situation comes up.

And that could be why we use D&D to do what we do.  Do we get great stories out of it?  To us, sure.  A good time was had by all.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Why does the GM's role include fudging?



It doesn't necessarily. The DM's role does include the authority which enables him to fudge, but fudging itself is not necessarily part of the role.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Janx said:


> You forget, like Umbran, I sent out calls and asked questions 2 days ago on this topic.




Fair enough.



Janx said:


> To expound a little more, he had gone on to say, that he expects a good story out of it, and only the GM knows when a PC's death would make a good ending or not.
> 
> Some of what he said, struck me as he expected the DM to be crafting a story such that the death was 'scripted".
> 
> I'm not fully comfortable with implementing that kind of  interpretation, though I do recognize that ultimately, a GM decision is behind every death.




I commend you for not being fully comfortable with that kind of interpretation.  



> I see gaming as telling a story.




That's fine.  If you are telling a story, I agree that you can and should use everything in the storyteller's bag of tricks to do so.  

However, I tend to think that co-authoring a story, even if you include some randomness to the process, stretches the definition of "game" too far for my liking.  We have had this conversation before, though, and you are obviously free to disagree with me.



Fifth Element said:


> It doesn't necessarily. The DM's role does include the authority which enables him to fudge, but fudging itself is not necessarily part of the role.




If I read Pawsplay correctly, that doesn't answer his question.  

His question could be rephrased as "The DM's role does include the authority which enables him to fudge, but fudging itself is not necessarily part of the role.  BUT, given the stated purpose of fudging, would it not make sense that the PLAYER's role, rather than the DM's role, would include the authority which enables the player to fudge, even though fudging itself is not necessarily part of the role?"


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Why does the GM's role include fudging?




Thank you for that well-thought-out post.

"You must spread some XP around, etc. etc......"


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 23, 2010)

Janx said:


> I do recognize that ultimately, a GM decision is behind every death.




I don't see this as true unless you mean the decision to run an adventure game wherein character death is possible.


----------



## Janx (Apr 23, 2010)

I just had a different thought, while writing the last post.  I think it might also touch upon what pawsplay is saying.

Consider a generic quest.  Say a murder mystery.  I like using murder mysteries as examples lately, because in reality, they contain the elements of just about any kind of adventure with variety (search for clues/puzzles, talking to NPCs, fighting, exploring the bad guy's lair which may be trapped).

Once the players agree to pursue the goal, there's a sense of an expected ending that the bad guy is caught.  There's allowance for variance in how this is achieved.  If the adventure is good, there's a allowance for failure to achieve, even though the party tried their best (and possibly some safety nets to give them an alternative chance to continue the quest).

Let's even assume the PCs represent Sherlock Holmes and Watson, and up until now, this has been a serious campaign and they have earned a good reputation.

There's a lot that can go wrong to "fail to catch the bad guy"

the PCs could die in an encounter

the PCs could act totally obnoxious and stupid, out of character for what they normally protray

the PCs could get hung up on a detail that isn't really a clue, but as they investigate it, they think it is suspicious (because the GM is having to make stuff up)



technically, fudging the dice to save the PC is the most direct approach to not cratering the adventure.  If combat's just window dressing to whats really going on (like it seems to be for me), then that's probably OK.  If Combat's really a major focus of the campaign challenge (like a dungeon crawl might be), then fudging isn't a good tool.

If you have obnoxious players, not fudging and bringing down the iron hand of the NPC law is how you reign in the players.  Unfortunately, in doing so, you've also cratered the adventure.  This is a direct point where player behavior really influences any GM's expected outcome. 

But in the same vein, I haven't had to play with anybody that immature since college.

On the last one, in a way, it strikes at the heart of running a simulation, or a story. If my only aim is to challenge the player's brain and don't care about a story outcome (and the fact that failure could end the career of the PCs, thus forever unintentionally changing the campaign).  

Or I can move bits around in the background, revealing a new clue that gets them back on the trail.  For me, if the players are earnestly trying to work the quest, I will try to reward that with results.  If they make a mistake, they suffer a setback, but I try to make it one that they can regroup, overcome, and get to where they are trying to go.

How does this reflect on what Pawsplay said?

Because it's a GM style choice on intepretting player choices.  Saving the PCs is more than just fudging a die roll.  It's figuring out the nature of what happens next, and is it punitive or rewarding for the PCs.  combat is not the most important thing that happens in a D&D adventure, it's just the most prominent.  Since the adventure is written to assume the PCs get past the monster (otherwise, there'd be no point in writing more material), it's not really that important to player choice.

The real choices are whether to act like morons and try to cram a keg of ale up the barkeep's arse because he wouldn't say "sir", or to run for Sherriff of the town, or to attack the orc encampment, or to try to strike an alliance with them against the giants who threaten both.

One of the modern themes in RPGing is "to say yes".  Normally, I'm a say "No" kind of guy, so I try to "Say No to stupid" and "Say Yes to reasonable".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Janx,

First off, thanks for giving this so much thought.



Janx said:


> Let's even assume the PCs represent Sherlock Holmes and Watson, and up until now, this has been a serious campaign and they have earned a good reputation.




Oddly enough, I am currently re-reading _*The Complete Sherlock Holmes*_, and am currently reading _*The Hound of the Baskervilles*_.  It may be noteworthy that there is more than one story in which Holmes fails to catch the bad guy, and several unrecorded adventures alluded to wherein Holmes fails more profoundly.  Holmes frequently admonishes Watson for not being honest about the degree to which he fails.



> the PCs could die in an encounter




If the PCs dying in an encounter is a problem, then you should be using a ruleset where that is impossible, or which has specific safeguards against it.  Example:  Cubicle 7's Doctor Who ruleset.



> the PCs could act totally obnoxious and stupid, out of character for what they normally protray




How, exactly, would the GM be "cratering the session" by letting the natural consequences of this play out?  It seems either that the players have chosen to "crater the game" or they want to see whether or not the GM will allow the world to behave as it should.

I would be very, very, very wary of giving the PCs any sort of "plot protection" under these circumstance.  Even more than normal.



> the PCs could get hung up on a detail that isn't really a clue, but as they investigate it, they think it is suspicious (because the GM is having to make stuff up)




  Holmes getting "hung up on a detail that isn't really a clue" (according to Lestrade or other inspectors) happens in almost every story, with the odd detail almost always proving to be a clue.

Of course, the GM "having to make stuff up" is the real culprit here.....and anyone who could possibly play Sherlock Holmes is likely to realize that.  Your game, AFAICT, is already cratered.



> technically, fudging the dice to save the PC is the most direct approach to not cratering the adventure.




No....good prep and an appropriate ruleset is.



> Saving the PCs is more than just fudging a die roll.  It's figuring out the nature of what happens next, and is it punitive or rewarding for the PCs.  combat is not the most important thing that happens in a D&D adventure, it's just the most prominent.




See, this is exactly like railroading to me....it usurps the natural authority of the players in the arena where they should expect their authority to be absolute.

IMHO, the players have an absolute right to expect that "what happens next" is as much about their actions as it is about the DM's "story".  IMHO, the players have an absolute right to decide for themselves what is "the most important thing" and to pursue it as they like.



> Since the adventure is written to assume the PCs get past the monster (otherwise, there'd be no point in writing more material), it's not really that important to player choice.




I don't even know what to say about this.

"Since treasure is given, it is assumed the PCs find it."

"Since a monster is there, it is assumed the PCs slay it."

"Since potential XP are there, it is assumed the PCs earn them."

No.

I cannot tell you what other authors assume, but I certainly never assume that, because I have written down what is beyone the Black Chasm, that the PCs will ever get beyond the Black Chasm.  Or even to the Black Chasm.

Having material ready IF the characters make it to/past the Black Chasm does not imply in any way an expectation that the characters will make it to/past the Black Chasm.

Or, another way to say it is that "[A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them" (Module B1, Page 24).



RC


----------



## Reynard (Apr 23, 2010)

Janx said:


> I see gaming as telling a story.




I think stories are the result of gaming. Not just stories about characters ("Sir Goodheart won the day and saved the princess") but about players, too ("When Bob charged the dragon, I almost peed!"). I do not prefer games where there is any intent toward any particular story at the beginning (aside from the very broad definition of what an adventure is about).


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 23, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I understand the possible reasons for this kind of answer but for me personally as a player the story is only cool and the game really satisfying when it happens without being overly manipulated.



I agree with this statement, except for one part, though I think I understand the spirit of your comment.

The premise "the story is only cool and the game really satisfying when it happens without being overly manipulated" assumes that a hidden fudge of dice or other encounter elements may crop up relatively often.

I think most people here on the fudging side aren't trying to overly manipulate anything.  They are talking about the rare and extreme case of making a change that helps "fix" (OK, bad word, maybe "correct") an unexpected outcome that arrives because either the encounter was incorrectly set up or the PCs might have misunderstood some of what was going on, or whatever event caused the fudge.

There were times when we were playing 1e/2e without the grid, and the misunderstandings of spacial proximity or room description or whatever caused the PCs to act/react in a way they wouldn't have if the misunderstanding was cleared up.  In this case there could be lots of fixing/correcting/fudging going on.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> His question could be rephrased as "The DM's role does include the authority which enables him to fudge, but fudging itself is not necessarily part of the role.  BUT, given the stated purpose of fudging, would it not make sense that the PLAYER's role, rather than the DM's role, would include the authority which enables the player to fudge, even though fudging itself is not necessarily part of the role?"



I believe this was already addressed, in terms of the difference of the DM's role in the game versus the players' role.


----------



## Janx (Apr 23, 2010)

Here's another random reason to fudge.

Because I don't want to have to run this same dungeon AGAIN.

I expect that the situation that enabled the PCs to learn of the dungeon may be unique, and it would be artificially forced for the replacement party to learn of the exact same thing


----------



## Nagol (Apr 23, 2010)

Janx said:


> I just had a different thought, while writing the last post.  I think it might also touch upon what pawsplay is saying.
> 
> Consider a generic quest.  Say a murder mystery.  I like using murder mysteries as examples lately, because in reality, they contain the elements of just about any kind of adventure with variety (search for clues/puzzles, talking to NPCs, fighting, exploring the bad guy's lair which may be trapped).
> 
> ...




Let's look at a murder mystery I ran quite a few years ago.

The PCs were approached to uncover the murderer of a beautiful foreign noblewoman the PCs had previously met.

In reality, she was murdered by her evil younger sister for court intrigue / personal romance reasons.  The younger sister had used a couple of simple illusions to cast blame towards a royal son known to be a womaniser.  

There were clues readily available to find the real killer, not to mention the PCs were of a level that magical divination was a real possibility.  I expected the PCs to pierce the fabrication and find the culprit.

Instead, the PCs bought the overt story, investigated only to verify their prejudices were correct, and discarded any evidence that contradicted their premise.  They presented their finding to the court and the royal son was banished from the kingdom and became a new threat to the group.  The evil ilusionist consolidated her power in court and became more dangerous as well.

Why is that story inferior to the original expected ending of piercing the fabrication and finding the bad guy?  Why should a GM push a particular set of choices and/or specifically override a random result he decided to roll in the first place?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 23, 2010)

Janx said:


> Consider a generic quest. Say a murder mystery. I like using murder mysteries as examples lately, because in reality, they contain the elements of just about any kind of adventure with variety (search for clues/puzzles, talking to NPCs, fighting, exploring the bad guy's lair which may be trapped).
> 
> Once the players agree to pursue the goal, there's a sense of an expected ending that the bad guy is caught.




There is? I get enjoyment from running games because I _don't_ have an expected ending. The players may have a desired ending in mind but not an expectation of a particular outcome. This is what keeps the game exciting for them too. 



Janx said:


> There's allowance for variance in how this is achieved. If the adventure is good, there's a allowance for failure to achieve, even though the party tried their best (and possibly some safety nets to give them an alternative chance to continue the quest).




If the ultimate outcome is known then the journey to that outcome can only get so exciting. 




Janx said:


> Let's even assume the PCs represent Sherlock Holmes and Watson, and up until now, this has been a serious campaign and they have earned a good reputation.
> 
> There's a lot that can go wrong to "fail to catch the bad guy"
> 
> ...




Yes indeed. The fact that any of these _may _happen is a good thing. Not only could any or all of these happen but if they do shouldn't such events have an effect or even change the ultimate outcome? If not then there is little purpose in them at all.





Janx said:


> technically, fudging the dice to save the PC is the most direct approach to not cratering the adventure. If combat's just window dressing to whats really going on (like it seems to be for me), then that's probably OK. If Combat's really a major focus of the campaign challenge (like a dungeon crawl might be), then fudging isn't a good tool.




The adventure cannot be "cratered" if that adventure is an account of how the PC's face challenges and handle themselves. Put another way, an adventure that never goes on the rails can never fly off them either. Setting up an expected ending in the first place makes the adventure vulnerable to cratering. 

The way I run things, whatever the PC's are involved in is important. Thus "window dressing" can be brought to center stage if the players make it so.



Janx said:


> If you have obnoxious players, not fudging and bringing down the iron hand of the NPC law is how you reign in the players. Unfortunately, in doing so, you've also cratered the adventure. This is a direct point where player behavior really influences any GM's expected outcome.




If the game world deals with player actions in a logical manner and the players are aware of this, then "reigning in" becomes less of an issue over time. Once again, expected outcomes are the culprit here. 



Janx said:


> On the last one, in a way, it strikes at the heart of running a simulation, or a story. If my only aim is to challenge the player's brain and don't care about a story outcome (and the fact that failure could end the career of the PCs, thus forever unintentionally changing the campaign).
> 
> Or I can move bits around in the background, revealing a new clue that gets them back on the trail. For me, if the players are earnestly trying to work the quest, I will try to reward that with results. If they make a mistake, they suffer a setback, but I try to make it one that they can regroup, overcome, and get to where they are trying to go.




Not every failure or setback need be fatal or campaign ending. Failing to find a clue might merely make the challenge more difficult. If the challenges primarily consist of finding clues and the PC's are constantly failing the DM handing out the clues at that point has made the challenge meaningless. 




Janx said:


> Because it's a GM style choice on intepretting player choices. Saving the PCs is more than just fudging a die roll. It's figuring out the nature of what happens next, and is it punitive or rewarding for the PCs. combat is not the most important thing that happens in a D&D adventure, it's just the most prominent. Since the adventure is written to assume the PCs get past the monster (otherwise, there'd be no point in writing more material), it's not really that important to player choice.




If the assumption is that the PC's "get past" the adventure then why run it. On both sides of the screen the joy of playing comes from not knowing IF the PC's are going to make it past a given point. 

The possibility of character death is _very _important to player choice. If I know that my character is gonna come through the caverns of unescapable death _somehow_ then any decision I make in that place is kind of pointless. Fight, negotiate, or run? It doesn't matter cause everythings going to be OK. How is that not important? 



Janx said:


> The real choices are whether to act like morons and try to cram a keg of ale up the barkeep's arse because he wouldn't say "sir", or to run for Sherriff of the town, or to attack the orc encampment, or to try to strike an alliance with them against the giants who threaten both.




What makes these choices real if they all lead to the expected outcome?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

I just wanted to say "Thank You" to everyone in this thread.  It is fun, and filled with well-thought-out posts from everyone.

Thanks!

RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No....good prep and an appropriate ruleset is.



This doesn't work when dealing with something unexpected, which to me is when fudging most often comes into play. In such a case, "you should have prepared for the unexpected occurrence" is not helpful.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> This doesn't work when dealing with something unexpected, which to me is when fudging most often comes into play. In such a case, "you should have prepared for the unexpected occurrence" is not helpful.




But I think the rules set you use and the prep you do informs you for the "unexpected". IOW, if you choose to use a "swingy" system, fudging "swingy" results is an inefficient means to deal with the problem of potential disastrous die rolls. Better would be to modify the swinginess out of the rules, or include meta-rules (like Hero Points or whatever) or some combination thereof.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 23, 2010)

Folks keep pointing out a couple of things I wanted to comment on:

(1) Good DMs don't fudge often, and

(2) Players don't want to know when a DM is fudging.

The problem when you combine these things is that they add up to, "The players don't know how often the DM is fudging, and can assume it's constant."

Maybe I'm an extreme case as a player, but when a DM hides all rolls (and a rarely fudging good DM still has to hide all rolls, right?), I simply assume the DM is fudging whenever and wherever he wants to do so.  The enjoyment of the game is significantly lessened for me.  For this purpose, perception might as well be reality.

Some folks will say it's about "DM trust," but that's a nebulous term.  I can trust a DM in every other way, but it's difficult to trust that a DM isn't fudging constantly when all rolls are secret; and all rolls must be secret even if the DM is fudging only very occasionally.

Here's a concrete example, from early in 3E:

Our third-level group was ambushed at night, without armor, by a wyvern.  Our 12 Con fighter failed two poison saves (a total of 6d6 Con damage).  Our DM, a guy that I believe held as his only goal our enjoyment, rolled the damage (like all other rolls) behind the screen and announced 11 points of Con damage.

We, as players, exchanged glances, and everybody at the table was thinking exactly the same thing: "A big pile of fudge."  I said it out loud, joking-but-not.  The DM, to this day, insists that he rolled 11 on 6d6, and he very well might have.  It's certainly possible.  But to this day, not one of us believes him.

His game, although it continued through RttToEE, went, with that session, from a tense game in which we knew our PCs could die, to a game where we just assumed that if the DM could secretly save us, he would.

Not nearly as much fun ... and we don't even know for sure that he fudged!

I've rolled every combat and damage roll in the open ever since.  Perception matters, at least to a significant number of players.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> This doesn't work when dealing with something unexpected, which to me is when fudging most often comes into play. In such a case, "you should have prepared for the unexpected occurrence" is not helpful.




An occurance prepared for cannot be that unexpected. I don't think that creating spontaneous content when the game moves in an unforseen direction is really fudging. Changing a result that occurs in the game simply because it conflicts with an expected outcome IS fudging. 

Why would death in a game set in such a hazardous environment ever be completely unexpected?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> This doesn't work when dealing with something unexpected, which to me is when fudging most often comes into play. In such a case, "you should have prepared for the unexpected occurrence" is not helpful.




Just to be clear:  Disagreeing with your opinion doesn't mean that I don't think that you have a right to your opinion, or that I disrespect you as a person.

What you've said here, I concede, should allow the DM to "fudge" in a way:  The DM should be able to fill in parts of the world "on the fly" based upon what he knows about the parts of the world already filled in.

For example, if you need to know the Orc Chief's name, or the City Guard's name, it is (in a way) "fudging" to make that information up.  This is especially true as the "illusion of reality" of the milieu is best served by pretending that the information was already known.

Likewise, when the players head off into unknown (undeveloped) territory, the DM must not only decide what is there (preferably based upon the reality of the campaign milieu), but must behave as though it was already there, or the "illusion of reality" will suffer.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with making several small lairs that can be placed when needed to facilitate this type of problem; I know that there are people who think that this is too much "fudging".  However, once "what is there" is decided, I don't think that the DM should backtrack.

I certainly don't think he should fudge rolls.

I think that the desire to fudge rolls stems, almost exclusively, from the idea that the "DM knows best" and/or "the DM determines the desired outcome".  IMHO and IME, players don't want to know that the DM fudges not because "drama" is harmed, but because (specifically) the "illusion of consequence" is harmed.  

I will certainly grant that damaging the "illusion of consequence" can and will damage any feeling of drama that is occurring.  As I said upthread, I have firsthand experience of the same.

I also tend to think that the experience of drama over the long term is more important than the experience of drama over the short term.  I.e., if you fudge now, the PC lives, and the short-term experience of drama is satisfied.  But, because the player figures out that you are fudging, the long-term experience of drama (and therefore, the many future short-term experiences of drama) is hurt.

Worse, trust in the DM is hurt.  Players start doing, as noted upthread, "silly things" to see just how far they can push it.

Maybe your Bluff skill is just waaaayyyyy higher than mine, but IME and IMHO, sooner or later players always figure out that the DM is fudging.  Just as, sooner or later, players & DM always figure out if Joe Player is cheating on his die rolls.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 23, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I've rolled every combat and damage roll in the open ever since. Perception matters, at least to a significant number of players.





 Open rolling has both good and bad points. The good parts you pointed out quite well. Open rolls blatantly let the players know that the dice have real meaning.

On the bad side open rolls give away too much information that may turn combat into even more of a boardgame. A player may make decisions based on probabilities known after seeing the rolls rather than on what is actually happening. 

A player may decide to break off combat if he/she sees how low a number is needed to hit them, the damage range and quick calcs life expectancy in rounds. In the actual game the DM could be rolling poorly and the monster is scoring fewer hits. If this were rolled openly the _player_ would know that extreme luck is the reason for the good fortune and withdraw while the _character _would run from a fight he/she was winning for no apparent reason. 

"Guys that monster saved on 4, lets get out of here."

" Umm. With an average damage roll you will be dead in 2.65 rounds. Assuming average damage we will drop that thing in 6.4 rounds. We're toast." 

Metagaming is even uglier with such intel in the players hands.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 23, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> On the bad side open rolls give away too much information that may turn combat into even more of a boardgame. A player may make decisions based on probabilities known after seeing the rolls rather than on what is actually happening.
> 
> [...]
> 
> "Guys that monster saved on 4, lets get out of here."



While this does sometimes happen, I don't necessarily consider it a bad thing.  (Sometimes it is.  Not often, in our games.)  I just consider it the PCs realizing that they're throwing everything but the kitchen sink at someone, and not fazing him, and then using that info to make in-character decisions.

In my last M&M game, the heroes went up against a villain with a high Will save.  When she rolled a 4 and I described the PC's mental attack as "shattering against a diamond wall," the description was just icing on the cake ... the players -- and characters -- already knew that mental attacks weren't the way to go.

In other words, why does it have to be meta-gaming?  Why can't the PCs be making in-character judgments?  "You know, that's the second time I've avoided getting impaled because the bad guy slipped on a wet cobblestone.  This might be a good time to leave, before my luck runs out."


----------



## Umbran (Apr 23, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Why does the GM's role include fudging? I see the GM as the provider of the game world reality. Fudging to save a specific PC would make me wonder if they trust what they have created.




I'd like to return to a prior note about how these arguments go for a moment.  Some folks may view this as well-thought-out or well stated.  To me, this stands as one of those statements that could well make one wonder if you really respect the other side.

You see, it is based upon the idea that the fudging GM has a weakness - either the creations are not to be trusted (is a weak craftsman), or the GM lacks confidence (has a flaw of character).  When the answer to your wonderment has been given several times over the course of this and previous threads, and you don't seem to have gotten it.

Taking P-cat's earlier statement as an example - he noted that he sits down with some bare notes.  His in-play modifications (fudging) aren't because he "doesn't trust" his creation.  They are because his act of creation isn't complete before runtime. 

His process (and view of the act of GMing) does not hinge on the idea that his "creation" is done and ready to bear weight before play begins.  His model is one with the GM as an active participant in a process that goes on throughout play.  The tools he may choose to use to finish assembling "his creation" _in situ_ may be fundamentally different than yours.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Umbran,

We all have weaknesses; we all have strengths.

I would be cautious indeed about assuming that a perception that "X is a weakness" or "X is used to compensate for a weakness" somehow implies disrespect of the other side.

After all, we all have weaknesses, and we all devise means of compensating for them, just as we all have strengths, and we all devise means of catering to them.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that the desire to fudge rolls stems, almost exclusively, from the idea that the "DM knows best" and/or "the DM determines the desired outcome".



That's a biased phrasing. How about "DM knows more about what's going on in the game" and/or "DM bears more responsibility for the enjoyment of the game"?



Raven Crowking said:


> Maybe your Bluff skill is just waaaayyyyy higher than mine, but IME and IMHO, sooner or later players always figure out that the DM is fudging.  Just as, sooner or later, players & DM always figure out if Joe Player is cheating on his die rolls.



I stated upthread that I _know_ my players know I fudge. There's no secret there. Umbran and Janx discussed it with their players explicitly. Why make a point that was rendered moot pages ago?

You're still assuming we're fudging without player consent or knowledge. I have stated that's not the case.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> That's a biased phrasing. How about "DM knows more about what's going on in the game" and/or "DM bears more responsibility for the enjoyment of the game"?




They don't mean the same thing.  I don't fudge, and I know more about what's going on in the game and bear more responsibility to boot.  So, it can't be that.  It may be that, coupled with something else, like, say, the feeling that your desired outcome will be "more fun".

There must be a subjective qualifier to fudge.  Some way in which the person fudging believes that doing so makes the game better.  And, because fudging is directing the outcome, it must be related to a belief that changing the outcome in a way you desire makes the game better.

AFAICT, the phrasing is not biased; it is accurate.

And, if one truly believes that the information disparity between DM and players means that the DM does know best, or that the DM’s desired outcome is best, then saying so should hardly seem biased.



> You're still assuming we're fudging without player consent or knowledge. I have stated that's not the case.




No, I am not.  I assume that the players do not want to know.  That seems consistent with what you & Umbran reported.


RC


----------



## Umbran (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Umbran, thank you for asking them.  That's a good, pretty basic answer.  Why would such an announcement throw a monkey-wrench in dramatic tension?




I don't intend to be exhaustive about it,  but I can give a couple of reasons:

1) First and foremost, metagame discussion tends to break suspension of disbelief, and that ruins dramatic tension - it's like thinking about sausage making while eating a really good hot dog. 

The middle of action is not the time to pause for discussion of what has happened in the machinery they don't normally see.  They don't want me to talk about fudging any more than they want me to get into extended discussions about why I've made a ruling during play.  The general policy they prefer is that such discussion happen later, that my word is law until later.

2) Dramatic tension arises from uncertainty, which is based itself in selective ignorance.  Telling them about the nuts and bolts removes some of that ignorance, and thus the uncertainty.  While usually dramatic tension resolves, and the uncertainty goes away, they'd prefer that not be done prematurely, out-of-game.  




Raven Crowking said:


> I am not at all surprised that, asked by the DM "Do you mind if I sometimes fudge" the answer comes back "I suppose you know what you're doing, but don't tell me about it."
> 
> I wonder what answer those same DMs would get to the questions:  "Would you prefer that I didn't fudge?"  and "Why?" or "Why not?"




Well, yes, you can ask the question in a leading manner in either direction.  I was as careful as I could be to not lead either way.

You see, just as Pawsplay was earlier asking why folks found it so hard to believe that he had a successful game without fudging, I find quite the opposite - that I have to fight the battle to get some of you to believe that I have a successful game _with_ fudging.  So, I arranged to be pretty ironclad here, at least as far as my own group is concerned.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 23, 2010)

There is a very basic and big difference between seeing the game as a game, and seeing it as "telling a story" in which the GM's preferred outcome defines "the adventure".

That something is "rare and extreme" does not at all make it _good_.


----------



## Janx (Apr 23, 2010)

Nagol said:


> Let's look at a murder mystery I ran quite a few years ago.
> 
> The PCs were approached to uncover the murderer of a beautiful foreign noblewoman the PCs had previously met.
> 
> ...




Actually, I have no problem with that outcome.  So revise whatever I said to include the mental agility to allow for that. 

I think part of the communication problem is in trying to rapidly codify how I do things, which is much more complex than making generic statements.

For instance, when I use "expected outtcome", it doesn't mean I force things to that (though it doesn't mean a GM couldn't).  It simply means that when i present an opportunity to the player, there is a default expected path I think they will take, and a default expected outcome.

  If the quest is "catch the killer", I write material that I think will support that, including the capture of the killer.  I then go back (if I have time), and identify any "weak" spots where I think a deviation is more likely for the players (meaning I made a huge assumption about how they would approach something).  I then put some more material or notes on "if they don't pursue X, show them something else"

I do it this way, because it is less work than trying to build some kind of mega-flowchart of the game choices and possibly outcomes.  Since I'm not building some very location-based (where all I really need to do is describe who and what is at each room), this method works OK for me.

I can't say what PC does, but mentally I liken it to a similar concept.  I like to have enough material so I know who the PCs may fight or interact with, and the places these things may happen, and a rough outline of the basic "defaullt" chain of events.  After that I wing it.  I suspect PC wings it more than I do.  But we both seem to try to run light on written content (I use maybe 3-4 pages of material).

I have run campaigns where the dice (except for secret rolls) were done in the open.  There are times where it is harder to lighten up on the PCs when I do so.  In effect, it makes me feel more adversarial.

To return to what Nagol said, if I put in fake clues like that, then I already see 2 default outcomes.  part of the point (to me), of playing with players, is when I create the situation like Nagol describes, I want to see what THEY make of it.  And I'm much more interested in the social outcome of it, than any combat outcome.

If my players are actively pursuing the goal, I cut them some slack and try to make sure their choices ultimately pan out.  if they picked Left (with no evidence that it was better than Right), I'll make Left eventually get to the castle or bad guy or whatever.  it's really a matter of what choices they make really matter, and what choices don't.  

For instance, where I went to lunch today has less bearing on my life and "what happens next" than the time I spent on this thread, instead of writing code. "choice" versus "Choice"


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 23, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Metagaming is even uglier with such intel in the players hands.




In the cases you cite, I think it merely appropriate that players should get such clues.

It is in my experience almost unheard of for a D&D game (or almost any RPG) to conceal players' Hit Point scores from them. There seems to be a very intuitive grasp of the importance of observing that resource in assessing risks.

To hide attack, save and damage rolls likewise makes the game harder. To discover, for instance, an opponent's chance of hitting requires a big enough sample. To find out not just how often but how hard requires a big enough sample of actual hits. Remove hit point information on top of that, and the only hard data you get is:

How long did it take to get this character killed?

Repeat enough times to reach statistical significance.

Alternatively, players can memorize the _Monster Manual_. Is that "ugly", too?

"Metagaming" my Aunt Fanny! It's just _gaming_.

If you need some kind of "method acting" rationale, try this on for size: If I were a veteran fighting man actually informed by all five senses and by memories of both watching and fighting many fights -- then might I not have more information than a GM's verbal description is likely to provide?


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, if one truly believes that the information disparity between DM and players means that the DM does know best, or that the DM’s desired outcome is best, then saying so should hardly seem biased.



Not in a literal sense, no. But you know as well as I do that the phrase "[someone] knows best" carries a heavy implication of paternalistic attitude.



Raven Crowking said:


> No, I am not.  I assume that the players do not want to know.  That seems consistent with what you & Umbran reported.



You're conflating two things: players can know that their DM fudges at times without knowing or wanting to know on which _specific_ occasions the fudging occurs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> The middle of action is not the time to pause for discussion of what has happened in the machinery they don't normally see.




There is no requirement for discussion.  A single word is enough.  "He rolled a 20.  Fudge.  16.  He misses."  



> Dramatic tension arises from uncertainty, which is based itself in selective ignorance.  Telling them about the nuts and bolts removes some of that ignorance, and thus the uncertainty.  While usually dramatic tension resolves, and the uncertainty goes away, they'd prefer that not be done prematurely, out-of-game.




Of course, if they are aware that you are fudging, that too removes some uncertainty, doesn't it?  "Will the BBEG stike for another critical, killing the paladin?"  "Why, no, we can safely expect any such roll to be fudged!"



> Well, yes, you can ask the question in a leading manner in either direction.  I was as careful as I could be to not lead either way.




"Do you mind that I do" is not the same as "Would you prefer that I did not".  You could also ask "Do you prefer that I fudge" if you are worried about skewing the result.



> I find quite the opposite - that I have to fight the battle to get some of you to believe that I have a successful game _with_ fudging.




Who are you having difficulty convincing?  Who said that your game was unsuccessful?

Is it possible to have a successful game using techniques that are not generally recommended?  Obviously so.  Not doing prep work is not generally recommended, yet Piratecat is well known as a great DM.  Does that mean that we should advise not to prep?  Or should we note the Great Kitty as an exception, and advise to prep?

And, even after noting that exception, do we conclude that Piratecat is running his best possible game by not prepping, or do we consider that, should Piratecat have the time and inclination to prep more, it is possible that he could improve his game?

As I said above, we all have strengths, and we all have weaknesses.  In some cases, a person may have to do something not generally advised to cater to his strengths, or to bolster his weaknesses.  If PC discovers that, the more prep he does, the worse his DMing is, then that may be because of the way his particular strengths and weaknesses interact.

It still doesn't make "Don't prep!" good general advice.  And I am willing to bet that there are a lot more people out there who *imagine* or _*want to believe*_ that their strengths and weaknesses interact in the direction of less prep work than there really are.  

IMHO and IME, that's just human nature.  If we have an excuse to take the path of least resistance, we generally do so.  YMMV, of course.



> So, I arranged to be pretty ironclad here, at least as far as my own group is concerned.




That I believe.

Not so sure how that goes with your being careful as you could be to not lead either way, though.  



Ariosto said:


> There is a very basic and big difference between seeing the game as a game, and seeing it as "telling a story" in which the GM's preferred outcome defines "the adventure".




Agreed.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course, if they are aware that you are fudging, that too removes some uncertainty, doesn't it?  "Will the BBEG stike for another critical, killing the paladin?"  "Why, no, we can safely expect any such roll to be fudged!"



And there you go again with the misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding.

No one, as far as I can tell, is advocating that fudging should be used to prevent any and all PC death. Fudging as I use it is completely discretionary. There are no rules to its application. Basically I use it if it feels like the right thing to do in the particular situation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Janx,

If possible, could I see your notes for an adventure?  If so, PM me (I don't want to derail this thread).

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> And there you go again with the misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding.
> 
> No one, as far as I can tell, is advocating that fudging should be used to prevent any and all PC death. Fudging as I use it is completely discretionary. There are no rules to its application. Basically I use it if it feels like the right thing to do in the particular situation.




(1)  This sounds a lot like "Mother May I?" except that the player doesn't get to ask.

(2)  Are you trying to advocate that fudging can be used, but should not be?  Because, IMHO, there is a logical problem with arguing that one should fudge to save a PC when it feels right, while simultaneously claiming not to advocate fudging to prevent any PC death.  Maybe I am not understanding what you mean here?  Because you do not have to fudge to prevent _*all*_ PC deaths to train the players to expect their bacon to be pulled from the fire.  Not by a long shot.  Many players are *very* good at letting you know how _*disappointing*_ and *anti-climactic* and *unfun* it will be if that three-headed ogre kills Sir Robin this round.

(3)  Related to this, IME, players pretty well universally can figure out when their GM is going to decide it "feels right".  IME, players push to gain that information, by doing silly things and trying to figure out how far they can go.  And once armed with that information, it is not unknown for a player to push to make it "feel right" to the GM to fudge in their favour.  

I have yet to meet the GM who fudges, whose players don't know that he fudges, and whose players cannot predict reasonably well when he will fudge.  I have, OTOH, met many GMs who believed they were that GM.  Heck, as I said above, under 2e I was a GM who thought he was that GM.  IME, and IMHO, that GM is mythical.....and if not mythical, so rare as to be the next best thing.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It still doesn't make "Don't prep!" good general advice.



What's better than general advice? Specific advice.

The advice "don't fudge" is too general to be useful. Better advice is to take into account the play preferences of the DM and the players in a particular group. Advising my group specifically to not fudge is bad advice, plain and simple.

This applies to new players/DMs as well. Advising them to not do something they feel woul improve their enjoyment of the game is also clearly bad advice. Unless you think you know more about how they enjoy playing than they do, of course.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> (2)  Are you trying to advocate that fudging can be used, but should not be?



If you still don't know what I'm advocating, despite my having it written out specifically several times, I can't help you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If you still don't know what I'm advocating, despite my having it written out specifically several times, I can't help you.




You seem to be advocating X while advocating not-X at the same time, whenever flaws in X are brought up.  Perhaps this is because context is skewing my reading of your posts.  *But I am trying to understand what you are advocating.*


RC


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> And there you go again with the misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding.
> 
> No one, as far as I can tell, is advocating that fudging should be used to prevent any and all PC death.



Talk about misrepresentation.  Raven Crowking didn't posit fudging to "prevent any and all PC death."  He presented specific circumstance: a critical hit that would kill a PC.

Out of curiosity, if a fudging DM would _not_ fudge that roll, which seems to meet the criterion of "death by bad luck" so often used by fudge-vocates, why not?  And what's an example of a roll such a DM would fudge?

I gotta be honest, the whole thing is starting to sound more and more like caprice, which is actually less appealing to me than the motives I had been ascribing to fudgers.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 23, 2010)

Gently, guys. Gently. If you're starting to get snippy, walk away for a bit.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> No one, as far as I can tell, is advocating that fudging should be used to prevent any and all PC death. Fudging as I use it is completely discretionary. There are no rules to its application. Basically I use it if it feels like the right thing to do in the particular situation.




That is the fundamental problem, right there. If it were not arbitrary, then it would not be "fudging", would it? It would merely be adjudication in accordance with rules.

I rather doubt that anyone here would go into a game of Axis & Allies expecting that dice rolls should get changed because he or she "feels like it's the right thing to do" in a situation in which the Allies might lose.

Some of us see D&D just the same way. It does not matter how we may happen to see some other entertainment, even whether we call that other an RPG or not. Our purpose in choosing to play D&D is in keeping with its provision of the possibility of dice-rolls delivering a TPK.

Some others see D&D as something different, something in which there is such a thing as an "undesirable" result that needs to be "fudged" -- for example, a TPK. That they prefer "fudging" to adopting rules that would not necessitate it obviously indicates an ethos with considerable subtlety in its nuances.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 23, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> The advice "don't fudge" is too general to be useful.




What could be more useful would be *more* "general":

Ask about the house rules.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 23, 2010)

As DM, I don't like to fudge. Partly because no matter how story-like the game becomes, it's always rooted in a (complicated) game of chance. Mainly, though, I don't like to fudge because I want to be surprised by where the game _goes_, and nothing takes the game to strange new places like the right random dice rolls. 

Well, nothing except the crackpot plans of the players.

On the other hand, I don't like frequent PC death. Our campaigns revolve around developing interesting, if frequently pathological, characters and sending them off on crazy adventures. In this way our games resemble serial adventure stories. Protagonist death is rare or non-existent, but _failure_ is always knocking at the door. 

Think of Whedon's _Firefly_... now remove most of the quality, and add in a heaping dose of surrealism. My games in a nutshell.

I don't need to fudge because I've taken PC death almost entirely off the table. PC failure leads to more playable consequences, not rolling a new character. Works like a charm for us, but I can how this kind of play would be unsatisfying if the biggest kick you get from the game is survival in a ruthless environment. Our style only works if the player's have characters whose goals extend beyond survival.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 23, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I rather doubt that anyone here would go into a game of Axis & Allies expecting that dice rolls should get changed because he or she "feels like it's the right thing to do" in a situation in which the Allies might lose.



I rather doubt anyone would start a game of Axis and Allies and expect it to last for several years. 

(Neither world I expect any of the players to start talking like Churchill. Well, actually, I wouldn't put that past some of my friends, or, for that matter, myself.)


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 23, 2010)

I suspect that there _are_ rules governing a given GM's "fudging", but that they are too complex for codification. The GM might not even need to formulate them consciously, depending instead on a sense of the situation of the sort that we might call "intuition". In similar manner, an athlete might not quantify in an equation the physics of a situation -- indeed, might make the _wrong_ assessment if trying to solve the problem that way instead of trusting the "Mark I eyeball".

It should, I think, be informative that the technique is so much associated with reference to "the story". I am pretty sure that the ethos involved has to do with some perception of the process as indeed a form of fiction, and the GM in some sense as author and/or director of a drama.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I'd like to return to a prior note about how these arguments go for a moment.  Some folks may view this as well-thought-out or well stated.  To me, this stands as one of those statements that could well make one wonder if you really respect the other side.
> 
> You see, it is based upon the idea that the fudging GM has a weakness - either the creations are not to be trusted (is a weak craftsman), or the GM lacks confidence (has a flaw of character).  When the answer to your wonderment has been given several times over the course of this and previous threads, and you don't seem to have gotten it.




I think I have gotten it, or at least gotten something. It has been a very interesting discussion. I am not persuaded, however. I can only be honest in saying that if a GM asked me if Iw as okay with fudging as a player, I would say no. If someone asked me if a game would be better with fudging or without, I would say, generally, without. I wouldn't tell a person, categorically, "You, stop fudging, you will ruin your game," because, as has been described above, without the right kind of game design, you might ruin the game anyway, and I would not want to claim the ability to save or ruin your game based on that one piece of advice. 

I think it's perfectly fine to speculate whether I respect the other side. All I can say is that I am intending only to be direct and nonjudgmental. 

If someone said, "Pawsplay, by saying to trust the dice, you are telling the GM not to trust their own psychology," I would agree. Saying a GM doesn't trust the design is simply what I hope is an accurate description of not feeling a game will structurally function without active intervention by the GM in its outcomes. Since a game design doesn't itself have feelings, I would not imagine that saying a GM doesn't trust describes a character failing on the part of the GM.

In fact, I did not say not trusting the design is bad, or a personal failing. I was pointing out a relationship to the creation that, according to my goals as a game master, I would avoid. "I don't trust the design and I love my campaign anyway," is a valid response and I would not take issue with that. However, I would disagree with someone saying they trusted the design, if they manipulated the output according to predetermined goals. I would say they are being inaccurate, or that we are not udnerstanding the words each other are using.



> Taking P-cat's earlier statement as an example - he noted that he sits down with some bare notes.  His in-play modifications (fudging) aren't because he "doesn't trust" his creation.  They are because his act of creation isn't complete before runtime.
> 
> His process (and view of the act of GMing) does not hinge on the idea that his "creation" is done and ready to bear weight before play begins.  His model is one with the GM as an active participant in a process that goes on throughout play.  The tools he may choose to use to finish assembling "his creation" _in situ_ may be fundamentally different than yours.




At some point, he picks up the dice and holds them in his hand. As he decides to roll them, his creation is in solid, fixed form up to that moment in time. I am also an active parcticipant in the processes of my game. However, I roll my dice in the open and consider the uncertainty that exists the primary reason to roll the dice in the first place. 

If I merely pretend to roll the dice, there is no real uncertainty for me as a GM unless I try to hide my own intentions from myself. And I really feel, as others have stated, that knowing fudging may occur means the players know uncertainty is not ultimate, that ultimately events will transpire as the GM wishes them to.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 23, 2010)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I rather doubt anyone would start a game of Axis and Allies and expect it to last for several years.



I have no doubt at all that _nobody_ with a lick of sense would have taken a character in the pioneering D&D, T&T, EPT, etc., campaigns and expected *the character* to last for several years. That was very clearly something to be known only after the fact -- a fact that would be the _exception_ among characters!

The game, though? Yes, indeed! Without some particular reason, why would one not think so, when it had already lasted half a decade or more, eh?

On both counts, it is of course possible to have different expectations of a game. "Fudging" does not follow from that, _at all_.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would be cautious indeed about assuming that a perception that "X is a weakness" or "X is used to compensate for a weakness" somehow implies disrespect of the other side.




When applied to a class of people?

After 30 pages of discussion on the topic?

When "they" are still (metaphorically) standing there to talk to?

It is possible that no disrespect was intended, but the context is such that I don't think it unreasonable to read it there.  Folks have frequently asked why things go awry.  I'm pointing some things out.  You can argue with me about how I'm wrong, or you can accept that this is an example.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Talk about misrepresentation.  Raven Crowking didn't posit fudging to "prevent any and all PC death."  He presented specific circumstance: a critical hit that would kill a PC.



Any death_ in combat_, then. RC characterized the players as not worrying about the character dying because the DM _will_ fudge to save him.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I suspect that there _are_ rules governing a given GM's "fudging", but that they are too complex for codification.



I'd say this is a fair comment. There are times I will and won't fudge, but if I were asked to sit down and write them out how I make such a determination, I would be unable to.



Ariosto said:


> It should, I think, be informative that the technique is so much associated with reference to "the story". I am pretty sure that the ethos involved has to do with some perception of the process as indeed a form of fiction, and the GM in some sense as author and/or director of a drama.



I've been associating it with "the fun", rather than "the story."


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> *But I am trying to understand what you are advocating.*



It's not difficult. I'll say it again.

If fudging is good for your game, do it. There's nothing inherently wrong with it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 23, 2010)

WEG Star Wars explains the dramatism/fudging style very well, covering a lot of issues raised in this thread. I believe it was the first rpg to present this play style in depth. These quotes are from the first edition (1987), pgs 90-92.



> *Script Immunity*
> 
> Heroes don't die until the final reel – and usually not then. And heroes don't fail – at least, not badly, and not permanently.  If they did, they wouldn't be heroes. They have _script immunity_; dramatic necessity makes them immune from failure at dramatic moments.
> 
> ...







> You should be very careful about killing player characters. A character who is important to the plot can't be killed in the first reel , because then the plot can't go anywhere. Worse, character death is often anticlimactic: for a hero to die just because a stormtrooper gets off a lucky shot is not very dramatic. A _hero's_ death should be a major event, befitting the hero's place in the story. A moment for a last few words, used to impart vital information or express love for friends or family – or to cast defiance in the teeth of the enemy – is a must.
> 
> Moreover, players become attached to their characters. A player invests a lot of time and affection developing a character; losing a character is traumatic. A player will accept the loss of his character better if he loses it in an appropriately heroic and dramatic way; he will feel cheated if he loses the character over trivia.




There's also a section headed "Penalties Short of Death", delineating all the other bad things a GM can have happen to the PCs, such as being captured, losing equipment, the bad guy escapes, and suchlike.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 24, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> WEG Star Wars explains the dramatism/fudging style very well, covering a lot of issues raised in this thread.



That it does.

It really seems to me that the most fundamental issue is here:



			
				WEG Star Wars said:
			
		

> The purpose of any roleplaying game is to tell a story.




Maybe that does not accurately represent what Fifth Element means by "fun", but I think it most sensibly reconciles there being clearly "undesirable" outcomes that yet are not so clear as to be avoided with explicit rules.

The element of _illusion_ is important.

I personally am so far from suspending disbelief after reading one of those "never, ever let the players know what you're doing" lines, *in the very book that I as a player am expected to read*, that  I am more likely to suspend the book itself in midair by giving it a good toss.

YMMV, though!

Moreover, when we explicitly make production of _art_ "the purpose of" a process, it stands to reason (at least to me) that the _artist's_ intuition and "feeling" is going to play a decisive role.

"Avoiding anticlimax", or any other "dramatic necessity" is a sensible concern for _authoring a dramatic story_. Ditto assumptions that these or those figures are "the heroes". _Script immunity_ is premised upon there being after some fashion a "script" in the first place.

This just has no more to do with _Dungeons & Dragons_ as I met it than with _Squad Leader_ or _Strat O Matic Baseball_. There was no reference at all to "telling a story". The purpose of the game was for players to play it.

But then, along came those fellows who took upon themselves to decree what must be true of "any role-playing game". Either (A) they were wrong, or (B) D&D was not a role-playing game, or (C) a whole lot of people were playing D&D wrong.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 24, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> This just has no more to do with _Dungeons & Dragons_ as I met it than with _Squad Leader_ or _Strat O Matic Baseball_. There was no reference at all to "telling a story". The purpose of the game was for players to play it.



I agree here. I don't play D&D the way that passage describes the Star Wars RPG. I also dispute its description of the purpose of "any RPG."


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 24, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I agree here. I don't play D&D the way that passage describes the Star Wars RPG. I also dispute its description of the purpose of "any RPG."



I honestly think it's just a case of sloppy writing.

It's not an RPG's "purpose" to "tell a story," but it _is_ an RPG's purpose to provide a framework in which a story -- a narrative, not necessarily a well-structured story -- will occur.

That's what I think is meant there.

BTW, I love the D6 system, and prefer WEG Star Wars to every other Star Wars RPG I've played (including our current SWSE game).  When I was GMing it I not only never fudged a die roll, I never "needed" to (by any definition).  In the situation as described, my players would have spent a Force point, doubling their dice, and done their own "fudging."  And if unsuccessful, I would have gone the second route, i.e., the Imperial dickwad hinting for a bribe.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 24, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I honestly think it's just a case of sloppy writing.



I'll give you that one.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 24, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> I honestly think it's just a case of sloppy writing.



It looks to me like a case of very careful writing, insofar as the meaning of "tell a story" is made perfectly clear in the elaboration that follows.

The claim of its being definitive of "any roleplaying game" may have been sloppy _thinking_, but I see no indication that it was not sincerely meant.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 24, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> It looks to me like a case of very careful writing, insofar as the meaning of "tell a story" is made perfectly clear in the elaboration that follows.



If you say so.

I think that what they describe isn't the use of a tool for telling a story, but rather the use of a framework for the unfolding of a story in play.

I'm perfectly fine with what they _describe_ (example of fudging aside), but I agree with people that calling an RPG a means of "telling a story" can be problematic.

Thus, IMO, "sloppy writing."


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 24, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I agree here. I don't play D&D the way that passage describes the Star Wars RPG. I also dispute its description of the purpose of "any RPG."




Also, that passage straddles the line between saying, basically, it's okay to fudge, and essentially suggesting you resolve certain actions via fiat, even if you pick up the dice. In a certain sense it's saying "save PCs for the good of the story," but in another sense, it's saying don't use dice to make decisions you have already made for yourself.

It's an interesting passage, but it's certainly not the way I played Star Wars, or other games.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 24, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> In the cases you cite, I think it merely appropriate that players should get such clues.
> 
> It is in my experience almost unheard of for a D&D game (or almost any RPG) to conceal players' Hit Point scores from them. There seems to be a very intuitive grasp of the importance of observing that resource in assessing risks.
> 
> ...




There are ways to communicate threat levels that permit rational player choice without laying the stats out on the table and asking  " ok you wanna fight this?"  We can also rattle off whatever treasure it happens to be guarding so no time is wasted going after chump change. 

I don't know where the notion that I don't let players know thier own hp totals came from? They are expected to track that themselves. 

Method acting? Hardly. A player can score a hit for maximum damage and I let him know that the monster barely seemed to take notice of it. This is informative without having to say: " You hit it for 17 points of damage. It is now down to 212 hp." 

Players will figure out what they need to score a hit fairly quickly. The part that remains concealed is how difficult it was for the monster to hit them. If I describe a claw attack against a player as " slamming into you almost effortlessly" then the creature most likely hits on a low number.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is no requirement for discussion.  A single word is enough.  "He rolled a 20.  Fudge.  16.  He misses."




There is no call to bring up that which you don't want the players to at least consider - if you say it, you want them to absorb it and internalize it, and take it into consideration.  Thus, the statement is _intended_ to intrude on what they're doing at the moment.



> Of course, if they are aware that you are fudging, that too removes some uncertainty, doesn't it?  "Will the BBEG stike for another critical, killing the paladin?"  "Why, no, we can safely expect any such roll to be fudged!"




First, that's a big "if".  I know you contend that players can always tell.  I just don't buy that assertion.  My experience is that if you do it well, they don't notice. I don't know why people you've worked with always seem to notice, but it is not anywhere near my experience.

Second, the, "we can safely expect any such roll to be fudged," presupposes a whole lot about my pattern of fudging.  Far more than I have said here, and thus far more than you could posit would be an issue in my games.  



> Is it possible to have a successful game using techniques that are not generally recommended?




Who is this General that's recommending or not recommending things?  Did I miss that you worked in the Pentagon, RC?  I don't think some folks on internet messageboards here really qualify as "general".  And I really don't feel you trump the advice in several editions of D&D, and several other RPGs with which I'm acquainted.  



> And, even after noting that exception, do we conclude that Piratecat is running his best possible game by not prepping, or do we consider that, should Piratecat have the time and inclination to prep more, it is possible that he could improve his game?




You see, I feel no reason to conclude much of anything.  I only brought him up as an example of a process that didn't really fit the "completed creation" model.

I've been lucky enough to play a few sessions with him as GM, and I think he's damned good.  If I *must* assume something, I assume he knows what works best for him.  It isn't like prepping more isn't bleedingly obvious or somehow a new idea that someone with his experience would not have tried in the past.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I don't know where the notion that I don't let players know thier own hp totals came from?




Not from me, certainly.

I mentioned hit points betting that you probably took for granted player tracking of that datum, and even more probably would agree that -- and understand why -- it is so widely taken for granted throughout the hobby.

Hit points seem to me the very model of a pure game abstraction. As I stated, keeping them secret from players is one way to make the game harder. I tried to point out how hiding other data -- in particular rolls to hit and rolls for damage -- could theoretically make the game harder as well.

As I went on to point out, that theory would (at least in old D&D) largely fall apart once players read not merely sample rolls but _actual stats_ for the monsters.

Players may have no such opportunity so to inform themselves in a game in which monster stats actually vary widely. I suppose that might be an advantage to someone desirous of the consequently greater challenge.



> This is informative without having to say: " You hit it for 17 points of damage. It is now down to 212 hp."




"I don't know where the notion that Jeff Wilder lets players know the monsters' hp totals came from?"


You think it's fine for players to see their own rolls to hit, and damage dice, but not the monsters'. Wilder and I roll in the open, without considering it to "give away too much information". Neither do I, for one, see anything where you choose to draw your line that indicates to me some change of state to "meta-gaming".

It seems to me that these are matters of taste. 



> If this were rolled openly the _player_ would know that extreme luck is the reason for the good fortune and withdraw while *the character would run from a fight he/she was winning for no apparent reason.*



Not only do I disagree with your characterization, I do not place on it in the first place the value that you do.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> There are ways to communicate threat levels that permit rational player choice without laying the stats out on the table and asking  " ok you wanna fight this?"  We can also rattle off whatever treasure it happens to be guarding so no time is wasted going after chump change.
> 
> I don't know where the notion that I don't let players know thier own hp totals came from? They are expected to track that themselves.
> 
> ...




It's interesting. I used to track PC hit points and give the p[layers hints about how hurt they were. I am not sure why, other than assuming it would somehow increase immersion. It didn't really work that way and I don't do such things any more.

I remember discovering recently that the combat example from (I think) the original Basic set has the DM rolling damage for the PCs' hits behind the screen, without telling the PCs how much was scored but merely describing the blow and the remaining health of the enemy (hobgoblins, if I recall) to the players. I have never done this, though I do keep the hit points of the enemies secret behind the screen and use descriptive language to indicate how hurt the enemy may be.

I find it interesting what individual DMs do keep secret. Some keep DCs secret even upon success or failure, while others write the enemy hit points on a card or white board for all to see. How does secret versus "public" information interact with the idea of fudging and immersion and game play?


----------



## Imaginary Number (Apr 24, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Moreover, when we explicitly make production of _art_ "the purpose of" a process, it stands to reason (at least to me) that the _artist's_ intuition and "feeling" is going to play a decisive role.
> 
> "Avoiding anticlimax", or any other "dramatic necessity" is a sensible concern for _authoring a dramatic story_. Ditto assumptions that these or those figures are "the heroes". _Script immunity_ is premised upon there being after some fashion a "script" in the first place.




This is a good observation, but I also think you're using "authoring" here in a sense that doesn't fit the context.  I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that the DM is an "author" in the same sense that the writer of a script is an "author."  Although I design the campaign background and adventure settings and so have a role in the process, the authorial "plotting" decisions involving where the PCs want to go and what sorts of things they want to do are made by the players, not by me.  Random chance also plays a role, of course.  The players and the dice therefore have at least as much authorial responsibility for any stories resulting from their in-game shenanigans as I do.

The key distinction on the "fudging" issue, it seems to me, is not between "storytelling" and "non-storytelling."  It's between a view that the game rules and the adventure scenario as written are The Immutable Law from which the DM cannot deviate from the moment play starts and a view that the DM can deviate from those things judiciously in order to make the gameplay experience more "fun" (however one defines that).  I can see virtues in both approaches; in my experience, however, the latter works better for my group.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 24, 2010)

Imaginary Number, I was commenting upon a lengthy text extracted (by Doug McCrae) from West End Games' 1987 _Star Wars_ game.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/274845-do-you-save-pcs-32.html#post5162066



> a view that the DM can deviate from those things judiciously in order to make the gameplay experience more "fun" (however one defines that)



No. There are a whole lot of things from which a DM can deviate judiciously without "fudging". The question is what kind of "fun" one is looking for in the first place.

You want "fudge". I do not, because *"fudge" is not my idea of fun.* End of socially mediated narrative construction.


----------



## Imaginary Number (Apr 24, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Imaginary Number, I was commenting upon a lengthy text extracted (by Doug McCrae) from West End Games' 1987 _Star Wars_ game.




I read the thread, so I'm well-aware of that.  I interpreted your comments on that text as endorsing the position that "fudging" necessarily happens solely in the service of "storytelling" by the DM, and my post was an attempt to rebut that position.  If I misinterpreted your comments, I apologize.  I'm also interested in hearing why you think "judicious deviation" from the rules is somehow different from "fudging," although after 30+ pages on this topic I can see that we might want to call it a day.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 24, 2010)

Reynard said:


> It's interesting. I used to track PC hit points and give the p[layers hints about how hurt they were. I am not sure why, other than assuming it would somehow increase immersion. It didn't really work that way and I don't do such things any more.
> 
> I remember discovering recently that the combat example from (I think) the original Basic set has the DM rolling damage for the PCs' hits behind the screen, without telling the PCs how much was scored but merely describing the blow and the remaining health of the enemy (hobgoblins, if I recall) to the players. I have never done this, though I do keep the hit points of the enemies secret behind the screen and use descriptive language to indicate how hurt the enemy may be.





Actually, the DM rolling all damage was a standard rule from basic D&D, and one that we always ignored. Players rolled damage for thier own attacks and the DM rolled damage for monster attacks. Players would know how much damage they had inflicted but not the exact number of remaining hp. 



Reynard said:


> I find it interesting what individual DMs do keep secret. Some keep DCs secret even upon success or failure, while others write the enemy hit points on a card or white board for all to see. How does secret versus "public" information interact with the idea of fudging and immersion and game play?




It depends on the situation. For passive detection purposes merely telling the player to roll will be a giveaway. Other tasks that are being attempted may be easy to measure difficulty before the attempt. 

The interaction of public rolls on the perception of fudging is dramatic. If players are suspicious then this is a great way to prove to them that your random rolls are honest. 

Rolling in the open can possibly make combat feel very board-game like and less like a struggle taking place within the adventure. It depends on how the group approaches combat and what they enjoy.
 If the group really enjoys the tactical angle and making decisions based on the mathematical facts then they are going to need all that data in order to make the informed decisions required. 
If the group likes combat to flow as part of the rest of the adventure then too much mechanical data will result in an unwanted tactical exercise. 

Laying out all the raw information in combat would be similar to answering a player query about a section of wall during exploration with " Hardness 10, hp 60 per 10 foot section" instead of describing the wall. 

While perfectly legitimate, to me its like removing the skin from the game world and running it with the wire frame code.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 24, 2010)

Imaginary Number said:
			
		

> I'm also interested in hearing why you think "judicious deviation" from the rules is somehow different from "fudging"



Because I am not about to define myself by _your_ false dichotomy. You claim far too much not only about me but about people on _both_ sides.

Why do you do that? Why do you insist that there must be some other motive for not "fudging" than simply not wanting "fudge"?

It really is that simple! The result of the dice-toss is _what I want_. That's why I roll the dice in the first place, why I choose the game in the first place.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, you did. You said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I was pointing out that my EARLY experience in the game was similar to what you stated yours was.  I'm not about to go back and swim through the original post, but, you said when you started playing, PC's died like flies.

Thus the PAST TENSE part of what you quoted.  It had nothing to do with how you play now.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Laying out all the raw information in combat would be similar to answering a player query about a section of wall during exploration with " Hardness 10, hp 60 per 10 foot section" instead of describing the wall.



All we're *actually* talking about here is rolling monster dice in the open. It is not really very similar to something completely different. What it _is_ similar to is your own practice, from which it differs in detail.

I don't recall Jeff Wilder mentioning any commentary on the dice-rolls, or substitution of that for qualitative description, or telling the players the monsters' hit point scores.

Disagree -- but disagree with what is actually proposed, rather than misrepresenting others' positions.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2010)

To be completely honest, I haven't fudged a die roll in years.  I play over VTT.  99% of all die rolls are done completely in the open, and even those that are "whispered" to myself as the GM are still stored in the transcript.  Any fudging I might do would be in the "Oh, look that hit brough the baddie down to 1 hit point, ah screw it, he trips and falls on his sword and dies."  Which is a bit of fudging I've done and seen done in many groups.

But fudge a die roll?  I actually wouldn't know how.  

That being said, I'm actually quite surprised by this thread.  Raven Crowking (and others) has argued at length and quite vocally that DM's are the ultimate authority in a game.  They should not feel that they have to change for the players or for the mechanics.  They should be the masters of the game - with authority over the game, the mechanics and pretty much everything that happes at the table.

But, here, we see that the ultimate authority in his game is actually the dice.  Talk about disempowering the DM.  It's okay to change the rules, it's okay to over rule a player's wishes, but thou shalt not change a die roll?  Ever?  Since when do the dice know better what's going to be fun at the table than a good DM?

I mean, we change mechanics to make the game better (for our groups).  We create house rules and campaign and setting rules to make our game better.  We can tell players "no" whenever the whim hits us.  Don't want elves in the game?  Tell the player no.  I know for a fact that Raven Crowking has argued this many, many times.

But, the DM's authority does apparently have limits.  It is limited by the fall of the dice during play.

I'll admit, I play this way a lot of the times.  But mostly because, for the past year or so anyway, I have played games where the players have a LOT of editorial control.  My last D&D campaign pretty much took death off the table, so, fudging wasn't an issue there either.

But, I'm enough of a DM's authority advocate to say that yup, a DM should know whether a result is good for the game or not.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 24, 2010)

Hussar, it is sometimes hard to believe that you really cannot see how it is with one foot that the back-pedaling of a thousand miles begins ...


----------



## Nagol (Apr 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> <snip>
> 
> But, here, we see that the ultimate authority in his game is actually the dice.  Talk about disempowering the DM.  It's okay to change the rules, it's okay to over rule a player's wishes, but thou shalt not change a die roll?  Ever?  Since when do the dice know better what's going to be fun at the table than a good DM?
> 
> ...




The DM remains the ultimate authority.  Dice are only rolled when the DM wishes to have a random determination.  All that has been suggested is once a random result is called for and rolled, it should be used.  If you didn't want a a particular result, it shouldn't have been included in the intital probability distribution.

I change mechanics and options (with player agreement) prior to play.  The primary reason is to tailor the game experience to a particular set of genre, setting conceit, or play experience.

I do not change the game rules on a whim during the game -- especially in a manner hidden from player knowledge and explicit agreement.

As for whether a DM is in a better position to know what's "good" for the game, I disagree.  In this regard, he is just one of the voices at the table -- a player at the table with a different role.  The "good" of the game is very subjective and will vary from participant to participant.  The group dynamic and group expectation lead to determining "good" for the game.

I've had characters saved from fairly obvious fudges that hurt the good of the game as I see it.  I've seen games lose participation because some players were looking for more challenge/understandable risk/reward than what was on display.  I've grown frustrated because making good tactical calls became bad choices as riskier behaviour was cushioned from dealing with failure.

I've also seen the game grow organically in wondrous ways I wouldn't have imagined as a result of the players responding to the losses at the table.  That growth simply wouldn't have happened had I fudged.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2010)

Nagol - no one, certainly not me, is claiming that fudging can't be abused or mis-used.  That's certainly true.  I had a DM once who would regularly throw encounters that were way above the party's pay grade at the party, only to fudge willy nilly and "save" the party, time after time.

I think everyone here would agree that that's a bad thing.  I know I certainly would.

And, there's been a fairly strong current throughout this thread to characterize fudging in this light.  That if you fudge once, you must fudge all the time and that simply isn't true.

To me, fudging a result is just another tool in the DM's toolkit.  It's a difficult tool to use, and not one that should get pulled out often, but, like any tool, it has its uses.

Just as you've had games lose participation because of fudging, I've already stated that I lost participation because I refused to fudge.  That a little *judicious* application of creative interpretation of die results would have resulted in a much better experience for everyone at the table.

Just like real life fudge, it's something that should not be used at every chance or opportunity.  But, also like real fudge, it can be a good thing if done right.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2010)

To give another example, I just recently ran Savage Worlds for the first time.  I made a scenario and ran it.  The first fight the party ran into, I killed three of the four PC's in the first round.  Oops.  Now, this was totally due to my own inexperience with the mechanics.  100% my fault.

So, I reached down, (well virtually anyway) stood the PC's back up, took about half the baddies off the board, reduced the remaining baddies considerably in status and reran the encounter.  

A pretty obvious example of fudging.    No one had a problem with it.

GM's make mistakes.  We all do.  Sometimes you can spackle up mistakes with a little bit of tipping the dice and no one is the wiser.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is no requirement for discussion.  A single word is enough.  "He rolled a 20.  Fudge.  16.  He misses."



Data point: this is how Mutants & Masterminds works. PC hits spectacularly well and you want to minimize the damage to your NPC? Toss a hero point. NPC needs to get away for comic book reasons? Toss a hero point. You want the NPC to automatically hit? Toss a hero point. 

Building an "ignore the dice" mechanic into the game works pretty well, because the PCs can then use those hero points to reroll dice that _they_ don't like.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 24, 2010)

Hussar, it is nothing other than *a plain fact of life* that the DMs are the ultimate authorities in their games, just as my Mom is the ultimate authority in her kitchen.

That is not changed by one iota when a DM follows the advice in the 1st ed. DMG to "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"

It certainly would not be any profound expression of a DM's authority to reject that advice on the basis of being cowed into submission to _Hussar's_ browbeating!

"Talk about disempowering the DM," indeed.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 24, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And, there's been a fairly strong current throughout this thread to characterize fudging in this light. That if you fudge once, you must fudge all the time and that simply isn't true.




I do not see that.

I do not see the *relevance* of that, upon which advocates of "fudging" insist. Why should it matter?

"Well, there's Spam, egg, sausage and Spam. That's not got _much_ Spam in it."


----------



## Nagol (Apr 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Just like real life fudge, it's something that should not be used at every chance or opportunity.  But, also like real fudge, it can be a good thing if done right.




Real life fudge = ick.  Maybe that's the difference!  Maybe we just don't like the name! /humour


----------



## Nagol (Apr 24, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Data point: this is how Mutants & Masterminds works. PC hits spectacularly well and you want to minimize the damage to your NPC? Toss a hero point. NPC needs to get away for comic book reasons? Toss a hero point. You want the NPC to automatically hit? Toss a hero point.
> 
> Building an "ignore the dice" mechanic into the game works pretty well, because the PCs can then use those hero points to reroll dice that _they_ don't like.




And the best part is it is done with player knowledge and agreement to the mechanic up-front _and_ player knowledge of the event during play.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 24, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, I reached down, (well virtually anyway) stood the PC's back up, took about half the baddies off the board, reduced the remaining baddies considerably in status and reran the encounter.
> 
> A pretty obvious example of fudging.




No. It's a pretty obvious example of playing a game again. Call it a "do-over" if you like.

In any case, the only reason it would be "obvious" that you "fudged" -- when you stated no such thing -- would be if we could just take it for granted because you _always_ "fudge".


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I was pointing out that my EARLY experience in the game was similar to what you stated yours was.  I'm not about to go back and swim through the original post, but, you said when you started playing, PC's died like flies.
> 
> Thus the PAST TENSE part of what you quoted.  It had nothing to do with how you play now.




I accept your word on that. Moving along.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And, there's been a fairly strong current throughout this thread to characterize fudging in this light.  That if you fudge once, you must fudge all the time and that simply isn't true.




*discards Grandma-unfriendly metaphor, selects something else*

It's like finding out that when you gave someone a present and they said they liked it, they didn't. You will always wonder after that if they are sincere when they say they like something. You go from a situation in which you are disappointed once, to a situation where every success is tainted by doubt.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 24, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> *discards Grandma-unfriendly metaphor, selects something else*
> 
> It's like finding out that when you gave someone a present and they said they liked it, they didn't. You will always wonder after that if they are sincere when they say they like something. You go from a situation in which you are disappointed once, to a situation where every success is tainted by doubt.




That's one of the main reasons I always roll in the open.  Players, by and large, have at best a middling grasp of probabiility and large population sample sizes.

There are enough low-probability results that I don't want the players to think I'm pulling my punches / fudging results when in fact, the dice results are wonky -- like the time a Colossal spider ate all 6 horses before attacking a PC -- even though the players were legal targets every round.  Conversely, I don't want them to think I'm picking on someone like the time a PC fell off his horse, got a serious result, broke his arm, and came within an inch of dying (Aftermath system).


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And, there's been a fairly strong current throughout this thread to characterize fudging in this light.  That if you fudge once, you must fudge all the time and that simply isn't true.



Agreed. I have called out RC on several occasions for doing just that (the paladin's player need not worry, since he *knows* his DM *will *fudge to save him, etc).



Hussar said:


> To me, fudging a result is just another tool in the DM's toolkit.  It's a difficult tool to use, and not one that should get pulled out often, but, like any tool, it has its uses.



Again agreed. The DM has many ways to use his authority over the game. The firm line drawn between fudging and everything else is arbitrary.



Hussar said:


> Just like real life fudge, it's something that should not be used at every chance or opportunity.  But, also like real fudge, it can be a good thing if done right.



Succinct.



Ariosto said:


> It certainly would not be any profound expression of a DM's authority to reject that advice on the basis of being cowed into submission to _Hussar's_ browbeating!



If there's any browbeating going on in this thread, it's the claims that DMs who fudge are untrustworthy or fearful that their creations are subpar.

There's a world of difference between "_I do fudge sometimes, I find it more fun that way_" and "_I never fudge, I would find it less fun that way, and besides DMs who do it just don't know what they're doing_."



pawsplay said:


> It's like finding out that when you gave someone a present and they said they liked it, they didn't. You will always wonder after that if they are sincere when they say they like something. You go from a situation in which you are disappointed once, to a situation where every success is tainted by doubt.



This is a good illustration of a player who prefers that his DM not fudge, then finds out his DM is fudging and is upset about it. In games where everyone is cool with the DM fudging, of course, it's not applicable as an analogy.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 24, 2010)

Nagol said:


> And the best part is [that "fudging" in M&M] is done with player knowledge and agreement to the mechanic up-front _and_ player knowledge of the event during play.



I'm with Piratecat; I love this aspect of M&M.  Absolutely love it.

On the other hand, a mechanic like this fits the superhero genre in a way that it doesn't, IMO, fit many others.  (IMO, it also fits Star Wars, and there are likely other examples.)

While the part of my aversion to fudging that is based in logic would be satisfied if an M&M-like Hero Point system were applied to D&D, the part of my aversion to it that is more visceral would still hate it.

While Hero Points can be used by players for many purposes in M&M, the primary game mechanical purpose is to replace hit points.  In D&D, hit points are ablative plot protection.  M&M has a save mechanic, which means that without a do-over, an ostensibly powerful character (hero or villain) will be one-shotted significantly often, and that's just not fun.  Adding Hero Points (or other fudging) to D&D is adding another layer of plot protection ... and IMO, it's too much.

(For what it's worth, if I were DMing OD&D (for some reason, perhaps I was in Hell, wait, is this Edition Warring?), I'm pretty sure I'd hold my nose and fudge until the characters were powerful enough not to be killed by a falling twig from a nearby tree.)

As an unrelated aside, it's kinda fun to post while hopped up on Guatemala Antigua, with the Ting Tings cranked absurdly loud in one's noise-isolation headphones.  I'm more or less vibrating.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 24, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If there's any browbeating going on in this thread, it's the claims that DMs who fudge are untrustworthy or fearful that their creations are subpar.



I don't trust fudging DMs.  I don't know if that, by your definition, means that I'm calling them "untrustworthy" or not.  But _I_ don't trust someone (in the context of a game) who is unilaterally altering the rules we've implicitly or explicitly agreed upon.

For what it's worth, I also never trusted Billy Witt, who, when we'd play Guns in the scrub-lot near the white-people projects, would _never_ admit that he'd been shot and killed.  If he's playing RPGs today, I'm sure he's a fudger (if the GM) or worse (if he's a player).



Fifth Element said:


> This is a good illustration of a player who prefers that his DM not fudge, then finds out his DM is fudging and is upset about it. In games where everyone is cool with the DM fudging, of course, it's not applicable as an analogy.



For the record, I think you (and Umbran, BTW) are incorrect that "everyone is cool" with fudging in your games.  I know I can't prove it, and I know that you should know better than I do.  But I don't believe it.  This really isn't an indictment of you; it's simply a statement that I -- for better or worse -- choose to go with my own experience with gamers over what you're telling me of yours.

I've experienced players who were okay with fudging, don't misunderstand.  One of my best friends outright told me one time -- it's still worth a chuckle in our gaming circle -- "I don't want to play D&D if I have a chance to fail at something!"


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 24, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I don't trust fudging DMs.  I don't know if that, by your definition, means that I'm calling them "untrustworthy" or not. But _I_ don't trust someone (in the context of a game) who is unilaterally altering the rules we've implicitly or explicitly agreed upon.



No, that's not calling them untrustworthy, really. You just don't like fudging in your games.

Now, if the rules the group agrees upon include the DM being able to fudge, there should be no problem, yes?



Jeff Wilder said:


> For the record, I think you (and Umbran, BTW) are incorrect that "everyone is cool" with fudging in your games.  I know I can't prove it, and I know that you should know better than I do.



No you can't, and yes we do. But at least you're honest about not taking our word at face value. I suppose it's a bit less insulting that way.

However, I would ask why you'd participate in a discussion when you're not even going to believe what people say about their own personal experiences. It certainly suggests you're not here for the discussion.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 24, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> However, I would ask why you'd participate in a discussion when you're not even going to believe what people say about their own personal experiences. It certainly suggests you're not here for the discussion.



First: Dude, I'm a lawyer.  I'm all _about_ the hypothetical!

Second: What you describe as your "own personal experiences," I'll describe as "hearsay."  (Seriously.  Legally speaking, it's hearsay.)  Again, I'm not saying that you're lying ... I'm saying that I believe you're wrong, because what you're describing contradicts every experience I've had in 29 years of gaming, and because there are other explanations for what you're describing.  Gimme your game group on the stand where I can talk to them myself, and we'll see.

You do understand that I can believe what you say, but not believe you're correct about the conclusions you reach, right?  I don't believe you or Umbran are lying ... I simply don't believe your conclusions.

Third: I wasn't aware that accepting everything someone says as fact was a requirement for participating in a discussion.  They did, however, make an okay movie out of the premise, starring Jennifer Garner and Ricky Gervais.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 24, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> If there's any browbeating going on in this thread it's ...  There's a world of difference between ...




I was referring to Hussar's post. Whatever the difference between two hypothetical cases that are not the actual case at hand, it is neither here nor there. Notice that the point was to demonstrate the inherent paradox in Hussar's lambasting of Raven Crowking for alleged paradox (or hypocrisy, perhaps).


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 24, 2010)

*Admin here. This area of the thread right around here is where things are starting to go downhill fast. Please read my warning on the next page before responding to these posts.. ~ PCat*



Jeff Wilder said:


> First: Dude, I'm a lawyer.  I'm all _about_ the hypothetical!
> 
> Second: What you describe as your "own personal experiences," I'll describe as "hearsay."  (Seriously.  Legally speaking, it's hearsay.)



No kidding. Did you notice this isn't a courtroom?



Jeff Wilder said:


> Again, I'm not saying that you're lying ... I'm saying that I believe you're wrong



I know precisely what you're saying, it's just incredibly arrogant. Since my experience doesn't mesh with yours, you assume I'm wrong about my experiences, rather than reasoning your experiences might not be universal. You may have been gaming 8 years longer than I have, but I'd say my 21 years are plenty to form my own experiences in gaming.

I realize lawyers are trained to argue their positions regardless of the evidence against them, but again we're not in a courtroom.



Jeff Wilder said:


> Gimme your game group on the stand where I can talk to them myself, and we'll see.



Read that back to me: "but again we're not in a courtroom."



Jeff Wilder said:


> Third: I wasn't aware that accepting everything someone says as fact was a requirement for participating in a discussion.



No, but if you're going to assume someone's wrong when in fact their experiences are just different from yours, you're not going to be productive in the dicussion.

This is another point Umbram can add to his list for why these discussions go downhill.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 24, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Notice that the point was to demonstrate the inherent paradox in Hussar's lambasting of Raven Crowking for alleged paradox (or hypocrisy, perhaps).



I'm puzzled by your characterization of Hussar's post as "lambasting."


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 24, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> While the part of my aversion to fudging that is based in logic would be satisfied if an M&M-like Hero Point system were applied to D&D, the part of my aversion to it that is more visceral would still hate it.




Ditto here. They are both splendid games, but they are _different_ games.



> While Hero Points can be used by players for many purposes in M&M, the primary game mechanical purpose is to replace hit points.



Bingo! If you've got 25 hit points, then it's impossible for 4d6 damage to reduce you to zero. If you've got some % chance of an instant knockout, then it can happen right now.



> For what it's worth, if I were DMing OD&D  ... I'm pretty sure I'd hold my nose and fudge until the characters were powerful enough not to be killed by a falling twig from a nearby tree.



One could start the characters at, say, 3rd or 4th level. Or just give 'em a hit-point "kicker" at 1st. Maximum HP at 1st is typically just 1 short of average at 2nd, with Hit Dice per Supplement I and later.

Maximum at 1st _and_ AD&D-style "negative points" (with the KO threshold going through -2, for 50% with d6 vs. 1 HP) proved in my experience to make characters _too_ darned hard to kill. It was just a drag to have 'em lying around incapacitated but "not dead yet!" YMMV.

I had a game for a while in which we used the HP system from the 1978 Arduin Grimoire Vol. III (_Runes of Doom_). Kobold magic-User , constitution 11 = 22 points, +1/3 levels. Saurig (lizard-dude) fighter, constitution 16 = 43 points, +1/level.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> After 30 pages of discussion on the topic?
> 
> When "they" are still (metaphorically) standing there to talk to?




Yes, I would still be cautious indeed about assuming that a perception that "X is a weakness" or "X is used to compensate for a weakness" somehow implies disrespect of the other side.

I am not sure what "class of people" you are referring to, so I can't really answer that.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 24, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If fudging is good for your game, do it. There's nothing inherently wrong with it.




AH, then we agree.

We simply disagree as to what the set of "If fudging is good for your game" consists of.  I tend to believe it is (for all intents and purposes) an empty set.



Umbran said:


> Who is this General that's recommending or not recommending things?  Did I miss that you worked in the Pentagon, RC?




Happy to talk to you when you calm down, Umbran.



Hussar said:


> Raven Crowking (and others) has argued at length and quite vocally that DM's are the ultimate authority in a game.  They should not feel that they have to change for the players or for the mechanics.  They should be the masters of the game - with authority over the game, the mechanics and pretty much everything that happes at the table.
> 
> But, here, we see that the ultimate authority in his game is actually the dice.




Not at all.  The ultimate authority is the DM.  If the DM decides to roll the dice, and then decides to fudge, he is undermining his own authority.



Piratecat said:


> Data point: this is how Mutants & Masterminds works. PC hits spectacularly well and you want to minimize the damage to your NPC? Toss a hero point. NPC needs to get away for comic book reasons? Toss a hero point. You want the NPC to automatically hit? Toss a hero point.
> 
> Building an "ignore the dice" mechanic into the game works pretty well, because the PCs can then use those hero points to reroll dice that _they_ don't like.




Yup.  I have no problem with this sort of rule.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am not sure what "class of people" you are referring to, so I can't really answer that.



DMs who fudge, presumably.



Raven Crowking said:


> We simply disagree as to what the set of "If fudging is good for your game" consists of.  I tend to believe it is (for all intents and purposes) an empty set.



*Fudging is good for my game.* Period. It increases the enjoyment that I and my players derive from the game. Your belief is therefore rebutted.

In order to dismiss this rebuttal, you must assume that you know better what my group enjoys than I do. That would be a very arrogant assumption, given that you've never met me or anyone I play with, much less actually played with us.

This is the uphill battle to which Umbran referred. You have decided that since you don't enjoy fudging, anyone who says they do must be mistaken, or simply not realize that their game would be better if they played your way.

The alternative to this, of course, is to accept that fudging increases the enjoyment that a not-insignificant number of groups derive from their games. Given the evidence of that provided in this thread (if you would care to read it), I'd suggest you consider accepting that not everyone enjoys gaming in the same way you do.



Raven Crowking said:


> Not at all. The ultimate authority is the DM. If the DM decides to roll the dice, and then decides to fudge, he is undermining his own authority.



So if he instead decides to roll the dice, but still allow himself the ability to fudge after the dice have been rolled, that would be fine? You're setting completely arbitrary limits on what the DM can and cannot do with his authority. There's no reason why it cannot extend beyond the "roll the dice" point, other than you saying so. There's no reason why the DM can have complete control of the fantasy world up until dice are rolled, but then *must *subjugate his authority to the dice when rolled. Many people play that way, but there's nothing saying it *has* to be that way.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 24, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> So if he instead decides to roll the dice, but still allow himself the ability to fudge after the dice have been rolled, that would be fine? You're setting completely arbitrary limits on what the DM can and cannot do with his authority. There's no reason why it cannot extend beyond the "roll the dice" point, other than you saying so. There's no reason why the DM can have complete control of the fantasy world up until dice are rolled, but then *must *subjugate his authority to the dice when rolled. Many people play that way, but there's nothing saying it *has* to be that way.




I think it is important to remember that no one that I am aware of, on either side of this argument, is suggesting that their opinion is the OneTrueWay, but rather that they have preferences.  So, while it may seem like a strange and arbitrary line to draw, I think a lot of us "anti-fudgers" do in fact "limit" the DM's authority at changing die roll results mid-combat for the express purpose of altering the outcome either in favor of or against the PCs. This is, as they say, a No-No, a Thou Shalt Not, a kicked out of the DM Union offense.  We set up the game and the scenario. We establish the ground rules and the particulars. We create the challenges and arbitrate disputes. But we do not, under any circumstances, change a crit to a whiff to save a PC (or a NPC -- anti-fudging extends to the bad guys, too).

And, of course, there's likely a legion of anti-fudgers who totally disagree with me on one, some or all of the above, and fidgers who agree in parts.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 24, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> <snip>
> 
> In order to dismiss this rebuttal, you must assume that you know better what my group enjoys than I do. That would be a very arrogant assumption, given that you've never met me or anyone I play with, much less actually played with us.




Not so.  Unless RC is now or is expecting to be in your game then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist for him.  RC could simply feel that he wouldn't enjoy your game as much if you fudge than if you gave up the practice.  What you and your group enjoy is meanigless to his enjoyment.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 24, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I think it is important to remember that no one that I am aware of, on either side of this argument, is suggesting that their opinion is the OneTrueWay, but rather that they have preferences.  So, while it may seem like a strange and arbitrary line to draw, I think a lot of us "anti-fudgers" do in fact "limit" the DM's authority at changing die roll results mid-combat for the express purpose of altering the outcome either in favor of or against the PCs. This is, as they say, a No-No, a Thou Shalt Not, a kicked out of the DM Union offense.  We set up the game and the scenario. We establish the ground rules and the particulars. We create the challenges and arbitrate disputes. But we do not, under any circumstances, change a crit to a whiff to save a PC (or a NPC -- anti-fudging extends to the bad guys, too).
> 
> And, of course, there's likely a legion of anti-fudgers who totally disagree with me on one, some or all of the above, and fidgers who agree in parts.




I don't think it's particlarly arbitrary.  As a DM, I don't lie to the players.  The NPCs may lie.  Situations can appear different from actuality, but I attempt to provide as a clean a glimpse into the world as is possible.  

Part of the world is indeterminate until the dice result appear.  The probabilities are generally knowable by the players (if not outright known).  That the probability distributions exist in their current state is because I and in many cases the wider group have accepted those outcomes are acceptable through acceptance of the game's ruleset and the situation the character find themselves in.

The players make choices with the knowledge of potential outcomes --  effectively placing bets that their resources, tactics, and abilities will carry them to safety and success.  Let  us see how well they gambled in an honest game.


----------



## Imaginary Number (Apr 24, 2010)

Nagol said:


> Unless RC is now or is expecting to be in your game then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist for him. RC could simply feel that he wouldn't enjoy your game as much if you fudge than if you gave up the practice. What you and your group enjoy is meanigless to his enjoyment.




This is true, but it doesn't address Fifth Element's point.  RC asserted that the set of possible games that are improved by DM fudging is "empty," i.e. that no such game exists, regardless of whether RC is playing in it.  Fifth Element responded that, yes, his game indeed is improved by judicious use of fudging as one of the many tools available to the DM in running the game.  When faced with this sort of contradictory anecdotal evidence, the response throught the thread generally has been that DMs who fudge are playing wrong and don't know it, don't know that their players don't like it when they fudge even if the players say they do, and are lying untrustworthy liars to boot.  If everyone simply agreed that fudging or not fudging was merely a matter of playstyle preference that is irrelevant to people who don't share a preference, I don't think this thread would have gone on this far.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 24, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I think it is important to remember that no one that I am aware of, on either side of this argument, is suggesting that their opinion is the OneTrueWay, but rather that they have preferences.



I disagree. Stating that you have a preference, and that those who do not share your preference are doing so because of a personal weakness or lack of ability as a DM, and that those who do not share your preferences are in fact hurting their games by not sharing your preferences, is not a mere statement of preference.



Reynard said:


> So, while it may seem like a strange and arbitrary line to draw



I have no problem with arbitrary lines. All lines drawn in D&D rules are arbitrary, since it's a made-up game. I have an issue with arbitrary lines being presented as natural and obvious.



Nagol said:


> Not so.  Unless RC is now or is expecting to be in your game then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist for him.  RC could simply feel that he wouldn't enjoy your game as much if you fudge than if you gave up the practice.  What you and your group enjoy is meanigless to his enjoyment.



That would be an incredibly charitable reading of his post, one which I am not inclined to give at this point. His argument seems to be (based not only on that post but the entire thread) that no games are improved by fudging, for anyone. Not just him. If he were simply talking about his personal preferences at this point, my response would be "Yes, I realize that. And?"



Nagol said:


> The players make choices with the knowledge of potential outcomes --  effectively placing bets that their resources, tactics, and abilities will carry them to safety and success.  Let  us see how well they gambled in an honest game.



It will never be an "honest game" because the DM sets the groundrules to begin with, and controls with fiat everthing up to the point of the die roll. You might not intend it here, but this quote can be read to imply GMs who fudge are dishonest, with all the negative implications of the term. That has been asserted at various points in the thread, and it's as untrue now as it was then.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 24, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> It will never be an "honest game" because the DM sets the groundrules to begin with, and controls with fiat everthing up to the point of the die roll. You might not intend it here, but this quote can be read to imply GMs who fudge are dishonest, with all the negative implications of the term. That has been asserted at various points in the thread, and it's as untrue now as it was then.




If I look down at a die and say "I rolled a 10" when the die is plainly showing a 20, I am being dishonest.  Whether the game engine confers that authority is immaterial.  The same holds true if I say "It hit for 5 damage" when the dice are showing a critical for 20.

I have no difficulty with the concept of arbitrary changes to die rolls on the part of the DM if (a) the player group has explicitly agreed to the use and (b) the DM calls out the correct result and then changes it.  In that case, the DM is being honest and is merely exercising in a clear manner power granted to him.


----------



## Imaginary Number (Apr 24, 2010)

Nagol said:


> If I look down at a die and say "I rolled a 10" when the die is plainly showing a 20, I am being dishonest. Whether the game engine confers that authority is immaterial. The same holds true if I say "It hit for 5 damage" when the dice are showing a critical for 20.
> 
> I have no difficulty with the concept of arbitrary changes to die rolls on the part of the DM if (a) the player group has explicitly agreed to the use and (b) the DM calls out the correct result and then changes it. In that case, the DM is being honest and is merely exercising in a clear manner power granted to him.




Say I look down at my adventure notes and see that a pack of 10 ghouls is in room 15.  I decide when the players get to room 15, however, to reduce the number of ghouls to 5 if the party seems low on resources, or to increase it to 15 if they've not been challenged much to that point.  This is also being dishonest in the sense that the number of ghouls the party fights differs from the number written in my notes.  But I think most people would agree that making such an adjustment is within the scope of the DM's authority.

With respect to your second point, I'm with you that the player group should agree as a general matter whether the DM has the authority to alter die rolls -- the variety of strong opinions on the issue expressed in this thread suggests that's a good idea.  But I don't see why part (b) is absolutely necessary.  For example, Umbran above stated that his group doesn't want him to let them know if he fudges a die roll; my survey of my players on the issue got results identical to his.  If the group wants the DM to announce when fudging occurs, fine, but my guess (based on an admittedly small sample size) is that most players who are OK with DM fudging also don't want to be told when the DM does it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 24, 2010)

Nagol said:


> If I look down at a die and say "I rolled a 10" when the die is plainly showing a 20, I am being dishonest.



And if you don't normally tell the players what you rolled on the die....?

The fudge can be that you applied an ad hoc penalty to the attack roll, or made a mid-fight adjustment to the monster's attack bonus. You can fudge even if you use the result of the die roll itself.



Nagol said:


> I have no difficulty with the concept of arbitrary changes to die rolls on the part of the DM if (a) the player group has explicitly agreed to the use and



Great, we've got that covered in this thread already.



Nagol said:


> (b) the DM calls out the correct result and then changes it.  In that case, the DM is being honest and is merely exercising in a clear manner power granted to him.



Why would the DM call out the result if he's planning on changing it? That's not how fudging works, in my experience.

"He hits AC 27, does that hit?"
"Yes, dammit, that's going to drop me!"
"Oops, well then let's say he only hits AC 22. That's a miss, right?"

That's not how it happens.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 25, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> No kidding. Did you notice this isn't a courtroom?



Did you know that logic and rules of credibility don't stop in the courtroom?



> I know precisely what you're saying, it's just incredibly arrogant. Since my experience doesn't mesh with yours, you assume I'm wrong about my experiences



Let me just ask you straight out, because I want to know if you're a liar or not.  Do you, yes or no, sometimes believe that someone is wrong if they tell you something that is completely alien to your experience?  I know, I know, "we're not in a court room."  But, really, try.

Because either you're as "arrogant" as I am -- as everybody in the world is, when it comes to "somebody else's word against our own experiences" -- or you're a liar.  Period.  I'd like to know which.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 25, 2010)

*When people start tossing out "arrogant" and "liar," they're inches from having the thread shut down. I strongly suggest you pursue another line of conversation to discuss your points.*


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 25, 2010)

Nagol said:


> If I look down at a die and say "I rolled a 10" when the die is plainly showing a 20, I am being dishonest.  Whether the game engine confers that authority is immaterial.  The same holds true if I say "It hit for 5 damage" when the dice are showing a critical for 20.




Well let's put some nuance in the situation.  Let's assume that this is not a game where the PCs have normally have access to the monster stat blocks or current monster hit points.  Which kinds of scenarios would you, or the other posters in the thread find acceptable?


You, as the DM, have decided that the necromantic power in the room gives the skeletons within the ability to regenerate 15 hit points a round.  After a few rounds, it becomes apparent that if the PCs can win at all, it will take hours to resolve.  Without announcing the change, you reduce the amount of regeneration to 3 hit points.
Same as above, but you announce it, attributing it to one of the PCs actions.  "As you bring a holy symbol near the evil altar, the necromantic energy in the room dims!"
You want your villain to be powerful and menacing, so you give his main attack the ability to crit on a roll of 16-20 for 6d8 extra damage.  His first crit, on a natural 20, kills a PC.  You decide to immediately remove the extra critical range.
Same as above, but instead of being your own creation, the villain came from Dragon magazine or the Monster Manual.
Same as #3, but you did not immediately decide whether to remove the extra critical range.  You've just rolled a 17 against a PC you know has 5 hit points left.  You announce a normal (non-critical) hit and roll normal damage.
You are running a one-shot adventure with your normal group, but at a much higher level than you normally play.  Your players have been bragging about how optimized their characters are all week.  You decide to add 2 extra monsters to each planned encounter.  As the first combat breaks out, it becomes apparent that the players barely know what their characters abilities do, and are actually less effective than normal.  You remove the extra monsters from future combats.
Same as above, but you remove the extra monsters from the present combat by sneaking the figures off the table when no one is looking.
Same as above, but instead, you announce that the extra monsters are joining another, nearby battle with some NPCs that the players are not expected to participate in.

I guess the point of the above examples is that as a DM, you are responsible for designing the scenario, and sometimes you make mistakes.  You typically only have one chance to correct the mistakes, and that is right at the table, as you play.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 25, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> Well let's put some nuance in the situation.



Honestly, there's not much nuance for me.  If you decide to use a game's random outcome-determination method, but after seeing the result you decide to change it, that's where my line is.  I don't do it, and I don't want to play in a game where it's done.

If you don't want to abide by a random roll, don't roll.  Or make the roll with different parameters.  It's that simple.

As far as I'm concerned many of the other things you describe, or that have been described upthread, are exactly what I use as _alternatives_ to altering the die roll.  IMO and IME, altering the die roll (or rolling in secret, which leads to the players assuming you're altering die rolls) leads to the players believing that the DM is going soft on them or to the players believing that the DM is adversarial.  IMO and IME, neither one of those is fun or good for an RPG.

This is where Raven Crowking and Ariosto and I part ways (I think).  Because I don't have any problem, as DM or as player, with a DM altering an encounter -- in effect, changing the rules, which from then on will be adhered to -- because the DM screwed up in designing or vetting an encounter.  (Similarly, I don't have a problem with a DM "winging" an encounter or an entire adventure.  Well, except that it's _usually_ inferior to a prepared adventure.)

By contrast, I will not alter a fair encounter (not necessarily "evenly matched," because "fair" and evenly matched" aren't always the same thing) that turns out differently than I might have expected because of player choice and/or dice rolls.  And I do not want a DM doing that when I'm a player.

Again, really not much nuance.  It comes down to this, for me:

"If you've decided that something should be determined randomly, _stick with it_.  If you're not going to stick with what you roll, then why the hell are you pretending you want things determined randomly? Just declare the outcome and be honest with yourself and your players."  (Which, not to belabor the point, is exactly what M&M has built into the system.)


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> "If you've decided that something should be determined randomly, _stick with it_.  If you're not going to stick with what you roll, then why the hell are you pretending you want things determined randomly?



Maybe you want it to be _almost_ completely random? But not necessarily totally random? Is that not just as valid?


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 25, 2010)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> I guess the point of the above examples is that as a DM, you are responsible for designing the scenario, and sometimes you make mistakes. You typically only have one chance to correct the mistakes, and that is right at the table, as you play.




1. I run D&D, not Mortal Kombat. Unless it's a one-shot, I'm not designing the kind of scenario that's a matter of running characters through a gauntlet of combats. If it _is_ a one-shot, then we _really_ aren't going to get all broken up over imaginary massacres.

2. In my campaign, it's generally up to _the players_ where their characters go and what they do. The characters that survive and thrive tend not to get into pointless fights, and it would be pretty unusual for there to be any incentive to fight skeletons.

3. The rules I use are pretty transparent, and I can handle basic maths.

4. There is no entitlement to survival, much less victory. If a giant could make like Tiger Woods with your head, then it's your responsibility to make better use of what's in that dimpled ball. Your goals and methods are your own choice. You can't eliminate risk, but you can manage it and weigh it against potential rewards.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 25, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Maybe you want it to be _almost_ completely random? But not necessarily totally random? Is that not just as valid?



Not only is it valid, but _weighted_ probabilities are a whole lot more common than complete randomness. In fact, things are typically so far from completely random that *only a finite sub-set of all possibilities is actually on the table*.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Not only is it valid, but _weighted_ probabilities are a whole lot more common than complete randomness. In fact, things are typically so far from completely random that *only a finite sub-set of all possibilities is actually on the table*.



I agree, I think. My point was that another arbitrary line was being drawn, such that DM fiat and complete randomness are the only two possible means or resolving things.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 25, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Because I don't have any problem, as DM or as player, with a DM altering an encounter -- in effect, changing the rules, which from then on will be adhered to -- because the DM screwed up in designing or vetting an encounter.



I've got no problem, either, if I agree that there is a screw-up warranting such a change. There's  a whole lot less in the way of such warrant in the games I like to play and run than in one of those strings of DM-determined "combat encounters" in which it is assumed that plunging headlong into a fight is not only a guaranteed good idea but basically incumbent on us if we're gonna have a game to play tonight.

Basically, "fudge" is just the icing on a cake that is a long, long way from what I want in D&D. It might still be better than _no_ D&D, though.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 25, 2010)

Upon reconsideration, I no longer feel anything will be served by speaking on the matter further.  Post removed.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 25, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Maybe you want it to be _almost_ completely random? But not necessarily totally random? Is that not just as valid?



Give me an example?  (I'm pretty sure I already covered what you mean with my suggestion to "make the roll with different parameters," above, but I'm not positive.)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 25, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> Well let's put some nuance in the situation. Let's assume that this is not a game where the PCs have normally have access to the monster stat blocks or current monster hit points. Which kinds of scenarios would you, or the other posters in the thread find acceptable?
> 
> 
> You, as the DM, have decided that the necromantic power in the room gives the skeletons within the ability to regenerate 15 hit points a round. After a few rounds, it becomes apparent that if the PCs can win at all, it will take hours to resolve. Without announcing the change, you reduce the amount of regeneration to 3 hit points.
> ...




1) Nope. If powerful regeneration was important to the area I wouldn't discard it. It would be very obvious to anyone there what was happening. There would certainly be alternative ways of dealing with the situation other than chopping through a roomful of augmented skellies. 

2) As per #1 

3) Could only happen if handed material to run verbatim on a playtest. 

4) See #3

5) See #3

6) If I added the extra monsters then I would have added additional rewards as well. I would let the extra monsters stand in that situation. The players can learn on the fly or suffer a TPK. 

7)   

8)  I would rather have a reputation as a killer DM instead of setting up my game for major league action then playing teeball once the PC's are at bat.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Give me an example?  (I'm pretty sure I already covered what you mean with my suggestion to "make the roll with different parameters," above, but I'm not positive.)



Examples abound in the thread. I just mean that I see some room between DM fiat and complete randomness. Specifically, randomness that is nearly always applied as the dice fall, but with the DM reserving the right to override if he feels necessary.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> 3) Could only happen if handed material to run verbatim on a playtest.



I disagree. It could also happen to a DM who designs a monster or encounter or what have you without fully realizing the implications of the mechanics designed. Thus a mid-fight adjustment might be called for.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 25, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> 1) Nope. If powerful regeneration was important to the area I wouldn't discard it. It would be very obvious to anyone there what was happening. There would certainly be alternative ways of dealing with the situation other than chopping through a roomful of augmented skellies.





ExploderWizard said:


> 3) Could only happen if handed material to run verbatim on a playtest.




The examples are exaggerated so that it's obvious what's wrong, but the context here is that you, as the DM, have gone into these combats without fully realizing the implications of what you've done.  Since the idea here is that you've made a mistake, pretend you've made a few.  Say that you've also made the combat difficult to predict, nearly impossible to escape, and failed to include any alternate means of getting through the obstacle.  That's a lot of mistakes, and it's unlikely that you'd make that many at one time, but if you did, would you start fudging, or would you let the PCs suffer the consequences of your obvious mistakes?

The examples I gave are all combat, because that was the general context of the thread, and because combat is the most dice-based of the activities in the adventure, and so changing the combat is more often seen as fudging than simply improvisation.

Since combat is so mechanically handled, combat against accidentally unkillable, way-too-tough, or too numerous monsters has the potential to derail a session before it can get to the good stuff.  It's less changing major league action to tee-ball and more realizing that giving the opposing pitcher a 400 mph fastball is somewhat unfair. 

Essentially, if you have the fortitude to discard a one-shot adventure you've spent 2-8 hours designing in the first 30 minutes of play because you made the first combat way too powerful, then more power to you.  I certainly don't, and that's a prime example of where I would choose to fudge.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 25, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Examples abound in the thread.



Okay, can you quote one?



> I just mean that I see some room between DM fiat and complete randomness. Specifically, randomness that is nearly always applied as the dice fall, but with the DM reserving the right to override if he feels necessary.



I'll be happy to respond, but I really would like to see a specific example of what you mean.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 25, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I disagree. It could also happen to a DM who designs a monster or encounter or what have you without fully realizing the implications of the mechanics designed.




I reckon ExploderWizard was speaking for himself, who happens to have a sound grasp of what's involved.



> Thus a mid-fight adjustment might be called for.




That is to _assume_ what is actually _in question_.



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I just mean that I see some room between DM fiat and complete randomness.




Yes. It's called _rules_.

For instance, suppose I'm using someone else's encounter table, and an entry or three happen not to fit the ground-rules of my world. If I had bothered to design a table of my own, then those encounters _would not have been included in the first place_. Therefore, if I roll one of them then I either roll again or substitute something appropriate (considering frequency).

The _reason_ for the change is a rule, part of the structure of information that players explore and exploit in the course of play.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 25, 2010)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Essentially, if you have the fortitude to discard a one-shot adventure you've spent 2-8 hours designing in the first 30 minutes of play because you made the first combat way too powerful, then more power to you.



Why would we do that?

Never mind that this is _not_ the subject raised in the OP. Never mind that it is so preposterous that the really proper answer is that someone who screws up that badly is *the last person to whom we should turn for a solution*.

The bottom line is this:

There is no reason at all that we can't turn right around and, with whatever adjustments (to scenario and/or characters) may seem meet, play the scenario.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 25, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> The examples are exaggerated so that it's obvious what's wrong, but the context here is that you, as the DM, have gone into these combats without fully realizing the implications of what you've done. Since the idea here is that you've made a mistake, pretend you've made a few. Say that you've also made the combat difficult to predict, nearly impossible to escape, and failed to include any alternate means of getting through the obstacle. That's a lot of mistakes, and it's unlikely that you'd make that many at one time, but if you did, would you start fudging, or would you let the PCs suffer the consequences of your obvious mistakes?.




I didn't mean to sound as if I have never made any errors as a DM. That is not the case. Your preposterous set up just made me chuckle and think of the old MAD TV Spishak Cola skit. ( I would link it but the only clip I can find is in German ) 



Benimoto said:


> Since combat is so mechanically handled, combat against accidentally unkillable, way-too-tough, or too numerous monsters has the potential to derail a session before it can get to the good stuff. It's less changing major league action to tee-ball and more realizing that giving the opposing pitcher a 400 mph fastball is somewhat unfair.




A session can only be derailed if it's on the rails to begin with. The "good stuff" can come from the most surprising of places when the players control the action. 



Benimoto said:


> Essentially, if you have the fortitude to discard a one-shot adventure you've spent 2-8 hours designing in the first 30 minutes of play because you made the first combat way too powerful, then more power to you. I certainly don't, and that's a prime example of where I would choose to fudge.




I don't have a working crystal ball so I am unaware of when or where that first combat will be. If I forced my players to jump through hoops and dance to my tune then perhaps I would be more inclined to help players out of situations that I forced them into in the first place.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> The _reason_ for the change is a rule, part of the structure of information that players explore and exploit in the course of play.



I can't parse this, so I can't respond to it.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 25, 2010)

_1. You, as the DM, have decided that the necromantic power in the room gives the skeletons within the ability to regenerate 15 hit points a round.  After a few rounds, it becomes apparent that if the PCs can win at all, it will take hours to resolve.  Without announcing the change, you reduce the amount of regeneration to 3 hit points._

Acceptable. If the parameters were badly chosen, the best I can do is try to remedy the situation. I wouldn't bother telling the players and distracting them with maths they can't see anyway. If they ask, I would tell them I decided the regeneration rate on the skeletons was wrong and I have corrected it.

_2. Same as above, but you announce it, attributing it to one of the PCs actions.  "As you bring a holy symbol near the evil altar, the necromantic energy in the room dims!"_
Probably not a good idea. That one throwaway comment says way too much about holy symbols, and also implies a rather wimply necromancer aura. This is one of those off-the-cuff calls that can begin unraveling the campaign because I didn't think things through.

_3. You want your villain to be powerful and menacing, so you give his main attack the ability to crit on a roll of 16-20 for 6d8 extra damage.  His first crit, on a natural 20, kills a PC.  You decide to immediately remove the extra critical range._

Unacceptable. There is no logical connection between the crit range and the natural 20. All I would be saying is that I'm sorry a PC died in the first round, and I'm not. Hopefully, the remaining PCs will decide to run if things get hairy. They've already had ample demonstration that this NPC is not to be trifled with.

_4. Same as above, but instead of being your own creation, the villain came from Dragon magazine or the Monster Manual._

No change, although I might look at such a stat block and consider carefully if the bad guy's attack is more swingy than I want. Fine for a boss fight, though, in my opinion.

_5. Same as #3, but you did not immediately decide whether to remove the extra critical range.  You've just rolled a 17 against a PC you know has 5 hit points left.  You announce a normal (non-critical) hit and roll normal damage._

Unacceptable. Now I'm just pretending to use the rules.

_6. You are running a one-shot adventure with your normal group, but at a much higher level than you normally play.  Your players have been bragging about how optimized their characters are all week.  You decide to add 2 extra monsters to each planned encounter.  As the first combat breaks out, it becomes apparent that the players barely know what their characters abilities do, and are actually less effective than normal.  You remove the extra monsters from future combats._

No problem. Personally, I would leave the monsters. 

_7. Same as above, but you remove the extra monsters from the present combat by sneaking the figures off the table when no one is looking._

What?

_8. Same as above, but instead, you announce that the extra monsters are joining another, nearby battle with some NPCs that the players are not expected to participate in._

That's just going to complicate things. Acceptable, if your goal is to make the encounter a dissatisfying experience involving way too much work.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Acceptable. If the parameters were badly chosen, the best I can do is try to remedy the situation. I wouldn't bother telling the players and distracting them with maths they can't see anyway. If they ask, I would tell them I decided the regeneration rate on the skeletons was wrong and I have corrected it.






pawsplay said:


> Unacceptable. Now I'm just pretending to use the rules.



I think my ultimate point here is that I see this as an arbitrary dividing line. If you can decide that the regeneration rate is too high, you can also decide that an attack bonus is too high, or a damage value is too high, or a crit range is too great, etc. There have been a lot of "okay/not okay" assertions made in this thread, and for the most part I don't see any real difference between the situations in question. Generally they involve the DM applying his authority, and there are no hard-and-fast rules as to how that should be done.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 25, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I think my ultimate point here is that I see this as an arbitrary dividing line. If you can decide that the regeneration rate is too high, you can also decide that an attack bonus is too high, or a damage value is too high, or a crit range is too great, etc.




I could do lots of things. That doesn't mean they're all equally good ideas.



> There have been a lot of "okay/not okay" assertions made in this thread, and for the most part I don't see any real difference between the situations in question. Generally they involve the DM applying his authority, and there are no hard-and-fast rules as to how that should be done.




Of course not. It comes down to judgment. 

I think it's one thing to say, "Ok, I made a mistake, I am going to try to fix this scenario with a minimum of fuss," versus breaking the central premise of an RPG: that the imaginary events are like real events in some way. If I change the regeneration of a skeleton, I don't go from a position of knowing to a position of not-knowing, I just alter a parameter I'm already controlling. On the other hand, if I start fudging rolls or using arbitrary situational modifiers, I move from a situation of not knowing an outcome to one of controlling it absolutely. Not only have I changed the nature of the game, I have changed my intentions toward it. 

The skeleton thing is an example of where things have gone wrong, but it doesn't violate anyone's expectations if I go back and fix the math such that it is as-if they had regeneration 3 the whole time. I could just as easily have Gandalf show up and zap them with holy light.  If I changed the regen rate and it seems like the players might be able to discern the change, I would be up front about it. "Sorry, guys, I had the regeneration rate on these guys wrong. Rather than redoing last round, I am going to drop this last one you hit before anything else changes and adjust the other's hit points to be what they should have been."

So, in short, it's not an arbitrary distinction, though its subtlety is difficult for you to understand from your viewpoint. To me, it's a very serious distinction, at least, about as serious as anything in an RPG is going to be. The skeleton thing is not an ideal scenario, so my rationale may not be as satisfying in that situation as in others, but certainly with the critting bad guy, I know exactly what I am about when I get behind that screen.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 25, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I can't parse this, so I can't respond to it.



It is a general rule that there are no polar bears in the Great Mafrican Desert. Let us suppose that, even as a "special" on the same sub-table as monsters summoned from the Elemental Planes, a polar bear is about as arbitrarily bizarre as an incalculably great number of other things that could turn up by _truly random selection_ -- a carp, a Corvaire, a pack of Cub Scouts.

And yet, there it is on a table that someone else made up and I pressed into service. It would be an enigma to me, but the players might think of it -- and get into a position to treat it -- as a mystery. Let us suppose that I don't feel up to coming up with a reason for why a polar bear is in the desert. Maybe I've actually done that before and once is enough.

So, I re-roll and get a steam mephit instead. It could be passing through the desert en route to an errand elsewhere. Its lower-planar masters might well have sent it specifically to plague the PCs (depending on what _they_ have been up to).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 25, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I think my ultimate point here is that I see this as an arbitrary dividing line.



A lot of lines are arbitrary. But sometimes there's value in having a line and saying, "I will not cross." For instance if I set myself the task of working on a project from 8pm-10pm Mon, Tue and Thu, I could've made it a different time and/or day, but there's value in setting a rule and sticking to it.

The other issue is that fudging a dice roll is 'cheating', deceiving the players, in a way that having an extra couple of monsters join the fight from an adjoining room isn't. Well, that is also cheating, kind of, but it's not such bad cheating. One could make a sliding scale, similar to what Benimoto has done. For me adjusting a dice roll is the worst and I won't do it. I don't think I'd ever change a monster's stats in the middle of a fight, but I have adjusted a monster's powers at the start of a battle (I did that at least once last campaign) where I looked at it and thought I'd just made it way too powerful. Fairly often I've planned encounters without defining the numbers of enemies present and made it up on the spot, which some GMs would probably regard as bad form.

I appreciate what you say about these lines being arbitrary. They are, in a way. But our lives are full of rules that are at least somewhat arbitrary.

All that said, I fully respect that you have chosen to fudge. Every GM is different, every table is different. There are no universal rules of roleplaying. (Well, except that Mary Sue NPCs are bad )

I've played with literally hundreds of different people, must be dozens of different GMs. There are so many different viable styles. I once played in a game which was very railroaded, and it worked extremely well, even though I'd normally say railroads are bad. There was one particular scene where the BBEG was clearly predestined to escape, and my PC was trying to stop him, and I thought it ended up being f--king brilliant with my character being pushed to the absolute limit (and beyond). The GM was coming up with really creative ideas to explain how the villain got away (on the back of his mutant shapeshifting dragon). It turns out mutant shapeshifting dragons can be surprisingly hard to stop.

And yet we are told that scenes where the PCs cannot win are always bad, that railroads are always bad. They're not always bad. They don't work for some groups, but they do work for others.

The moral is - there are no rules. Do whatever works.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> So, I re-roll and get a steam mephit instead. It could be passing through the desert en route to an errand elsewhere. Its lower-planar masters might well have sent it specifically to plague the PCs (depending on what _they_ have been up to).



I understood what you meant by your example, it was the last line of your previous post I couldn't comprehend, the one that seemed to offer the reason why re-rolling like this is okay but fudging in combat is not.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> The moral is - there are no rules. Do whatever works.



I'm with you there. I have no problem with arbitrary lines, I draw them myself all the time. Just as long as everyone realizes they're arbitrary, and that the lines can be in very different places for different people, and it's up to everyone to draw their own lines. And that my lines being in a different place than yours does not betray a weakness in me, or a lack of planning or anything like that.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 25, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I understood what you meant by your example, it was the last line of your previous post I couldn't comprehend, the one that seemed to offer the reason why re-rolling like this is okay but fudging in combat is not.



Very simply, "without some extraordinary reason, there are no polar bears in the Great Mafrican Desert" is a rule of the game. "The DM saves or dooms your character on a whim, regardless of what the combat dice read" is -- with or without a "TPK" clause -- very simply _not_.

The rule is very clearly that the DM _does not_ do that. It is not at all hard to parse for the people to whom it is actually relevant.

If we've got _bless_ and _chant_ going, and someone miscalculates a roll, then we correct the figure of lost hit points (or whatever may be at issue) if the error is caught soon enough. Why? Because how those spells work is also a matter of rules upon which we have agreed.

We could agree to a rule that, say, "no creature can go below zero hit points unless it was at zero before the hit. Any excess damage is wasted, and zero h.p. just means unconsciousness. A creature so unconscious is as vulnerable as we have established is the case for one magically sleeping or held, and dies if brought to -6 hit points."

Were that the rule, then obviously it would mandate that a creature with but 21 points left cannot lose 48 points from one hit, "critical" or otherwise. If there were some exception to the rule, then the exception would itself _be_ a rule.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Very simply, "without some extraordinary reason, there are no polar bears in the Great Mafrican Desert" is a rule of the game.



Unless, of course, the DM decides that there *is* a polar bear in the Great Mafrican Desert this time. Which is certainly within his authority to say.



Ariosto said:


> "The DM saves or dooms your character on a whim, regardless of what the combat dice read" is -- with or without a "TPK" clause -- very simply _not_.



And it's also not what we're discussing, despite misrepresentations or misunderstandings to the contrary.



Ariosto said:


> The rule is very clearly that the DM _does not_ do that.



And if the DM can ignore the polar bear rule if he so chooses, say because he thinks it would be cooler for there to be one in the desert this time, he cannot ignore this rule because...


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 26, 2010)

> And it's also not what we're discussing, despite misrepresentations or misunderstandings to the contrary.



Wow. Please tell what you think "we're" discussing, so I can decide whether _I_ want to discuss it.



> And if the DM can ignore the polar bear rule if he so chooses, say because he thinks it would be cooler for there to be one in the desert this time, he cannot ignore this rule because...



The DM is _not_ ignoring "the polar bear rule". The DM is _applying_ the rule, so that the players can also use the rule and thereby play a game, instead of being on rails through an utterly arbitrary environment that permits no formulation of strategy.

The DM is *letting the players play the game.*

It is not necessary for you to understand, and it is most unlikely for you to understand if you are determined not to understand.

Look, *you CAN break whatever rule you want!* The _only_ recourse anyone has is not to play with you.

Why shouldn't the DM change the ability scores, race, class, sex I have chosen?
Why shouldn't the DM change my character from 1st level to 30th, or vice-versa?
Why shouldn't the DM drop an asteroid for an extinction-event TPK?
Why shouldn't the DM have my player's spells randomly produce almost anything -- from a rabbit to tapioca pudding -- _except_ what they are supposed to?
Why shouldn't the DM just ignore anything and everything that interferes with making events conform with her outline of the Epic Fantasy Novel for which we are merely to fill in the dialog for her?

Why shouldn't the DM "save" the PCs?
*It's the same fundamental answer.*


----------



## Hussar (Apr 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> A session can only be derailed if it's on the rails to begin with. The "good stuff" *can *come from the most surprising of places when the players control the action.
> /snip




Bold mine.

Too true.  However, the incredibly boring, bad, and crappy stuff can also come from exactly the same place.  

And, how does changing a monster's die roll have anything to do with the player's controlling the action?  The players have no control here either way.  Whether their fate is left to the dice or to the DM, at no point are they masters of their own fate.  Barring, of course, game mechanics like in Mutants and Masterminds which explicitly give them this power.  

But, "I'm going to reduce the damage here so that the PC is at -5 hp instead of flat out dead" has nothing to do with player control over the action.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Why shouldn't the DM change the ability scores, race, class, sex I have chosen?
> Why shouldn't the DM change my character from 1st level to 30th, or vice-versa?
> Why shouldn't the DM drop an asteroid for an extinction-event TPK?
> Why shouldn't the DM have my player's spells randomly produce almost anything -- from a rabbit to tapioca pudding -- _except_ what they are supposed to?
> ...



I know you're hyperbolizing for effect, but these situations are not remotely the same thing as the fudging that has been the topic of this thread for 38 pages now. If you think these items are on the same scale as fudging a die roll once in a while, it's no wonder you don't seem to grasp my argument.

It's essentially a slippery slope fallacy - _if you save a PC once from a bad die roll, you may as well just do everything by fiat_. But it is possible to fudge a die roll, for instance, without then making every decision that way.

("We're" in the general sense of people in the thread, by the way.)


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And, how does changing a monster's die roll have anything to do with the player's controlling the action?  The players have no control here either way.  Whether their fate is left to the dice or to the DM, at no point are they masters of their own fate.  Barring, of course, game mechanics like in Mutants and Masterminds which explicitly give them this power.
> 
> But, "I'm going to reduce the damage here so that the PC is at -5 hp instead of flat out dead" has nothing to do with player control over the action.



Indeed. Say you fudge one out of every 100 rolls, just for argument's sake. Does this tiny change have any real effect on how the players control their actions, or indeed play the game? You can "let the players play the game" and still fudge because you only fudge things they don't have any control over anyway.

DM fiat or random die roll, it's the same thing to the people on the other side of the screen.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 26, 2010)

Ariosto's reply highlights what bugs me about this thread.  As Fifth Element so rightly points out, no one in this thread is saying that fudging is 100% good 100% of the time.  

Just like anything, you can use fudging badly.  Of course you can.  There are anecdotes in this thread that show that it can be bad.

What blows my mind is this total unwillingness to accept even the possibility that it could be good.  Raven Crowking flat out states that it is 100% wrong.  Ariosto has compared it to blowing up your campaign with an asteroid.  I'm sure there are other examples.

It would really, really help if people could dial back the hyperbole just a smidgeon and accept that other people are perfectly capable of judging their own games.  Like I said, I don't actually fudge the die rolls in my game.  But I'm certainly not going to say that I never change things in other ways.  Monsters dying before the dice decree they should, for example, just to speed along a combat that is already in the bag is fudging.

And one that I have done, will do and will likely always do.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 26, 2010)

> I know you're hyperbolizing for effect, but these situations are not remotely the same thing as the fudging that has been the topic of this thread for 38 pages now.



That's *your opinion*!

It's a very spiffy and cozy and even "natural" opinion, I am sure, for one accustomed to holding it closely.

It is _not_ incumbent on anyone else to hold it, though.

As I wrote, the fundamental reason a DM "should not" do A, G, P or Z is the same.

That is most definitely _not_ "the slippery slope fallacy" -- although your rhetoric about "ignoring the polar bear rule" somehow making it okay to fudge combat dice sure looks like that!

Come on, now. This is really quite simple, if you will choose not to go out of your way to complicate it with sophistry.

Is there anything in that "hyperbole" that you would want the DM not to do? Why? If not, then is there _anything_ a DM could do that would be a problem because you do not want to play that kind of game?

If there is not, then _what the heck is your vested interest in "fudging" in the first place?!_ If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter.

Your logical problem lies in mistaking the peculiarities of your personal preference for some sort of universal truth.

Now, I still can't make head or tail of what you think you are talking about. I, however, am talking about _the subject of the thread_ as stipulated in the first post on the first page.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

ariosto said:


> That's *your opinion*!



I'm sorry, but no. Pretending that a monster rolled a 10 on his attack instead of a 17 at times is not in the same ballpark as suddenly changing a character's ability scores or having the world blow up all of a sudden. It's not in the same universe.

As a player, you may dislike it to the same degree, I suppose, but in all other ways they are drastically different things.

_[Edited to remove potentially antagonistic post, which Doug seems to have given me XP for already...]_


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Monsters dying before the dice decree they should, for example, just to speed along a combat that is already in the bag is fudging.
> 
> And one that I have done, will do and will likely always do.



I'm fond of that one as well, because it removes a bit of grind and as such increases the fun factor. If there's a few baddies left sometimes I'll take a healing surge off of everyone to simulate the few hit points they probably would have lost if they had fought it out.

_Edit: Just noticed Hussar's post doesn't necessarily means he just asks the players if they want to skip to the end of the fight, as I assumed. He could just be pretending the monsters had fewer hit points than the piece of paper said they did. I've done that as well.
_ 
It doesn't follow the rules, but I know my players appreciate getting back into the important stuff and leaving the clean-up duty behind.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 26, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just like anything, you can use fudging badly.  Of course you can.




If only we could all turn to you to tell us when to "fudge".

Obviously, I in fact _cannot_ "use fudging badly" if do not use it _at all_. That is not the problem is it? No, the problem is that I am "of course" wrong _not to fudge_.



> Ariosto has compared it to blowing up your campaign with an asteroid.




I'm guessing that's also "of course" wrong, because Hussar so decrees?


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> No, the problem is that I am "of course" wrong _not to fudge_.



No, you're not, and I've certainly never said so. I don't think Hussar has either. In fact, his writing that we should "_accept that other people are perfectly capable of judging their own  games_" indicated very clearly he's not arguing that.

Perhaps I'm misremembering due to the great amount of back-and-forth in this thread, but in my mind I've put you in Raven Crowking's camp, who asserted that it is wrong for _anyone_ to fudge. If I shouldn't be attributing that argument to you, my apologies.

My argument is solely that fudging is not inherently wrong. That if it improves your enjoyment of the game, you should do it. From this, it follows that if fudging is not right for your game, you should not do it.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> It doesn't follow the rules, but I know my players appreciate getting back into the important stuff and leaving the clean-up duty behind.




So? You keep arguing that it doesn't matter what *we* prefer -- so how is it anything but moot in that case? If your players happened to disagree with you, and agree with us, then would they not be just as obviously wrong on the same basis?


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> So? You keep arguing that it doesn't matter what *we* prefer -- so how is it anything but moot in that case? If your players happened to disagree with you, and agree with us, then would they not be just as obviously wrong on the same basis?



Say what? If my players disagreed with me, then fudging would not be good for my game, and I wouldn't do it. I'm not the only person playing in my game.

You're not wrong to not fudge, you're wrong to suggest that it's wrong that I fudge. Again, if that's not your position (for it was Raven Crowking's), I apologize.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> My argument is solely that fudging is not inherently wrong.




Then you are making absolutely no sense. It doesn't help that you throw around jargon like "slippery slope fallacy" where it does not apply -- and right after _making_ a "slippery slope" argument!

Come _on_. I wasn't pulling your leg when I said it's really quite simple. It is. You are arguing against yourself, here.

*You've been warned about rudeness here http://www.enworld.org/forum/5158481-post198.html and by PM. That's enough*


----------



## pemerton (Apr 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> If the ultimate outcome is known then the journey to that outcome can only get so exciting.



Whether or not this is true depends on the degree of generality of the description.

Suppose that the ultimate outcomes is known to all participants to be "an exciting fantasy adventure in which the PCs bring about some changes to the gameworld that have both ingame significance and metagame thematic consequence." Knowing this need not spoil the fun and excitement of play. The fun and excitement of play consists in finding out exactly what the ingame change, and the metagame theme, are.

(Btw, this is not just a hypothetical example. Games like HeroQuest, The Dying Earth, and (I would argue) D&D 4e are all designed to ensure that this ultimate outcome is the result of play.)



ExploderWizard said:


> The adventure cannot be "cratered" if that adventure is an account of how the PC's face challenges and handle themselves. Put another way, an adventure that never goes on the rails can never fly off them either. Setting up an expected ending in the first place makes the adventure vulnerable to cratering.



If the expected outcome is as described above, then the game can be cratered if the mechanics of the game don't ensure that such an outcome results.

I tend to agree with Ariosto and Jeff Wilder that the solution for players who want to guarantee such an outcome is to play a game with better mechancs. But the supply of games, players who will play the, the time to learn them, etc is limited, so sometimes we make do with second-best. And once we're making do with second best, sometimes the mechanics will deliver an outcome at odds with the desired one, of a game delivering both ingame and metagame significant results. It can make sense to fudge at such points (or to revise the encounter, or change the regeneration rate of the skeletons, or ...).



ExploderWizard said:


> The possibility of character death is _very _important to player choice.



I just can't agree that this is true for all RPGs, or even all D&D games. It might be true for your game. Mallus and Hussar have already explained, in this very thread, why it is not true for (at least some of) their games.

To reiterate what I and others responded to a similar comment upthread: if the aim of the game is something other than "stay alive", then taking (at least some) PC death of the table has no impact on the meaningfulness of player choices in relation to the aim of the game.



ExploderWizard said:


> If I know that my character is gonna come through the caverns of unescapable death _somehow_ then any decision I make in that place is kind of pointless. Fight, negotiate, or run? It doesn't matter cause everythings going to be OK.



You're assuming, right here, that the purpose of playing a game where my PC goes through the caverns of unescapable death is to find out whether or not my PC lives or dies in the attempt. But what if that's not the case? What if the point is to find out (for example) how low my character will go in order to make it through (will I cannibilise the torch-bearers, for example, when the rations run low?)? Or what if the point is to find out whether or not, in the course of going through the caverns, I contract the lycanthrope's curse? I can think up any number of scenarios in which a fudge on the first fight in the caverns, in response to the dice producing wildly unlikely results, would have no impact on the meanignfulness of that session's play from either the players' or the GM's point of view.

Of course, D&D may not always be the best system for playing these sorts of games (though it has several features that support them) - but see my remarks about second-best RPGing above.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Indeed. Say you fudge one out of every 100 rolls, just for argument's sake. Does this tiny change have any real effect on how the players control their actions, or indeed play the game? You can "let the players play the game" and still fudge because you only fudge things they don't have any control over anyway.
> 
> DM fiat or random die roll, it's the same thing to the people on the other side of the screen.




I think it comes down to the relationship between choice and consequence, and the perception thereof (primarily by the players). Choices can only be meaningful if they have consequences -- whether which door to go through or whether to initiate combat with the villain -- and fudging circumvents the "natural" consequences of player choices. Even if the players have "no control" over the outcome because the die roll is random, the fact of a random die roll with a set of known or likely probabilities informs player choice. Fudging, evn 1 in 100 times, corrupts that, having an impact on player choice and therefore free will. Even "good fudging" does this; the idea that the DM is going to "save" us from our own choices makes us play differently.

To use an example different from the usual "crit to whiff" fudging. Imagine a party is exploring the dungeon and they've had a few bad encounters. They are injured, low on resources and otherwise worse for wear. It's a half hour before session ending time and the players decide they want to push through one more room before calling it a night, without resting in game. Assume they have a reasonable chance of suspecting that any given room they might explore will result in an encounter like they have been having, but also that there's tougher and weaker encounters throughout (not to mention traps, tricks and unguarded treasure). The door the party chooses to break down happens to access the most dangerous fight on the level, a tough go even at full rest.

Do you alter the difficulty of the encounter to accommodate the party's current state, or do you let it play out as designed? Important note: this might be a "tough" encounter (CR-wise or whatever) but assume it is otherwise balanced and fair.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 26, 2010)

Me?  I'd probably play it as written.  Given that scenario - yeah I probably wouldn't change the encounter.  It's a fair encounter.

My question would be, why reasons would there be to change this encounter?  How does it help the game?  If the encounter is a very strong one that the party cannot run away from (a problem in some editions) and will wipe out the party, I might be tempted to weaken it, but, ultimately, probably not.

Player choices do have consequences.  I generally will only fudge when the player's choices are not being invalidated.

Let me turn it around.  

It's the beginning of the night, the players meet a regular encounter, nothing special.  The baddie walks up to the PC, hits three times, twice with crits and takes the PC from full to dead in the first round.  The player did nothing wrong.  No mistakes were made.  Just the dice gods deciding the player is dead.

Do you whack the PC and force him to sit and observe for the next four hours because there's no reasonable way to have a new PC parachute in right now?  Or do you break suspension of disbelief and parachute a new NPC in anyway?  Or do you knock the damage down so that the PC is very wounded (negative hp) and let him live?

Which would be best for the game?

((Btw, 5th E, I usually just announce, "The baddie trips and falls on his sword and dies." when I reach that 1-3 hp range and don't want to do yet another round of combat.  I don't ask and I don't penalize the party for it.))


----------



## Sammael (Apr 26, 2010)

Reynard said:


> To use an example different from the usual "crit to whiff" fudging. Imagine a party is exploring the dungeon and they've had a few bad encounters. They are injured, low on resources and otherwise worse for wear. It's a half hour before session ending time and the players decide they want to push through one more room before calling it a night, without resting in game. Assume they have a reasonable chance of suspecting that any given room they might explore will result in an encounter like they have been having, but also that there's tougher and weaker encounters throughout (not to mention traps, tricks and unguarded treasure). The door the party chooses to break down happens to access the most dangerous fight on the level, a tough go even at full rest.
> 
> Do you alter the difficulty of the encounter to accommodate the party's current state, or do you let it play out as designed? Important note: this might be a "tough" encounter (CR-wise or whatever) but assume it is otherwise balanced and fair.



I would not alter the difficulty of this encounter. I would, however, modify the encounter to ensure that the PCs have a clear escape route, and I would strive to describe the encounter setup more carefully in order to better impart the information about its deadliness. 

If the PCs decided to run away, I would likely avoid pursuit (or make pursuit a half-assed effort on the monsters' part). However, if it made sense, I would redesign the encounter to be even more difficult the second time around (since the creatures now know the PCs are coming and can prepare). Of course, this depends entirely on the monsters' intelligence (or lack thereof).


----------



## steenan (Apr 26, 2010)

Reynard said:


> To use an example different from the usual "crit to whiff" fudging. Imagine a party is exploring the dungeon and they've had a few bad encounters. They are injured, low on resources and otherwise worse for wear. It's a half hour before session ending time and the players decide they want to push through one more room before calling it a night, without resting in game. Assume they have a reasonable chance of suspecting that any given room they might explore will result in an encounter like they have been having, but also that there's tougher and weaker encounters throughout (not to mention traps, tricks and unguarded treasure). The door the party chooses to break down happens to access the most dangerous fight on the level, a tough go even at full rest.
> 
> Do you alter the difficulty of the encounter to accommodate the party's current state, or do you let it play out as designed? Important note: this might be a "tough" encounter (CR-wise or whatever) but assume it is otherwise balanced and fair.




Why would I change anything at all? Players made a decision to push forward, they decided to take the risk. If I modify the encounter, I take the choice from them, I make it meaningless. 
Let it play as it is. If they win, they will rejoice. If they lose, they will be more careful next time. Both are good outcomes in my eyes.

That does not mean I would never fudge. I may do it if a monster, trap or another challenge proves to be much harder or much easier than I envisioned when designing it, not due to luck or players' choices, but because of its inherent traits. In general, I strongly prefer pre-emptive houseruling to changing anything on the fly.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 26, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Then you are making absolutely no sense. It doesn't help that you throw around jargon like "slippery slope fallacy" where it does not apply -- and right after _making_ a "slippery slope" argument!
> 
> Come _on_. I wasn't pulling your leg when I said it's really quite simple. It is. You are arguing against yourself, here.
> 
> *You've been warned about rudeness here http://www.enworld.org/forum/5158481-post198.html and by PM. That's enough*




*Banned for a week.*


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 26, 2010)

Reynard said:


> Do you alter the difficulty of the encounter to accommodate the party's current state, or do you let it play out as designed?



From your description, this sounds like a traditional D&D, static encounters type of setup so I'd say no, not in this case. It would be weird to play most of the game one way, then change things. The players presumably know that the DM doesn't tailor encounters in this game (or at least, not to the degree of considering hit points and spells available).

You raise an interesting point about it getting late and the players being tired though. I've noticed that the quality of decision making goes waay down in these situations. How does one handle that kind of thing in a game which is mostly about challenging the players?

One option would be for the DM to call a halt to proceedings (though if he's tired too it's unlikely he'd notice). Another would be to allow a redo next session if it was felt that everyone had been 'off'.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Imaginary Number said:


> This is true, but it doesn't address Fifth Element's point.  RC asserted that the set of possible games that are improved by DM fudging is "empty," i.e. that no such game exists, regardless of whether RC is playing in it.




Or so close to empty that it makes little practical difference whether there is an empty set or a set in which .00000000001% of games fall.

I do believe that there are GMs who believe that thier fudging helps their game; that is quite a large set.  The GMs who are right about this is a vanishingly small set.

It may be that any given GM's game is improved by judicious use of fudging as one of the many tools available to the DM in running the game, but, as the man said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Now, the above is, of course, only IMHO and IME.  YMMV, as they say.  You can decide that the size of the "GMs who successfully fudge" set is extraordinarily large, if you like.  Nobody's stopping you.  

You can say that GM's who don't fudge harm their games and make them worse.  Nobody's stopping you.  (And, if you did make that statement, you would not be saying that those who said otherwise were "lying untrustworthy liars", but rather that you believed that they were mistaken in thier belief.)

If a game has mechanics that allow the GM or players to fudge without attempting to deceive the other party, said fudging causes no problem IMHO.  But, the minute you (and not your NPCs or PCs) are trying to deceive the other party _*as to how you are using the game rules*_, there is, IMHO a problem.

You might view it as being a problem either way; that those who do not do it are causing a problem.  The DMing advice from 2e onward (and, as has been pointed out, a line of Gygax advice as well) has certainly pushed in this direction.  

It is my opinion that anyone is a position of special authority has a greater obligation to be honest about how that authority is used.  The GM is in a position of special authority.  Using that authority to deceive damages the mandate which gives that authority.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

For what it's worth, I also think that cops who break the law do more harm than ordinary citizens who do the same, and that this damages trust in _*all cops*_ -- even those who have never done so much as jaywalked or taken a paper clip from work.

Likewise politicians, doctors, etc.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Nagol said:


> I have no difficulty with the concept of arbitrary changes to die rolls on the part of the DM if (a) the player group has explicitly agreed to the use and (b) the DM calls out the correct result and then changes it.  In that case, the DM is being honest and is merely exercising in a clear manner power granted to him.




I agree with this.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> 1) Nope. If powerful regeneration was important to the area I wouldn't discard it. It would be very obvious to anyone there what was happening. There would certainly be alternative ways of dealing with the situation other than chopping through a roomful of augmented skellies.
> 
> 2) As per #1
> 
> ...




I would have just given EW some XP here to chime in that I agree with his responses, but I have to spread some around.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And, how does changing a monster's die roll have anything to do with the player's controlling the action? The players have no control here either way. Whether their fate is left to the dice or to the DM, at no point are they masters of their own fate. Barring, of course, game mechanics like in Mutants and Masterminds which explicitly give them this power.




The power of the players to control their own fate doesn't require mechanics or any ability to manipulate the dice. 

These situations will always come back to the question of why. 

Example: The party is fighting a group of monsters that are too powerful to defeat.

Why?

If the answer is because it was the first encounter scheduled for the evening for a single fall and a 60 minute time limit then you have an answer.

If the answer is because the party had the element of surprise and ambushed the monsters because, heck they might have decent treasure then you have an answer. 

As the DM of the above example which situation of the two do you think would be the most appropriate to fudge a bit? 



Hussar said:


> What blows my mind is this total unwillingness to accept even the possibility that it could be good. Raven Crowking flat out states that it is 100% wrong. Ariosto has compared it to blowing up your campaign with an asteroid. I'm sure there are other examples.




For some people fudging is only bad because they would like for the game to remain a *game *and not some other activity that fudging turns the play session into. That is the main reason I see fudging as bad. It isn't the end of the world, just the end of the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Too true.  However, the incredibly boring, bad, and crappy stuff can also come from exactly the same place.





Hey, I agree with you here!

The height to which you can rise is, IMHO, inextricably linked to the depths to which you can fall.

(Not that there is a parity between them in actual play experience, of course, as players presumably attempt for the heights and succeed more often than they fail dismally!   )

RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 26, 2010)

pemerton said:


> If the expected outcome is as described above, then the game can be cratered if the mechanics of the game don't ensure that such an outcome results.




What this describes is not a game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> But it is possible to fudge a die roll, for instance, without then making every decision that way.




Obviously.



Fifth Element said:


> Indeed. Say you fudge one out of every 100 rolls, just for argument's sake. Does this tiny change have any real effect on how the players control their actions, or indeed play the game?




It it had no effect, just for argument's sake, why are you doing it?

I would suggest that, simply because you are doing it, it follows that you believe it has an effect.



Fifth Element said:


> I'm sorry, but no. Pretending that a monster rolled a 10 on his attack instead of a 17 at times is not in the same ballpark as suddenly changing a character's ability scores or having the world blow up all of a sudden. It's not in the same universe.




Agreed.



Hussar said:


> Raven Crowking flat out states that it is 100% wrong.




Raven Crowking accepts that a particular GM's makeup of strengths and weaknesses might make fudging the best option for that GM.  Raven Crowking also argues that the set of GMs to which this applies is vanishingly small.  Far less than 1% of the total population.

However, IME, the number of GMs who are not good judges of their effectiveness is remarkably high.  I have, myself, failed in this test on many occasions.  Indeed, I have seldom (if ever) encountered a GM that can be trusted to be fully able to judge his or her own effectiveness.



Fifth Element said:


> Raven Crowking's camp, who asserted that it is wrong for _anyone_ to fudge.






Fifth Element said:


> You're not wrong to not fudge, you're wrong to suggest that it's wrong that I fudge. Again, if that's not your position (for it was Raven Crowking's), I apologize.




Again, Raven Crowking accepts that a particular GM's makeup of strengths and weaknesses might make fudging the best option for that GM.

But, just as you would (I hope) suggest that I would be wrong to suddenly change a character's ability scores or have the world blow up all of a sudden -- even if I claimed that worked in my game -- I do not feel I am wrong in suggesting that not fudging might improve ove 99% of all games in which fudging now occurs.

You might be an exception; if so, you have beaten the odds IME and IMHO.



Doug McCrae said:


> You raise an interesting point about it getting late and the players being tired though. I've noticed that the quality of decision making goes waay down in these situations. How does one handle that kind of thing in a game which is mostly about challenging the players?
> 
> One option would be for the DM to call a halt to proceedings (though if he's tired too it's unlikely he'd notice). Another would be to allow a redo next session if it was felt that everyone had been 'off'.




Those are both acceptable options, the first being the best.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Perhaps it would help if we were able to discuss an example of fudging that is not intended to cover a weakness in design or implementation, or to promote the outcome the GM desires?  Frankly, I cannot think of one.  But I keep hearing that they exist, so that direction might be fruitful for discussion?

Can anyone give me one such example?


RC


----------



## Sammael (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If a game has mechanics that allow the GM or players to fudge without attempting to deceive the other party, said fudging causes no problem IMHO.  But, the minute you (and not your NPCs or PCs) are trying to deceive the other party _*as to how you are using the game rules*_, there is, IMHO a problem.



I came to a similar conclusion myself some time ago, and introduced Fate points to compensate. Fate points are rare and, unlike some other systems (Warhammer FRP), never reverse the outcome to "it didn't happen."



> *Fate Points*
> 
> A player can use a single Fate Point per encounter to influence the narrative in some way. This can be as simple as negating a potentially deadly blow or as complex as pulling a cinematic move to succeed at a seemingly impossible task. You may use your Fate Point to help another character.
> 
> ...




Fate Points are a built-in fudge mechanism for the players, provided you make sure your players have some Fate Points before particularly challenging encounters. The limit of 1 Fate Point per encounter ensures that players don't rely on Fate Points to solve all their problems.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Or so close to empty that it makes little practical difference whether there is an empty set or a set in which .00000000001% of games fall.
> 
> I do believe that there are GMs who believe that thier fudging helps their game; that is quite a large set.  The GMs who are right about this is a vanishingly small set.




If anyone has wondered at what some of us have meant by "OneTrueWayism" - above we have a prime example.  Perhaps the most politely phrased example I've seen in a while, but also one of the most clearly put.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 26, 2010)

I said:



pemerton said:


> Suppose that the ultimate outcomes is known to all participants to be "an exciting fantasy adventure in which the PCs bring about some changes to the gameworld that have both ingame significance and metagame thematic consequence." Knowing this need not spoil the fun and excitement of play. The fun and excitement of play consists in finding out exactly what the ingame change, and the metagame theme, are.
> 
> (Btw, this is not just a hypothetical example. Games like HeroQuest, The Dying Earth, and (I would argue) D&D 4e are all designed to ensure that this ultimate outcome is the result of play.)
> 
> If the expected outcome is as described above, then the game can be cratered if the mechanics of the game don't ensure that such an outcome results.




ExploderWizard responded:


ExploderWizard said:


> What this describes is not a game.




I don't understand. How are HeroQuest, The Dying Earth, The Burning Wheel, My Life With Master, etc, etc, etc , not games? What is the special criterion for "gamehood" such that only RPGs where the goal of play is to keep the PCs alive are games? Presumably, by this criterion, even most superhero games, or many Traveller and Runequest games, would not be games.

I really don't understand.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> If anyone has wondered at what some of us have meant by "OneTrueWayism" - above we have a prime example.  Perhaps the most politely phrased example I've seen in a while, but also one of the most clearly put.




Well, thank you for at least suggesting that I am polite.

If there is a purpose to your post, apart from attempting to be insulting, I would like to hear it.  As I argue GMs shouldn't fudge, or cops shouldn't commit crimes, I would also argue that mods shouldn't attempt to insult other posters.

OTOH, hardly an insult, so I guess you're off the hook.  (To whatever degree you were on the hook, of course!  )  If the only alternative to "OneTrueWayism" is "Absolute Relativism", then I guess you've got me.  Just so long as you remember to exclude the middle!

I also believe that the set of games for which setting the players on fire is a good idea is vanishingly small......much smaller, even, than the set in which fudging is a good idea.  I also believe that the set of times when it is a good idea to run a red light is vanishingly small.  There are, I guess, quite a few things where I am not willing to accept that things are completely relative.

Of course, that probably stems from my belief that most people have much more in common than they differ.  Philosophies that require that we rewrite the basics of ethics or psychology to make sense of what we are told do cause me to question the underlying basis of that philosophy.  Guilty as charged.

However, I would also like to point out that there are many, many ways in which one can frame a game while either fudging or not fudging dice.  Probably an infinite set.  

This is hardly OneTrueWayism.  InfiniteTrueWayism seems more appropriate.

But, just as one can have an infinite set that excludes some items, I feel that some level of judicious discretion -- valuation, if you prefer -- is acceptable.  Or should be acceptable, anyway, especially given the questions asked in the OP (which, IMHO, seem to require some valuation to answer).

YMMV, of course.


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It's the beginning of the night, the players meet a regular encounter, nothing special.  The baddie walks up to the PC, hits three times, twice with crits and takes the PC from full to dead in the first round.  The player did nothing wrong.  No mistakes were made.  Just the dice gods deciding the player is dead.
> 
> Do you whack the PC and force him to sit and observe for the next four hours because there's no reasonable way to have a new PC parachute in right now?  Or do you break suspension of disbelief and parachute a new NPC in anyway?  Or do you knock the damage down so that the PC is very wounded (negative hp) and let him live?
> 
> Which would be best for the game?




That's a false... er, trilemma. Since the encounter is otherwise inconsequential, I might go for the negative hp option, but typically I would just ask the player to start rolling up a new PC. There's enough of a party to continue, it reinforces the idea that no punches are being pulled, and parachuting in a PC is usually not so difficult. While it may be a short-term inconvenience, in the long term, it makes for a better game. Still, if it were the first session with new PCs, and the PC was not interchangeable in some way, perhaps a concept the player was looking forward to try out, I would probably rather go the negative hp route than awkwardly try to insert a functionally identical PC. I might also dish out some Con damage to sharpen the "near-death experience."

Still, I think it's worth looking at the larger issues. Did I introduce an inconsequential encounter with always-hostile NPCs that have the capability of killing a PC on a crit? If so, then I have erred. Either the encounter should be deadly in earnest, because it's interesting in some way, there should be an opportunity to avoid the encounter, or the mandatory encounter should be less deadly. 

If the PCs, however, entered combat cavalierly, or were aggressive, or closed into melee when they had every reason to consider other tactics, sparing the PCs would not even be on the table. 

I guess one distinction I make is between "story" and hassle. I don't really believe RPGs can have a story, in the sense of a predetermined series of events; even the most railroaded scenario can be distorted beyond recognition, with the right choices. What happens, happens. On the other hand, certain events represent such a disruption of play that the value of  arbitrating the results, as openly and honestly as the situation warrants, must be weighed against the value of a clean end to what has gone before. In this realm of pondering how to continue the game without the PCs is where I think many of the posters can reach broad agreement. Again, there are basically two questions here.

1. Fudging dice: Mostly ok, mostly not ok? 
2. Killing all the PCs: How much does the GM intervene and when and how?


----------



## Kingreaper (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yes.
> 
> But let us say that it is a dungeon crawl, and let us say that I am thorough.  As soon as I finish off whatever happens to be to the left, I come back and go right.  And then......?
> 
> ...




You find out what is there.


If I were GMing and gave you the meaningless "left or right" choice, with no evidence; I'd have something planned for the first direction you took, and something planned (in a very vague and general way) for if you turned back after seeing what was down the first path. (because the choice to turn back and try the other route IS meaningful)

This is useful if someone pulls out an investigative skill I'd forgotten, or simply not considered, because then the choice becomes meaningful again.



The alternative (placing the two things by "left and right" rather than by "first taken and second taken") seems antithetical to my playstyle; and my players enjoyment. 
For example, let's say I've decided that the Dungeons of Terror (an area my low-level party are passing through) are actually secretly an entrance to the Ancient Temple of Tongues (something the players may not even know exists yet) and that an ancient priest will have a map leading to the temple.
The characters have none of this information yet. The players probably don't either.
It seems like your playstyle would indicate that, at this point, I should have the cave system mapped out so that I know where the entrance to the Temple is.
To me, that seems pointless. None of the characters know the temple exists, let alone where it is, so they cannot choose to go there. So why go to the extra effort of planning out the Temple's location before they enter the Dungeons?


I'm probably misinterpreting your position. But the only way to find that out is to present what I feel your position to be, and see if I you disagree.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> /snip
> For some people fudging is only bad because they would like for the game to remain a *game *and not some other activity that fudging turns the play session into. That is the main reason I see fudging as bad. It isn't the end of the world, just the end of the game.




And that's perfectly, 1000% fine for some people.

Why is it not perfectly fine for others to prefer fudging?  RavenCrowking has gone on at length now that anyone who believes that fudging improves his or her game is flat out wrong.  They are misguided and don't actually know what is good for their game.

How is this not pure wrongbadfun?  

RavenCrowking, you are claiming to not only know a superior way of playing, but you dismiss any claims to the contrary as being at best short sighted and at worst, outright incompetent.  You don't like fudging.  You see it as dishonest.  Fine, no problem.  Don't play in games where the DM fudges.

But don't sit there and try to tell me that you know better than all other DM's out there what is good for their game.  It's unbelievably arrogant to presume that you know other people's games better than they do.

Although, I do find it uproariously funny to see you trying to minimize the effect of a Gygax quote that you don't agree with, when, in any other circumstance, you'd be pronouncing it from the rooftops as the one true way of playing.

Y'know what?  If it's good enough for EGG, then, hey, it's good enough for me.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> If anyone has wondered at what some of us have meant by "OneTrueWayism" - above we have a prime example.  Perhaps the most politely phrased example I've seen in a while, but also one of the most clearly put.




I disagree. He is simply deprecating one specific approach or technique for dealing with a certain kind of problem. He hasn't made any claims of ultimate superiority, only a claim of practical superiority. Further, I can agree with his broader point while disagreeing on many particulars of the style he is advocating. 

If I were to put forward an idea, such as, "Gamemasters should not have PCs in their own game, IMO," that is a suggestion. I think it would be rather defensive to describe that proposition as One True Wayism. Same thing. 

"Don't do this," is a different kind of idea than, "You are bad and wrong."


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And that's perfectly, 1000% fine for some people.
> 
> Why is it not perfectly fine for others to prefer fudging?  RavenCrowking has gone on at length now that anyone who believes that fudging improves his or her game is flat out wrong.  They are misguided and don't actually know what is good for their game.
> 
> How is this not pure wrongbadfun?




Well, it is a testable assertion. You could always take the Pepsi Challenge.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Perhaps it would help if we were able to discuss an example of fudging that is not intended to cover a weakness in design or implementation, or to promote the outcome the GM desires?  Frankly, I cannot think of one.  But I keep hearing that they exist, so that direction might be fruitful for discussion?
> 
> Can anyone give me one such example?
> 
> ...




Why?  The entire point of fudging is to cover a weakness in design or implementation.  That's what it's FOR.  That's it's quintessential function.  So, who is saying that they have purposes other than that?



pawsplay said:


> /snip Again, there are basically two questions here.
> 
> 1. Fudging dice: Mostly ok, mostly not ok?
> 2. Killing all the PCs: How much does the GM intervene and when and how?




That's not how I see the question.  It's more:

1.  Fudging dice:  Can it ever be done? 

At least, that's how RavenCrowking is framing it.  If you fudge once, you fudge every time.

I've repeatedly stated that fudging is something that should be done very rarely, so, my answer to your first question would be "mostly not ok".  If you are playing in a game where fudging is mostly ok, there's likely some pretty serious problems in the game.

That's not the issue though.  At least not to me.  It's the hyperbolic argument that keeps coming up that a single fudge suddenly destroys games and THOU SHALT NEVER FUDGE.  I see that you don't see RC's posts as onetruewayism, but, I'm gonna tell you, given the plethora of posts in this thread, that's exactly the message he's projecting.

That if I think fudging is okay, I'm apparently deluded and incompetent as a DM.  I dunno about you, but, I think that goes a bit beyond a simple, "Don't do this."


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If there is a purpose to your post, apart from attempting to be insulting, I would like to hear it.



Try to read your argument from our point of view:

"Yes, you can fudge, but if you do so it's only because of a weakness in your DMing. Also, if you think it improves your game, you're wrong."

I'd suggest OneTrueWayism isn't the best description of this. But it's close. OneBestWayism taken to the extreme, which is almost the same thing, perhaps?

"If your'e really a good DM, you won't fudge." That's the implication of your argument: if you didn't have this weakness, you wouldn't find the need to fudge. *That's* insulting.

We don't fudge because we need to cover for some weakness in our DMing. We fudge because it improves the game for us and our groups. *Yes it does*. Stop saying it doesn't, because you know nothing about our groups, and you have no reason to doubt us.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> "Don't do this," is a different kind of idea than, "You are bad and wrong."



What about "Don't do this, because doing this would show that that you are bad and wrong"?

I have no problem with being advised not to fudge, in general. I have a problem with being told that I only fudge because of a weakness in my DMing, and that my fudging hurts the enjoyment my players derive from the game, based on nothing more than presumption.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> If anyone has wondered at what some of us have meant by "OneTrueWayism" - above we have a prime example.  Perhaps the most politely phrased example I've seen in a while, but also one of the most clearly put.



I agree, it's OneTrueWayism.

It's fine if you're giving a beginning GM advice and you say something like, "Mary Sue NPCs are a bad idea" but when you're involved in a long discussion with obviously highly experienced and knowledgeable gamers such as Fifth Element, Umbran and Piratecat (Piratecat, in particular being generally regarded as one of the best GMs around) you have to show a lot more respect for a contrary opinion. Another factor is that fudging is accepted or even recommended in such important rpgs as D&D 1e, D&D 2e and WEG Star Wars. It's not like it's some crazy, get outta here, only works in .00000000001% of cases, idea. The evidence of this thread alone disproves that.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> What about "Don't do this, because doing this would show that that you are bad and wrong"?




I don't think it's productive to nudge the discussion in that direction. Why not stick with what's inarguably in the post? While you may, perhaps reasonably, feel insulted by implication, that suspicion does not allow one to claim they have been insulted in fact.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 26, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why? The entire point of fudging is to cover a weakness in design or implementation. That's what it's FOR. That's it's quintessential function. So, who is saying that they have purposes other than that?






			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> "If your'e really a good DM, you won't fudge." That's the implication of your argument: if you didn't have this weakness, you wouldn't find the need to fudge. That's insulting.




I think sometimes it is worth considering whether you are disagreeing with someone or you simply do not like how they put it. I think RC tends to be put his foot in his mouth from time to time, but I don't think he is saying anything he considers unfair or untrue in its essence.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> 1. Fudging dice: Mostly ok, mostly not ok?



Mostly not okay to me, in the sense that you should do it rarely, if you do it at all.



pawsplay said:


> 2. Killing all the PCs: How much does the GM intervene and when and how?



It depends on so many things a general rule cannot be established. But since as DM I am expected to provide a fun adventure for the players, I'm comfortable using my discretion in this regard as well.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I think sometimes it is worth considering whether you are disagreeing with someone or you simply do not like how they put it. I think RC tends to be put his foot in his mouth from time to time, but I don't think he is saying anything he considers unfair or untrue in its essence.



Very much so. He's not helping his case by being so dismissive and insulting. But on the other hand, I find his *reasoning *for why he recommends that no one fudge to be very weak. He has no response to those who say "DMs who find their games improve with fudging should not be advised to not fudge." He simply assumes that no such DMs exist (that those who say that are merely deluding themselves), despite evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> It seems like your playstyle would indicate that, at this point, I should have the cave system mapped out so that I know where the entrance to the Temple is.
> To me, that seems pointless. None of the characters know the temple exists, let alone where it is, so they cannot choose to go there. So why go to the extra effort of planning out the Temple's location before they enter the Dungeons?




Kingreaper, I try to assume that, even when players (and characters) do not have information, it is potentially knowable.  Moreover, I tend to believe that making player choices meaningful is one of the most important responsibilities that a GM has.  Therefore, while I agree that in reality players do make decisions with limited information, IMHO and IME it hurts immersion for the players to believe that some types of information (what _*is*_, as opposed to _*what might be*_) exists in a state of quantum flux until investigated.

I don't believe that players need complete information for their choices to be meaningful.  IMHO, "I explore Hex 812" is a meaningful choice, even if Hex 812 is empty bogland.  It is meaningful because it is motivated by player interest, and an engagement in the campaign world.  

OTOH, this sort of manipulation of setting isn't fudging, IMHO, in the same way that rolling the dice and changing the result is.  It takes the "wandering lairs" idea I mentioned upthread farther than I like, but I would accept that this is largely preferential.



Hussar said:


> RavenCrowking has gone on at length now that anyone who believes that fudging improves his or her game is flat out wrong.  They are misguided and don't actually know what is good for their game.




No; Raven Crowking has gone on at length now that anyone who believes fudging improves his or her game is _*very, very likely to be wrong*_.  Raven Crowking accepts that there is a vanishingly small percentage of Game Masters to whom this does not apply, because their particular strengths and weaknesses are very different from the norm.

Raven Crowking's experience suggests that this is overwhelmingly true.  In fact, Raven Crowking has no experience of a case where it is not true.

Raven Crowking further claims that fudging is dishonest _*by definition*_.  Raven Crowking has said that he has no problems with game systems wherein the results of the dice can be overruled without resorting to dishonesty.

Raven Crowking claims that this is a crucial difference.

Raven Crowking hasn't made any claims of ultimate superiority, only a claim of practical superiority, as pawsplay so aptly noted.



> It's unbelievably arrogant to presume that you know other people's games better than they do.




Everyone who has ever given advice, on any topic, when asked, has presumed that their advice is of some value.  It is not unbelievably arrogant to profer advice, or to state one's beliefs.  It is unbelievably arrogant to demand that others accept your beliefs as "valid" or "true".

No one has to accept that what I say is correct.  Do you demand that I accept fudging is valid?  If so, why?



> Although, I do find it uproariously funny to see you trying to minimize the effect of a Gygax quote that you don't agree with, when, in any other circumstance, you'd be pronouncing it from the rooftops as the one true way of playing.






If you can find one place where I pronounce anything Gygax wrote "as the one true way of playing" you win the thread.  I won't even mandate that it be "from the rooftops".

Gygax is an authority on what Gygax intended, and he was a brilliant designer with a wide range of general knowledge.  He described himself as a mediocre GM.

And, given a strong counter-argument, I will change my mind and accept I am wrong.  "I am offended by your opinion" is not a strong counter-argument, however.  It is, AFAICT, no counter-argument at all. 

Again, perhaps it would help if we were able to discuss an example of fudging that is not intended to cover a weakness in design or implementation, or to promote the outcome the GM desires?  Frankly, I cannot think of one.  But I keep hearing that they exist, so that direction might be fruitful for discussion?

Surely, if there is a strong counter-argument, it comes from this direction?

Can anyone give me one such example?


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> "Don't do this," is a different kind of idea than, "You are bad and wrong."



It's fine to say:

This wouldn't work for me.
This wouldn't work for me and the people I game with.
Imo, this wouldn't work for most game groups. (Note that you now need the 'imo' because you're going outside what you could reasonably be expected to know about.)

Normally it would be okay to say:
I think your game would be improved if you didn't fudge.

But in this thread I would say that that is not okay, because those GMs who fudge are our peers, they have thought about the issue deeply and they have discussed it at length. At that point, to say that you know, or even think you know, what is best for another fellow's game is going too far.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 26, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I don't understand. How are HeroQuest, The Dying Earth, The Burning Wheel, My Life With Master, etc, etc, etc , not games? What is the special criterion for "gamehood" such that only RPGs where the goal of play is to keep the PCs alive are games? Presumably, by this criterion, even most superhero games, or many Traveller and Runequest games, would not be games.
> 
> I really don't understand.




Dying is only one possible fate for a D&D character. This fate represents the ultimate state of loss.
I am unfamiliar with the other games so I don't know what the equivalent may be for them. 

I suppose one could play a game in which the PC's were all immortal beings and death
was completely a meaningless and unimportant issue. The conflicts and struggles in this game
would involve other issues rather than combat. Perhaps the goals of the players would be to 
bring about a particular outcome against forces attempting to prevent that outcome. The mechanics
combined with player choices would determine if the desired outcome actually happened, the opposing forces 
won a complete victory, or something in between. 
This could be a very viable game with no death taking place at all.

 Death is just a basic part of D&D.
It does not have to be true for every game. All that is needed is a chance to succeed, a chance to fail, and for
the ultimate outcome to be unknown to the participants.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No; Raven Crowking has gone on at length now that anyone who believes fudging improves his or her game is _*very, very likely to be wrong*_.  Raven Crowking accepts that there is a vanishingly small percentage of Game Masters to whom this does not apply, because their particular strengths and weaknesses are very different from the norm.



Raven Crowking is playing semantic games. "_I'm not saying *no one* should fudge! I'm saying that there is such a small number of people for whom it is right that it may as well be zero!_"



Raven Crowking said:


> Raven Crowking's experience suggests that this is overwhelmingly true.  In fact, Raven Crowking has no experience of a case where it is not true.



No direct personal experience perhaps (though perhaps you're just deluding yourself about that?) But you have had the experience of a variety of experienced gamers explaining it to you in this thread.



Raven Crowking said:


> Everyone who has ever given advice, on any topic, when asked, has presumed that their advice is of some value.  It is not unbelievably arrogant to profer advice, or to state one's beliefs.



But it is to continue to proffer the same advice when those you are advising have flat-out told you that your assumptions are plainly wrong. Especially when you then tell them, "no my assumptions are right" when you have no evidence of that.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> But in this thread I would say that that is not okay, because those GMs who fudge are our peers, they have thought about the issue deeply and they have discussed it at length. At that point, to say that you know, or even think you know, what is best for another fellow's game is going too far.



Well spoken. Certainly, this thread has made me think about fudging in my game more than I ever have. And I am more certain now than I was when the thread started that it is right *for me and my group*.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> He has no response to those who say "DMs who find their games improve with fudging should not be advised to not fudge."




Actually, he does.  He specifically addresses this upthread, in response to Umbran's mention of Piratecat.

But herein I will expand:

DMs who find their games improve with fudging should consider why their games are improving.  

Is it because they didn't do sufficient prep work?  Is it because they have a particular outcome in mind, that the dice indicated would be damaged?  Is it because they didn't understand the rules adequately to design the challenge they thought they were designing?  Is it because the players fail to understand the rules well enough to meet those challenges?  Is it because 
the players fail to understand tactics?  Is it because they don't want to let a PC die, or have a TPK?

Or is there an example of fudging that is not intended to cover a weakness in design or implementation, or to promote the outcome the GM desires?  What have I missed?

The next thing that I would advise the GM to do is to try to come up with a method of dealing with the weakness that doesn't involve dishonesty on his part.

Can he shore up insufficient prep work?  Can he allow his particular outcome to not come to fruition (i.e., give players greater agency)?  Can he take more care with the rules?  Can he devise encounters to train the players in rules or tactics, or create easier challenges?  

Perhaps he should institute a house rule that limits PC death, or use something akin to Action Points to allow the players to determine when and where changing an outcome is warranted?

But, let us say, for one reason or another the GM is unable to tell why he finds fudging improves his game, or is unable to implement any other means of resolving whatever fudging cures.

Should he then fudge?

Yes.

But, he should also be honest about it.  In fact, I would advise the prospective GM to let his players give him a number of tokens, each of which must be "spent" to fudge the dice.  I would then advise the GM to roll his dice in the open, and only fudge when willing to spend a token.

This would do two things:  (1) puts the players in the driver's seat as to how much fudging goes on, and (2) maintains tension because the players can see that the token pool is decreasing.  If the players feel like it, they can always add tokens back into the pool.

Eliminate the dishonest and it's all good, IMHO.  



> He simply assumes that no such DMs exist (that those who say that are merely deluding themselves), despite evidence to the contrary.




No.  He assumes it is a vanishingly small set, because his experience tells him it is so.

Or, put it this way.  Which is larger set, in your experience:

(1)  Great DMs, or

(2)  Mediocre DMs who think they're great?

So, if I tell you something really works, which flies in the face of your experience, which set does that suggest I might belong to?  _*Note that this does not mean that I do belong to that set*_, I am just asking how big of a grain of salt will you take my advice with?

Because, were I you, and were my experiences as you say yours are, I would be taking anything I said with a really, _*really*_ big grain of salt.  

Also, what evidence to the contrary?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I think RC tends to be put his foot in his mouth from time to time




Luckily, I can breath through my nose!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 26, 2010)

RC said:
			
		

> Again, perhaps it would help if we were able to discuss an example of fudging that is not intended to cover a weakness in design or implementation, or to promote the outcome the GM desires? Frankly, I cannot think of one. But I keep hearing that they exist, so that direction might be fruitful for discussion?
> 
> Surely, if there is a strong counter-argument, it comes from this direction?




Again, why?  The entire reason for fudging is to smooth off the rough edges in a mistake with either design or implementation.  If a problem did not exist, then there would be no reason to fudge in the first place.

I honestly can't think of a reason to fudge other than to fix an already occured issue.  Isn't that the basic definition of fudging?  Why would an example that runs counter to the entire purpose of the term be helpful here?



> Raven Crowking further claims that fudging is dishonest by definition. Raven Crowking has said that he has no problems with game systems wherein the results of the dice can be overruled without resorting to dishonesty.




How is using the authority explicitly granted to you BY THE RULES dishonest?  1e D&D EXPLICITLY grants me, as DM, the authority to do this.  I'm 99% sure that 2e did as well.  3e does in the first chapter or so of the DMG.  

Granted there are no specific mechanics, but the authority to do so is certainly there.  So, how is using the rules dishonest?

Granted, you can dislike it.  I do too.  But, trying to paint it as a moral issue just clouds things for no purpose.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 26, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> It's fine to say:
> 
> This wouldn't work for me.
> This wouldn't work for me and the people I game with.
> ...





That's a pretty fine distinction. Are you sure you're not being as demanding as RC in saying what is and isn't acceptable?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Raven Crowking is playing semantic games. "_I'm not saying *no one* should fudge! I'm saying that there is such a small number of people for whom it is right that it may as well be zero!_"




Not a semantics game.  I accept that, in any particular case, I might be wrong.  I merely argue that, in any particular case, I would need some form of rational evidence to believe that I was.



> No direct personal experience perhaps (though perhaps you're just deluding yourself about that?)




Observer bias should always be considered.  I can tell you my observations; it is up to you to accept or dismiss them as makes sense to you.



> But you have had the experience of a variety of experienced gamers explaining it to you in this thread.




I suspect that my understanding of what "evidence" means may differ from yours.

However, I am not at all certain as to where anyone explains why fudging helps, apart from helping to patch over a more fundamental weakness....which is my starting assumption.

And, given a strong counter-argument, I will change my mind and accept I am wrong. "I am offended by your opinion" is not a strong counter-argument, however. It is, AFAICT, no counter-argument at all.  "Your assumptions are wrong" is not a strong counter-argument, unless one then demonstrates why they are wrong, and (perhaps) offers replacement assumptions.

Again, it may help if we were able to discuss an example of fudging that is not intended to cover a weakness in design or implementation, or to promote the outcome the GM desires.

I know I keep saying this, but you could (one assumes) by example demonstrate my starting assumptions to be wrong quite easily.

Can *anyone* give me one such example?

(That, btw, *would* qualify as "evidence".)


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> How is using the authority explicitly granted to you BY THE RULES dishonest?




If you say something that's not true, that's being dishonest, right? 



> 1e D&D EXPLICITLY grants me, as DM, the authority to do this.




Maybe. I think the passage in question is not entirely clear on the matter, but the way I read it is as close to my position as that. That is, the GM is free to arbitrate results as he sees fit, up to and including overruling a death and turning it into a maimed injury. It doesn't actually say the GM should lie to the players.



> Granted, you can dislike it.  I do too.  But, trying to paint it as a moral issue just clouds things for no purpose.




And what if it does not need to be painted to look like a moral issue?

Admittedly, it's a fairly unserious situation, but I personally feel that honesty really is the best policy. Every policy admits to special cases, but there you go.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Or is there an example of fudging that is not intended to cover a weakness in design or implementation, or to promote the outcome the GM desires?  What have I missed?



That there is no simple answer. There is no one reason, and there is no reason that applies all of the time. As DM I am expected to provide a fun adventure for the players. Doing so is much easier if I consider the players I am DMing for, how they enjoy playing and what they like in the game. It's also easier if you adapt to changing circumstances, such as players wanting to go off in a direction they never have before. I also find it easier if you make allowances for fudging, if you feel it's appropriate based on what you read off of the players, how they're approaching the game, etc, etc.

*Because you cannot plan for everything*. That's what you're missing. And if something you did not, indeed *could not*, plan for happens and it threatens to suck the fun out of the room, a DM should consider not having that thing happen.

You seem to be arguing that everything can be solved with a little planning. I would call that argument naive.



Raven Crowking said:


> The next thing that I would advise the GM to do is to try to come up with a method of dealing with the weakness that doesn't involve dishonesty on his part.



Or you *could *choose to use a less loaded word. This is a fantasy game of make-believe we're talking about here. "The orc hits you, take 10 points damage" is dishonest, because *there is no orc*. But dishonest is a terrible word to use there, because we're dealing with the imaginary.



Raven Crowking said:


> Can he shore up insufficient prep work?  Can he allow his particular outcome to not come to fruition (i.e., give players greater agency)?  Can he take more care with the rules?  Can he devise encounters to train the players in rules or tactics, or create easier challenges?



No, there's no simple answer. It's ultimately an organic process. There's no flowchart to consult that allows you to determine when to fudge. It's all about what feels right. There are no rules, and no amount of planning or consideration can cover all situations.

It's about a DM's discretion. As DM I am expected to use my discretion to provide fun adventures to the party. I see little or no difference between that and applying this discretion to specific events in-game, again with the goal to keep the fun.

And note, "fun" does *not *always equate to keeping the party alive. Sometimes TPKs are *awesome*! But sometimes they suck. The DM should consider that when he's running a game.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> That is, the GM is free to arbitrate results as he sees fit, up to and including overruling a death and turning it into a maimed injury. It doesn't actually say the GM should lie to the players.



That's a pretty fine distinction. The rules say the characeter dies, but the DM can use his discretion to overrule it. That's a lie, of sorts, because it's contrary to the rule that the character should be dead.

Nothing is gained, of course, by throwing around loaded terms like "lie" and "dishonest" when we're discussing playing make-believe. Other that to put those you are applying the terms to on edge and feel you are attacking them rather than their argument.



pawsplay said:


> Admittedly, it's a fairly unserious situation, but I personally feel that honesty really is the best policy. Every policy admits to special cases, but there you go.



"You are aware that I am not really a wizard" - Sir Ian McKellan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Again, why?  The entire reason for fudging is to smooth off the rough edges in a mistake with either design or implementation.  If a problem did not exist, then there would be no reason to fudge in the first place.
> 
> I honestly can't think of a reason to fudge other than to fix an already occured issue.  Isn't that the basic definition of fudging?




That is my basic assumption.



> Why would an example that runs counter to the entire purpose of the term be helpful here?




I have been told that my basic assumption -- that this particular basic assumption -- is wrong.



> How is using the authority explicitly granted to you BY THE RULES dishonest?  1e D&D EXPLICITLY grants me, as DM, the authority to do this.  I'm 99% sure that 2e did as well.  3e does in the first chapter or so of the DMG.




Heck, 2e doesn't grant you authority to do this; it blatantly encourages you to.  I happen to believe that this is terrible advice, though.  Perhaps the worst I have ever seen in an rpg.

"Dishonesty" is not defined by whether or not you can do something; it is defined by the intent to deceive.  And that is a problem.

It is okay for the PCs to learn that the NPC Lord Flabberblabber lies to them; they can then use that information to make in-game decisions.  

However, the players must be able to trust the GM.  That relationship is the foundation upon which the game rests.  Look at any thread complaining about any GM.  The number one problem?  Lack of trust in the GM.  Note also how this lack of trust in any given GM tends to generate lack of trust in any GM.

Remove the threat to player trust, to damaging that fundamental principle, and I'll grant you a big, hairy thumbs up.  

Why not let the players give the a number of tokens, each of which must be "spent" to fudge the dice?  As I said earlier, this would do two things: (1) puts the players in the driver's seat as to how much fudging goes on, and (2) maintains tension because the players can see that the token pool is decreasing. If the players feel like it, they can always add tokens back into the pool.

Eliminate the dishonest and it's all good, IMHO. 



RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Remove the threat to player trust, to damaging that fundamental principle, and I'll grant you a big, hairy thumbs up.



Let's see it then. More than one DM in this thread explicitly discussed the issue with his players _while the thread was going on_. The players' reactions were acceptance. When presented with that evidence, however, you merely questioned the veracity of the replies. "Sounds like they didn't really think it through" or something to that effect.

So even when that threat has been removed, because the players know the DM fudges and are cool with it, that's still not enough for you. Rather than give the thumbs up, you question the honesty of those providing the evidence. "If the players said they were okay with it, they were probably not being fully honest", that sort of thing.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> That's a pretty fine distinction. The rules say the characeter dies, but the DM can use his discretion to overrule it. That's a lie, of sorts, because it's contrary to the rule that the character should be dead.




Being contrary is not lying. In fact, the DMG passage referred to earlier makes it very clear that the DM is overruling the results and sparing the character but imposing a penalty, a fact which would then be obvious to the player. It's not a lie of any sort. Lying is not telling the truth. If you wish to avoid such loaded terms, that's reasonable, but I have no idea what you are trying to say in the passage I just quoted.



> Nothing is gained, of course, by throwing around loaded terms like "lie" and "dishonest" when we're discussing playing make-believe. Other that to put those you are applying the terms to on edge and feel you are attacking them rather than their argument.




Better terms, then? What do you suggest? Not-truth-telling? Unfaithfulness? I am open to suggestions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

First off, Fifth Element, thank you for your response.  

There are some real differences as to how we view the game, which are peforce going to colour our viewpoints.  So, as I said upthread, you may wish to take anything I say with a very large grain of salt.



Fifth Element said:


> That there is no simple answer. There is no one reason, and there is no reason that applies all of the time.




I only asked for one example.  I am well aware that the circumstances of that one example will not apply to all times.



> *Because you cannot plan for everything*. That's what you're missing. And if something you did not, indeed *could not*, plan for happens and it threatens to suck the fun out of the room, a DM should consider not having that thing happen.
> 
> You seem to be arguing that everything can be solved with a little planning. I would call that argument naive.




Herein, you may be right.  Maybe I am naive.  Certainly, you cannot plan for everything.  

However, I would then ask, how do you explain that others, who also cannot plan for everything, do not have to fudge die rolls to compensate?  I think that there is more involved than this.



> Or you *could *choose to use a less loaded word. This is a fantasy game of make-believe we're talking about here. "The orc hits you, take 10 points damage" is dishonest, because *there is no orc*.




Every game ever invented is make-believe.  Because there is no real knight, it is not any less dishonest if I "fudge" where I am allowed to move my piece.  

"The orc hits you, take 10 points damage" is not dishonest, because it is understood by all particpants that both orc and damage are game constructs.  There is no intent to deceive.

(This entire line of reasoning was deconstructed upthread, wasn't it?)



> But dishonest is a terrible word to use there, because we're dealing with the imaginary.




If I said "I think you're right here", it would be a statement about something equally unreal (because it occurs only in my head), but it would also be untrue, and hence dishonest of me to say.

If the PCs encounter a room, and the DM says "You see an empty room", causing the players to enter, and then the DM says "The ogre in the middle of the room attacks you!" I really doubt that the players will accept "I wasn't being dishonest because the room, the ogre, and your dead characters are all imaginary!" as an excuse.  



Fifth Element said:


> That's a pretty fine distinction. The rules say the characeter dies, but the DM can use his discretion to overrule it. That's a lie, of sorts, because it's contrary to the rule that the character should be dead.




Again, it is not a lie, assuming there is no intent to deceive.  "I'm going to say Sir Robin is still alive, but loses his hand" is fine.  It is above-board.  Everyone knows that the rules are being bent....or even broken!

"Contrary to the rules" is not dishonest.  Not telling the truth is dishonest.

Why not let the players give the a number of tokens, each of which must be "spent" to fudge the dice? As I said earlier, this would do two things: (1) puts the players in the driver's seat as to how much fudging goes on, and (2) maintains tension because the players can see that the token pool is decreasing. If the players feel like it, they can always add tokens back into the pool.

Eliminate the dishonest and it's all good, IMHO. 



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> More than one DM in this thread explicitly discussed the issue with his players _while the thread was going on_. The players' reactions were acceptance.




Do you know why doctors cannot date their patients, or why teachers cannot date their students?  There is a disparity of power involved.  The general gist is that the person in a position of authority can influence those he/she has authority over, even if neither party is aware of it.

There is a difference between accepting that your DM is going to fudge, and wanting your DM to fudge.  Also, the "not thought through" was related to the follow-up question, not the primary.

If anyone in this thread has asked their players "Would you rather I rolled the dice out in the open?" or "Would you rather I let the dice fall where they may?" or "Would you rather I didn't fudge?" they haven't reported it.

"Do you mind if I fudge occasionally?" is a different question, and one that might offend the DM if answered "Yes"......especially if that DM is ensuring that the responses he receives are "ironclad" or finds it personally insulting that others believe fudging to be a bad idea in general.

So, let us say, in the particular cases involved, the degree to which the player responses are accurate is the degree to which fudging is okay within those games.  As I said upthread, some folks do beat the odds!


RC


----------



## billd91 (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Again, it may help if we were able to discuss an example of fudging that is not intended to cover a weakness in design or implementation, or to promote the outcome the GM desires.
> 
> I know I keep saying this, but you could (one assumes) by example demonstrate my starting assumptions to be wrong quite easily.
> 
> ...




Given your previous posts in this thread and your prejudice that the set of GMs who can run a successful game with fudging is vanishingly small, I don't have much confidence in your ability to approach any evidence as unbiased.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> However, I would then ask, how do you explain that others, who also cannot plan for everything, do not have to fudge die rolls to compensate?  I think that there is more involved than this.



Because they have different players than I do, would be my first thought. If my players were the types to find a completely fudgeless game more fun, then that's what I would give them. Player preferences is one of the many variables involved here. Don't assume that all players like the same things. If a DM's group feels there is nothing to compensate for, it makes perfect sense for them to not compensate.



Raven Crowking said:


> Every game ever invented is make-believe.  Because there is no real knight, it is not any less dishonest if I "fudge" where I am allowed to move my piece.



Sounds like we're back to chess, which if of course a *terrible* analogy for RPGs. But we've been over that.



Raven Crowking said:


> "Contrary to the rules" is not dishonest.  Not telling the truth is dishonest.



Pedantic, but irrelevant. There's all kinds if things I withhold from my players _during the game_, in order to make it a more fun experience. You could call them "lies of omission" if you were so inclined. I'll often discuss it with them afterwards, to get their input on it. But doing so *in play* would be disruptive to my group, so we don't do it. Again, it's a preference for my group.



Raven Crowking said:


> Why not let the players give the a number of tokens, each of which must be "spent" to fudge the dice? As I said earlier, this would do two things: (1) puts the players in the driver's seat as to how much fudging goes on, and (2) maintains tension because the players can see that the token pool is decreasing. If the players feel like it, they can always add tokens back into the pool.



Why add another mechanic when things are fun the way they are? Players put *me* in the drivers seat as DM. They trust me to deliver a fun game for them. They have never given any indication that they would prefer having such an option to leaving it to my discretion. There are many games that have such mechanics in their core rules. My players have shown no inclination to play those games. It seems they prefer to leave it to the DM's discretion, like so many other things in the game.

You assume fudging destroys trust. I'd say if trust is established, fudging is no issue, and does nothing to hurt that trust by itself.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Do you know why doctors cannot date their patients, or why teachers cannot date their students?  There is a disparity of power involved.  The general gist is that the person in a position of authority can influence those he/she has authority over, even if neither party is aware of it.



Do you know the difference between real authority and imaginary authority? Teachers have very real authotiry over their students. DMs have no real authority over the players by dint of being DM. They have authority over what happens in a made-up imaginary world, which I daresay is quite a different thing.

You're assuming a whole lot here. Again. Apply Occam's razor. You have assumed the answers are not completely truthful either because of how the question was phrased, or because the DM is influencing the answers due to his "power" over the players. The simpler explanation is that the players *don't actually mind the fudging.*


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Given your previous posts in this thread and your prejudice that the set of GMs who can run a successful game with fudging is vanishingly small, I don't have much confidence in your ability to approach any evidence as unbiased.




I wouldn't ask you to accept _*anyone's*_ statements without considering observer bias.



Fifth Element said:


> Why add another mechanic when things are fun the way they are?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You assume fudging destroys trust. I'd say if trust is established, fudging is no issue, and does nothing to hurt that trust by itself.




I tip my hat, and agree to disagree.

Or, let me say, I agree to disagree on the _*general principle*_.  I am not disagreeing about *your particular group* (which I, obviously, have no direct experience of).  It may be that fate has handed me a horribly skewed sample to work with (so the set is larger than I believe it to be); it may be that you truly beat the odds (so that you are part of a vanishingly small set).  


RC


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 26, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> But in this thread I would say that that is not okay, because those GMs who fudge are our peers, they have thought about the issue deeply and they have discussed it at length. At that point, to say that you know, or even think you know, what is best for another fellow's game is going too far.



I, personally, believe that Fifth Element and Umbran are okay with fudging.  I believe that's their preference, and because it's their preference, I believe that they enjoy it.

However, I don't believe it is the best way to play a game.  Even if Fifth Element and Umbran are excellent DMs, I believe that they would be _better_ DMs if they didn't fudge.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but (like Raven Crowking), literally _all_ of my experience is that I'm right.

I believe that fudging is dishonest, that it robs players of meaningful choices and risk by substituting DM caprice for the game mechanic provided for outcome determination, and that this is the primary reason that DMs keep fudging secret from their players.

Even more to the point, regarding speculating on what is best for "another fellow's game," all I have to go on -- aside from my general experience -- when it comes to Umbran's and Fifth Element's _players_, is that Umbran and Fifth Element tell me that their players are happier with fudging than without.

I believe that Umbran and Fifth Element believe that.  I do.  But I do not believe that it is true.  And my believe that it's true has nothing to do with thinking that Umbran and Fifth Element are lying about it, but rather to do with thinking that Umbran and Fifth Element are wrong about it ... that they have, possibly in complete and wide-eyed honesty, perhaps allowed their stated preferences for fudging to color their perceptions of how their players feel about fudging, for example.

Apparently it's somehow bad form to make this observation, but I'll do it anyway: this is _exactly_ why hearsay is not considered relevant evidence.  It is -- many exceptions aside -- inherently unreliable when person X tells what person Y believes, especially when person X has a very good reason to say that Person Y believes a particular thing.

So, again, I'm not saying that I know what Umbran and Fifth Element prefer for their games better than they do.  I don't.

I am not saying they're bad DMs.  I am saying that if they didn't fudge they'd almost certainly be _better_ DMs.

And I am saying that I'm not going to take their word -- over my own experiences -- that their _players_ are happier in a game with fudging than they would be in a game with no fudging.  Maybe they are.  But I'm not taking Umbran's and Fifth Element's word about the feelings of another person as evidence in support of their position.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> "Do you mind if I fudge occasionally?" is a different question, and one that might offend the DM if answered "Yes"......especially if that DM is ensuring that the responses he receives are "ironclad" or finds it personally insulting that others believe fudging to be a bad idea in general.




How is this significantly different from a DM who asks if they'd like him to roll in the open but the players would prefer a bit more leniency from the unsympathetic dice? Won't there also be the possibility of offending the DM by giving a response he doesn't like? Sounds like there are people quite passionate around here about rolling in the open who feel that fudging would be personally dishonest.

But from the tenor of the thread, it sounds to me like fudge-friendly DMs are a bit more flexible on whether or not to fudge than the non-fudgers are toward fudging the dice. So, frankly, I'd expect the offense to go mostly the other way than what you are suggesting if the thread participants here are any indication of the general population.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Do you know the difference between real authority and imaginary authority? Teachers have very real authotiry over their students. DMs have no real authority over the players by dint of being DM.




You're right, of course.  

No one has ever accepted playing with a DM they didn't think up to snuff because it was the only game in town.  No one has ever disliked DM Fiat, but felt unable to complain about it because doing so would mean no gaming.

This has never been mentioned on EN World numerous times.  This has never come up often as a reason why the "take the DM out of the equation/rules for everything" was a good idea when folks complained about it re: 3e.

I withdraw the objection.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> ... that they have, possibly in complete and wide-eyed honesty, perhaps allowed their stated preferences for fudging to color their perceptions of how their players feel about fudging, for example.



There's a chink in your armour here. You're assuming that I fudge because I prefer to fudge in general. That I have a predisposition to fudging. That's incorrect. I've played many a game that involved not one bit of fudging, and had a grand old time while doing so.

I fudge *because *my group prefers it. *Not *because I prefer to fudge, and my group hasn't complained. I have not imposed fudging on the group.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

billd91 said:


> But from the tenor of the thread, it sounds to me like fudge-friendly DMs are a bit more flexible on whether or not to fudge than the non-fudgers are toward fudging the dice. So, frankly, I'd expect the offense to go mostly the other way than what you are suggesting if the thread participants here are any indication of the general population.



I think I agree. If me players asked me to roll all the dice in the open, I would roll all the dice in the open. If that would help them enjoy the game, we'd do it.

If Raven Crowking's players asked him to fudge at times, what would his reaction be?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

billd91 said:


> How is this significantly different from a DM who asks if they'd like him to roll in the open but the players would prefer a bit more leniency from the unsympathetic dice?




Perhaps it is not.

If I liked dungeon crawls, and I wanted to know if my players did, I would ask them if they wanted fewer dungeon crawls, rather than asking them if they minded the dungeon crawls, because the former suggests (to me) that my interest is in what they want, while the latter suggests (again, to me) that I want them to confirm that they are okay with my preferences.

And, IMHO and IME, few people say No to being okay with their DM's preferences, unless they are willing to DM themselves or get someone else to.

YMMV.

I may be wrong.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I withdraw the objection.



Great! Now withdraw the dismissive sarcasm and we'll be on to something!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If Raven Crowking's players asked him to fudge at times, what would his reaction be?




That's an interesting question.  I honestly don't know the answer.

I think I would try to introduce the token pool mechanic, described above.  I would then attempt to get the players, rather than the DM, to determine when fudging occurred.

Failing that, I think I would ask someone else to run the game.  I'd go read a book, or go hiking, or go fishing.

My experiences with fudging have been that bad, on either side of the screen.

EDIT:  Another possibility is to run a while with fudging, and see whether or not they want the fudging to continue after that point.  Honestly, I would be doing so to see if their opinion would change.  I couldn't see myself doing it indefinitely.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, IMHO and IME, few people say No to being okay with their DM's preferences, unless they are willing to DM themselves or get someone else to.



If that's what you need here you go: in my group, everyone has DMed. Every single member of the group has DMed the group at one time or another. Yet it always comes back to me to be the primary DM.

Now, I'm sure there's some reason you can think of that this does not actually mean they enjoy my style of DMing for them, but on the face of it that would seem to say they approve. And desire it. There's more than enough DMs to go aroung in the group, yet I'm the one being asked to run the show at least 80% of the time.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If Raven Crowking's players asked him to fudge at times, what would his reaction be?



My guess?

"No problem.  Here's a pool of tokens (as many as you'd like).  When you want me to fudge, ask me to spend one.  Feel free to ask for more whenever you like."

Personally, I don't think the experiment would last long in a game like D&D because, IME, players pretty quickly grow tired of "no risk."



Fifth Element said:


> You're assuming that I fudge because I prefer to fudge in general.



No, I'm assuming that you fudge because you believe that fudging makes your game better, and you prefer to have a better game.  Or, short-handing, you prefer to fudge.  I haven't actually stated anything about whether you like to do it for any other reason.  In fact, I hadn't even considered the question until now.



> That's incorrect.



That's interesting.  Do you have a preference, then, as a player, yourself?  Fudge or no fudge?  Secret or open?


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Failing that, I think I would ask someone else to run the game.  I'd go read a book, or go hiking, or go fishing.



And this is where we differ. I try to give the players what they want. It's just a game, after all, and if they want me to fudge I'll do it. If they want me to roll in the open I'll do that instead. You seem to be very hard-line, "my way or no way" about it. I can't fathom being that way about a game of make-believe.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> My guess?
> 
> "No problem.  Here's a pool of tokens (as many as you'd like).  When you want me to fudge, ask me to spend one.  Feel free to ask for me whenever you like."



The hypothetical question was not if they players wanted the ability to fudge for themselves, but that the DM fudge for them. Raven Crowking has answered the question himself, at any rate, which makes this moot.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Great! Now withdraw the dismissive sarcasm and we'll be on to something!




Is this intentionally ironic?  If so, I salute you!  

Surely, when you wrote that the DM had no real authority, you must have known of the threads I mentioned?  Didn't you participate in them?


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> That's interesting.  Do you have a preference, then, as a player, yourself?  Fudge or no fudge?  Secret or open?



Good question. I think that in a long-term campaign that has been built up over time, I'd prefer a bit of fudge. For shorter games I'd say no fudge.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Surely, when you wrote that the DM had no real authority, you must have known of the threads I mentioned?  Didn't you participate in them?



In fact, no I do not recall them.

If you're referring to a specific argument I made, bear in mind the context may be different, or even that I've changed my mind since then.

But unless you want me to bring jig-winking into the discussion, perhaps we should leave other threads out of it.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> For shorter games I'd say no fudge.



Why?  (Note that I'm not asking for a contrast: "Why here, but not here?"  I'm asking, "Why do you prefer no fudge?")

Interestingly, I'm pretty much the exact opposite.  A four- or five-hour convention game, for instance, is the one type of game where I think it's possible that the harm of fudging is outweighed by the benefits.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Why?  (Note that I'm not asking for a contrast: "Why here, but not here?"  I'm asking, "Why do you prefer no fudge?")
> 
> Interestingly, I'm pretty much the exact opposite.  A four- or five-hour convention game, for instance, is the one type of game where I think it's possible that the harm of fudging is outweighed by the benefits.



Hard to say, really. I think for longer campaigns it's harder to build up continuity if characters die off too much. If the makeup of the party changes over time such that no original characters are left, for instance, a recurring baddie wouldn't have the same effect.

For a convention game I can see your point. For shorter games at home, though, rolling up a new character isn't a big deal.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Hard to say, really. I think for longer campaigns it's harder to build up continuity if characters die off too much.



So you fudge to keep characters alive.

All the time?

If only sometimes, how do you decide?

(Oh, and you didn't answer: As a player, do you prefer secret fudging or not-secret fudging?)


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> So you fudge to keep characters alive.
> 
> All the time?



Nope, not all the time.



Jeff Wilder said:


> If only sometimes, how do you decide?



I answered that previously in response to Raven Crowking. It's more about feeling than anything. There are no rules by which the determination is made. It's DM's discretion.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> It's more about feeling than anything. There are no rules by which the determination is made. It's DM's discretion.



So ... you might end up fudging to save the PC of the player who bought the pizza that night, while allowing the PC of the player who argued with you earlier to die?  (Note that I'm not implying any causation.  I'm asking if the "feeling" you have that determines whether or not you save a PC might result in something like this, theoretically.)


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> So ... you might end up fudging to save the PC of the player who bought the pizza that night, while allowing the PC of the player who argued with you earlier to die?  (Note that I'm not implying any causation.  I'm asking if the "feeling" you have that determines whether or not you save a PC might result in something like this, theoretically.)



In theory, that might happen, same as the decision of who a monster might attack would be affected. DM's disrection applies to a great deal of things in the game.

But I was really referring more to reading the players to try to gauge their reactions to the situation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Yet it always comes back to me to be the primary DM.
> 
> Now, I'm sure there's some reason you can think of that this does not actually mean they enjoy my style of DMing for them, but on the face of it that would seem to say they approve.




I would agree with your assessment; they clearly want you to DM.

It therefore follows that (1) you are probably the best DM in your group, and (2) that you are probably the one who enjoys DMing most.

It does not therefore follow that your game is the best that it could possibly be.



Fifth Element said:


> And this is where we differ. I try to give the players what they want. It's just a game, after all, and if they want me to fudge I'll do it. If they want me to roll in the open I'll do that instead. You seem to be very hard-line, "my way or no way" about it. I can't fathom being that way about a game of make-believe.




I have walked down that path, from both sides of the screen, and I know that it is not fun.  For me.  For anyone I have ever played that way with.  YMMV (obviously).

Like you, I try to give the players what they want.  In the end, though, what I suspect they want is the best game that I can give them.  And that game doesn't include fudging.  Indeed, there are all sorts of things a player might want right now, that damage the game in the long run.  Thus Monty Haul was born.

(Aside:  You keep going on with that "about a game of make-believe" stuff.  Sure, it's a game of make believe.  All games are make-believe.  Arguably, all achievement is make-believe in that nothing is ultimately permanent.  So what that it is make-believe?  Does that mean that you don't bring your best game to the table, or that you shouldn't care about the quality of experience you provide?)



Fifth Element said:


> Raven Crowking has answered the question himself, at any rate, which makes this moot.




And has tried to do so as honestly as possible.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> But unless you want me to bring jig-winking into the discussion, perhaps we should leave other threads out of it.




Jig-winking was _*awesome*_, and it is horrible of you to bring this up right now, when I cannot XP you for doing so.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> In theory, that might happen




So, (a) your players know you fudge, (b) you sometimes fudge to save a PC and other times don't do so, and (c) it's possible for that to happen so that it corresponds with whomever the DM likes more that night.  Right?



> same as the decision of who a monster might attack would be affected. DM's disrection applies to a great deal of things in the game.



If, to keep a PC from dying, you have a choice of:

(1) Having it attack another target or otherwise do something less dangerous to the threatened PC, or,

(2) Roll and ignore any result that would kill the PC ...

... which would you prefer to do?  If you have a preference, why?



> But I was really referring more to reading the players to try to gauge their reactions to the situation.



And you choose to do this in the seconds after you roll the die and the result is undesirable, right?

Would it be possible to read the players and gauge their reactions to a potential PC death in the seconds before rolling the die?  If not, why not?  If so, why do you choose to wait until after?


----------



## Sigurd (Apr 26, 2010)

*Some of this must happen*

I think every DM has to spend some time tempering the results of player actions.

Simply, the situation is this. You describe a situation to the best of your ability and the player appears to understand. Upon seeing the players actions you realize that the player has not understood and is behaving from a misunderstanding you are part of.

Perhaps you have a lethal surprise that is too tailor made for that situation. Perhaps you find yourself cherry picking spells, magic or strategies in reaction to what the NPCs can't really know. In spite of the best games craftsmanship sometimes you can see the challenge scale slide to a TPK. At that point every good DM will adjust and not let the player know.

I think most of the time the DM rolls are hidden to help the players not kill them.


Sigurd


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It therefore follows that (1) you are probably the best DM in your group, and (2) that you are probably the one who enjoys DMing most.



Probably, on both counts.



Raven Crowking said:


> It does not therefore follow that your game is the best that it could possibly be.



Not in argument. My point was that if my players don't actually enjoy my fudging, they have ample recourse to other DMs. Which is silly, of course, because it's because they prefer it that I do it.



Raven Crowking said:


> (Aside:  You keep going on with that "about a game of make-believe" stuff.  Sure, it's a game of make believe.  All games are make-believe.



Not in the sense that I mean it. You posited before that baseball is make-believe, which means you are not using the term in the way that I am. Baseball is not make-believe, becuase things actually happen. Real people throw the ball and hit the ball and run. Chess is not make-believe, because things actually happen. It's a very abstract real thing, but things actually happen according to the rules of the game. Pieces are moved and captured, etc according to the strict rules of the game.

In RPGs, things only happen in your imagination. Things happen only because the DM or the players say they do.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> So, (a) your players know you fudge, (b) you sometimes fudge to save a PC and other times don't do so, and (c) it's possible for that to happen so that it corresponds with whomever the DM likes more that night?  Right?



In theory, yes. Correspondence not implying causattion, of course. My wife is one of my players. She complains that I don't fudge for her enough, even though I do like her best. 



Jeff Wilder said:


> If, to keep a PC from dying, you have a choice of:
> 
> (1) Having it attack another target or otherwise do something less dangerous to the threatened PC, or,
> 
> ...



If those are my only choices, I don't think I have a preference. I prefer to be mindful of the combat as a whole, to catch problems when they crop up rather than waiting for it to be a live-or-die decision.



Jeff Wilder said:


> And you choose to do this in the seconds after you roll the die and the result is undesirable, right?



No. If I were going to fudge a die roll, I would think before rolling the die "if _this _result comes up, I'll change it to _that_."



Jeff Wilder said:


> Would it be possible to read the players and gauge their reactions to a potential PC death in the seconds before rolling the die?  If not, why not?  If so, why do you choose to wait until after?



It's never possible to really know how the players will react, but if they're really into the battle and it's intense, then a PC death will go over much better than if they consider the fight unimportant or uninteresting.


----------



## Rekka360 (Apr 26, 2010)

Save the PCs? Yes and No.

If it is possible that the foes in question might actually be interested in taking prisoners, then yeah, I might...I think that can put a twist on the narrative and it allows the campaign to continue and it puts me on my toes to be inventive and adapt to this new thing. 

Being a DM to me isn't just me writing up what's going to happen and then playing it out, I think it needs to be a living process that the players can affect.

That being said, if everyone came to negative hp and wasn't actually dead yet, then they could be taken prisoner. If one person in the party was dead dead, then that's it, others might be locked up but he's gone. Plus being captured might end up being a fate worse than death. 

Torture, maybe getting used in an evil wizards experiment? Hope your god doesn't hate undead things if you got taken by a cabal of vampires. I think the idea of players losing a fight opens up a lot of possibilities for taking the campaign in a new direction.

Sometimes though, you need a TPK to keep the players keen to the idea that things don't always work out.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> No. If I were going to fudge a die roll, I would think before rolling the die "if _this _result comes up, I'll change it to _that_."



That's not fudging.  You and I win the thread.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> That's not fudging.  You and I win the thread.



Yay team!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> My point was that if my players don't actually enjoy my fudging, they have ample recourse to other DMs. Which is silly, of course, because it's because they prefer it that I do it.




Imagine, if you would, that there are 3 potential DMs.  On a scale of 1 to 10, they are ranked 4, 5, and 8.  The "8" DM has an annoying habit that prevents him from being a "9" or "10".

Wise players choose "8", even if they dislike the annoying habit, because "8" is still better than "4" or "5".

That your players continually choose you indicates that you are the best choice among the choices they have.  That is a good accomplishment.  Probably the best any of us can hope to attain.

It does not mean that property X of your DMing is what they want.



> In RPGs, things only happen in your imagination. Things happen only because the DM or the players say they do.




No.  Things actually happen.  Real people roll real dice.  Real marks get put on real character sheets.  Real rulebooks are used to resolve real decisions made by real people.  Things actually happen according to the rules of the game.  Real minis might be used on a real battlemat.

There is no difference.


RC


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is no difference [between baseball and an RPG].



Except that one is _way_ more worthwhile and interesting than the other, of course.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Except that one is _way_ more worthwhile and interesting than the other, of course.




Of course!


----------



## billd91 (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No.  Things actually happen.  Real people roll real dice.  Real marks get put on real character sheets.  Real rulebooks are used to resolve real decisions made by real people.  Things actually happen according to the rules of the game.  Real minis might be used on a real battlemat.
> 
> There is no difference.




There is most definitely a difference. Real people are involved and real dice may be used (though not in games like Amber) and other real tools may be used but the process is really different, particularly in the participation of an arbitrator who adjudicates the results of player decisions, in the nature of the game's interactions, in the relatively boundless environment, and in the product of the game itself. 

The games (all games) themselves may fit along intersecting continua of structure and scope and be measurable against each other, but that doesn't mean we can really treat them as not being different when it comes to being "make-believe" or not. I'd be particularly careful to point out that just because what a sportsman does is fairly arbitrary as a test of relative skill (hitting a fast ball and running bases), that doesn't make it make-believe in the way that an RPG is make believe. Nor does pushing real tokens around a megamat as placeholders for avatars for players conform to the same reality as picking offensive plays on a football field.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Imagine, if you would, that there are 3 potential DMs. On a scale of 1 to 10, they are ranked 4, 5, and 8. The "8" DM has an annoying habit that prevents him from being a "9" or "10".
> 
> Wise players choose "8", even if they dislike the annoying habit, because "8" is still better than "4" or "5".
> 
> ...




I don't think we have enough information to make that call. Based on this thread and numerous others I can easily believe that there are groups out there who prefer storytelling to the more gamist aspects of play. These folks might have different reasons for playing than we do (other than generally to have fun of course)


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is no difference.



There is no difference between fantasy baseball and RPGs. There is a difference between real baseball and RPGs.

The purpose of RPGs is not to roll dice and note things on your character sheet. An RPG can be played entirely without dice, or pencils, or character sheets, or minis, or anything but your imagination.

So in the sense that a baseball and your imagination are the same, the game of baseball is the same as an RPG.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> These folks might have different reasons for playing than we do (other than generally to have fun of course)



Quite so.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> That your players continually choose you indicates that you are the best choice among the choices they have.  That is a good accomplishment.  Probably the best any of us can hope to attain.



I don't dispute that this is possible. I submit, however, that you have no *reason* to believe that it is the case, other than your own predisposition toward believing it is the case.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't think we have enough information to make that call.




Agreed.  Indeed, that was part of the point I was trying to make.

The other is that, because DM X is preferred over Y and Z, it does not follow that it is for quality A.  Especially as we do not know if, or to what degree, DMs Y and Z possess quality A.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I don't dispute that this is possible. I submit, however, that you have no *reason* to believe that it is the case, other than your own predisposition toward believing it is the case.




I submit that it is the most rational inference from the data at hand.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I disagree.




He's said, in no uncertain terms, that he feels he knows better than you (for whoever "you" are) what your gamers would like - they'd like their game better his way.  He doesn't have to meet them, doesn't have to play at the table.  If you disagree with him, you may not realize it but you are simply mistaken.  So, yes, he is saying that anyone who does not agree with him is, in fact, _wrong_.  Classic OneTrueWayism, I'm sorry to say.

Saying the other guy is "bad" is not part of the heart of OneTrueWayism, but insofar as they aren't giving as good a game as they might, those GMs aren't themselves as good at they could be, so they are just that little bit bad.



Raven Crowking said:


> Well, thank you for at least suggesting that I am polite.




What I said was that your point was politely phrased.  If you need me to go into that more, please take it to PM.



> If there is a purpose to your post, apart from attempting to be insulting, I would like to hear it.  As I argue GMs shouldn't fudge, or cops shouldn't commit crimes, I would also argue that mods shouldn't attempt to insult other posters.




The point is to make it 100% clear to the readers, so they may make well-informed decisions as to how to proceed.   



> If the only alternative to "OneTrueWayism" is "Absolute Relativism", then I guess you've got me.




You see, it goes like this - in OneTrueWayism, you believe you know what's best for all gamers (or, for as large a chuck of them as makes no odds).  In Absolute Relativism, you believe you know that there is no one best thing for all gamers.

There is another choice.  A humble one, where you believe that you know what's worked for your own people, but that your personal observations are not likely superior to those of others.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Classic OneTrueWayism, I'm sorry to say.



It seems fairly clear that you get a nickel for every time you say OneTrueWayism (what, no ®?), so why be sorry?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 26, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> It seems fairly clear that you get a nickel for every time you say OneTrueWayism (what, no ®?), so why be sorry?




I wish.  No, I'm not saying it for fun or my own benefit.  I use the word to stay specific, so there is little chance of confusion or drift with the rest of the thread.  I am sorry because I wish I never had call to say it ever.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> He's said, in no uncertain terms, that he feels he knows better than you (for whoever "you" are) what your gamers would like - they'd like their game better his way.




Nope.

Doesn't apply to any specific "you"; just to general odds.

He's repeatedly said that any specific "you" might defy the odds, and even said that his understanding of the odds may be wrong, as that understanding is based solely upon his experience.

However, given the proposition that person X defies those general odds, he is inclined to skepticism.  

That is very different than being inclined to outright denial.  Well, in my universe, anyway.

What about that is so hard for you to understand?


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I submit that it is the most rational inference from the data at hand.



Rejected. You're not basing it on data. You're basing it on preconceived biases. You see it_ this_ way, so you interpret things to conform with that preconception.

The most rational inference to the data "I fudge for my group, and my group enjoys playing with me" is that my players enjoy (or at least, don't mind) fudging, because you have no other information about them.

The inference that they only continue to play with me because they can't find anything better, or that they really hate fudging but are too cowed to my DM power to say anything, is not the most rational inference. It is a massive stretch, a conclusion reached to match your own bias against fudging.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It may be that any given GM's game is improved by judicious use of fudging as one of the many tools available to the DM in running the game, but, as the man said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
> 
> Now, the above is, of course, only IMHO and IME.  YMMV, as they say.  You can decide that the size of the "GMs who successfully fudge" set is extraordinarily large, if you like.  Nobody's stopping you.






Raven Crowking said:


> Again, Raven Crowking accepts that a particular GM's makeup of strengths and weaknesses might make fudging the best option for that GM.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You might be an exception; if so, you have beaten the odds IME and IMHO.




You will, I hope, note that the estimation of the size of the set is IMHO and IME.  I could go back and find more quotes to this effect, but I hope that is sufficient.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> What about that is so hard for you to understand?



That you know for certainty what these odds are. You're basing it only on yor own limited experiences. And when I say limited, I don't mean relative to other gamers. I mean as a subset of all gaming that is done on a daily basis, you have experience with a tiny sliver of it.

Given the great deal of push-back you've received in this thread from gamers just as experienced as you, perhaps it's time to revisit your estimate of these odds. They appear to be off by quite a bit. And as such, you have a garbage in - garbage out problem. Your conclusions are flawed because your premise is flawed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Rejected. You're not basing it on data. You're basing it on preconceived biases.





Not at all.

What I know is:

1.  Everyone in your group DMs.

2.  You DM 80% of the time.

3.  You fudge.

Because you DM 80% of the time, I can infer that your players allow you to DM 80% of the time, and also that you agree to DM 80% of the time.  

This in turn suggests that, out of the possible options, your players agree to your DMing, i.e., you are (for whatever reason) their "best choice".  If you were not, they would choose to have someone else DM more often.

I can also infer that you do not mind DMing, or presumably you would not do it.  They would be forced to have someone else DM more often.

However, as I know nothing about the DMing styles of the other players in your group, I have no way of knowing what factors differentiate your style from theirs.  I cannot, therefore, make a rational guess as to why you are choosen beyond those obvious inferences:  They like you, you like to DM.

You say that your players prefer fudging.  If this is true (and I have no reason to suppose otherwise), it follows that they likely prefer fudging no matter who DMs.  In this case, your willingness to fudge is unlikely to be the deciding factor, as every DM in the group is likely to have the same quality.

(Or, at least, it seems unlikely to me that a person who prefers fudging as a player is liable to refuse to fudge as DM.  I may be wrong in this.)

Conversely, your players may not ask for fudging in general; this may be something that is only asked from you.  Should this be the case, it leads to an entirely new set of inferences, some of which may be considered flattering, and some of which may not be.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> That you know for certainty what these odds are.




Well, the reason that you are having a hard time understanding that is because I have said, repeatedly, that I do not know with certainty what those odds are.  All I know is what I _*believe to be the case*_.  Which, as I have also said, is subject to observer bias.



> you have a garbage in - garbage out problem. Your conclusions are flawed because your premise is flawed.




That is certainly a possibility.

As I said upthread, I would never ask anyone to discount observer bias when deciding how to process my arguments, or anyone else's arguments.


RC


----------



## Umbran (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nope.
> 
> Doesn't apply to any specific "you"; just to general odds.




Except you also included an expression of those odds.  The set of people who defied them was

_"...so close to empty that it makes little practical difference whether there is an empty set or a set in which .00000000001% of games fall."_

So despite how you've claimed that one might defy the odds, as a practical matter you've said that there are effectively none who do.  



> That is very different than being inclined to outright denial.  Well, in my universe, anyway.
> 
> What about that is so hard for you to understand?




Because you yourself contradict it as a practical matter!  The out of the odds is a technicality you clearly indicate you feel won't actually ever apply.  There is a point where you must be held to what you say, you know, where claims of using dramatic hyperbole are no longer an excuse.  You've been on-message for the entire thread, and this is merely the clearest single statement of your point.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> However, as I know nothing about the DMing styles of the other players in your group, I have no way of knowing what factors differentiate your style from theirs.  I cannot, therefore, make a rational guess as to why you are choosen beyond those obvious inferences:  They like you, you like to DM.



That really is the limit of what you can infer, I agree. Yet you infer more.

But if it helps you to understand that not everyone likes the same things you do, I'll give you a little more. The player who DMs second-most in the group (probably about 10%) is the fudgiest of fudgy DMs. At times it seems he doesn't care that the game even has rules. Pure fiat a lot of the time.

Of the other three, I'd say two of them fudge about as much as I do, and one somewhat less. Though he still fudges.

I hope that helps you in believing whay I say about my players.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Your conclusions are flawed because your premise is flawed.



Look, if _every single one_ of my experiences with _anything_ goes one way, and I have a _lot_ of those experiences, I'm going to believe my experiences over what _you_ tell me the experiences of _someone else_ have been.

If you tell me what _your_ experiences have been, I'll need to make a judgment as to whether or not I believe you that your experience contradicts mine.

But if you tell me what _someone else's_ experiences have been, it's not even close.  I don't make any decision whatsoever as to whether or not you're being truthful, and don't need to, because there are so many other explanations for the disparity.  I will simply assume you're wrong, and will continue to do so until I have better evidence _from another source_ than the evidence I already rely on, which is _my 100 percent consistent experience_.

Everybody makes decisions on this basis _every single day_.  It's incredible that you're implicitly claiming otherwise and disparaging this method of weighting evidence, which, quite literally, people could not live without.

You either don't understand these ubiquitous "weight of evidence" standards, or you're pretending not to because you think it scores you "I Win the Internet" points.  Either way, it says something about you.  (Of course, one of those possibilities can be corrected.  The other, by this point in your life, probably can't be.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> you have a garbage in - garbage out problem. Your conclusions are flawed because your premise is flawed.




I just want to touch on this again.

Logic is what it is, and it is neither the be-all or end-all of processing observation to premise.  If my conclusions are flawed, it would not be because my premise is flawed, but because my observational set is too small.

But my premise is not based solely upon my observational set; it is also based upon observation of human nature and the philosophy of ethics.  And nothing in this thread has offered a reasonable counter to either principle, IMHO.

(Again, I caution you to take observer bias into account here.)

Any time a person is in a position of authority, however great or meager that authority is, it is important that the individual does not abuse that authority to whatever extent it may exist.  

If, say, I were to open an RCFG forum on my website, I obviously could close threads because I was "losing" in an argument; but doing so would be an abuse of authority.  It would damage whatever (miniscule) trust I would have engendered with whoever would be desperate enough to post there.

As a DM, I could choose to strike players who made choices I didn't like with "bolts from the blue", but that would be an abuse of authority as well.  It would damage the trust I had with my players.  (And, depending upon how you parse the 1e DMG, you could claim that Gygax recommended that, too.)

I have suggested alternatives to fudging through deceit; these were deemed by some to be unacceptable for diverse reasons.  Some of these reasons were compelling, and came close (IMHO) to answering my initial objection; others (again, IMHO) fall completely flat.

Likewise, there are rational arguments made as to why fudging increases the potential for distrust between players and GM.  Some very thought-provoking responses have been made to those rational arguments, but IMHO no argument has been made that shows them to be based on faulty premises or faulty logic.

You can come at the game from whatever angle you like.  Obviously.  I am no authority on your game, and, as I said upthread, I don't know why anyone in particular should care what my personal opinion is, unless it strikes a chord with them in some fashion.

My personal opinion is that the vast majority of GMs who believe fudging improves their game are incorrect.  AFAICT, I have a right to hold that opinion.  AFAICT, I even have a right to share it -- that is not OneTrueWayism, although it might make some certain others more comfortable if it was.

I have given my reasons, and my reasoning, in exhaustive detail.  I have tried to be clear as to why I don't find the counter-arguments to my reasoning compelling.  If you believe that the reasons or the reasoning are false, you should obviously not let my conclusions guide you, hamper you, or bother you.  You should, perhaps, simply shake your head and pity me for the fool I am.

Or, if you find them compelling, they may be of some use to you.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Because you yourself contradict it as a practical matter!  The out of the odds is a technicality you clearly indicate you feel won't actually ever apply.




Hey, Umbran, I tried to address it as "general advice".  Do you remember your response to that?

So, let me see.  I can't say that fudging is bad, in general (no specifics) or you jump in and ask me if I work for the Pentagon now.  

I can't say that fudging is bad, and give the odds of it being good within _*my experience, and in my opinion*_ is an empty set or close thereunto (nowhere do I claim that my estimation of the odds is necessarily accurate outside my experience), or you jump in and accuse me of OneTrueWayism.

I guess what you are trying to say is "Thou Shalt Not Say Fudging Is Bad".


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> That really is the limit of what you can infer, I agree.




With that set of data, yes.  I am glad that you no longer feel that inference is somehow based upon bias.



> Yet you infer more.




Using additional data, yes.  About many things, almost all of the time, every day.  We all do.



> But if it helps you to understand that not everyone likes the same things you do, I'll give you a little more.




Thank you.  You confirm my earlier inference that your fudging cannot be the factor that makes you the prefered GM.  Your level of fudging might contribute to why you are preferred over those whose level differs, however.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> It's incredible that you're implicitly claiming otherwise and disparaging this method of weighting evidence, which, quite literally, people could not live without.





Anyone want some XP?  I've got to spread some around, apparently, before I can give it to Jeff Wilder again.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 27, 2010)

Umbran said:


> He's said, in no uncertain terms, that he feels he knows better than you (for whoever "you" are) what your gamers would like - they'd like their game better his way.  He doesn't have to meet them, doesn't have to play at the table.  If you disagree with him, you may not realize it but you are simply mistaken.  So, yes, he is saying that anyone who does not agree with him is, in fact, _wrong_.  Classic OneTrueWayism, I'm sorry to say.




Okay, so maybe Robin Laws should have named his book, _Robin's Laws of the One True Way of Game-Mastering_, because the book is chock full of ideas what works and what doesn't. Can no one be wrong?

Is AllTrueWayism any better than OneTureWayism?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Okay, so maybe Robin Laws should have named his book, _Robin's Laws of the One True Way of Game-Mastering_, because the book is chock full of ideas what works and what doesn't. Can no one be wrong?
> 
> Is AllTrueWayism any better than OneTureWayism?




The difference being here, of course, that at no point does Robin Laws ever, EVER state that there is ((virtually)) zero chance of a DM who doesn't follow his advice being a good DM.  He never states that his advice is the only fount of knowledge and that if you do something that differs from what he's saying that you are a weak DM or a "not as good as you could be" DM.

He does say, "Here is what works for me.  I think these are good ideas that will help your game."  I don't recall him making any judgements about other people's tables that RC is so obviously doing here.

Anyway, back on topic.

To me, there is no real difference between mechanically supported fudging (like Action or Fate points) and ad hoc fudging.  In both cases, you are altering die rolls.  Now, as far as the honesty issue goes, well, again to me, it comes down to a trust issue.

If you trust your DM and know that he has a good grip on the game, why should it bother you if he shaves a roll or two?  Why does it have to be done in front of you?  Either way, the dice are going to be changed.  Why break suspension of disbelief if you don't have to?

Again, to me, the "Fudge Pool" that Raven Crowking advertises, only needs about one or two chips in it per campaign.  That's how often I feel that a DM might need to fudge.  If it's to the point where you're fudging every session, that's much more indicative of a larger problem since the whole point of fudging is to smooth out some of the rougher edges that can come with random generation.  

IOW, if those rough patches are occuring every session, then there's some serious problems in the group.  However, OTOH, if it happens once in a blue moon, then I really don't see the need for a structured mechanic.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

raven crowking said:


> (again, i caution you to take observer bias into account here.)



. . .


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You confirm my earlier inference that your fudging cannot be the factor that makes you the prefered GM.  Your level of fudging might contribute to why you are preferred over those whose level differs, however.



What relevance does that inference have to do with the discussion? My contention is that my players prefer fudging in their games. I never made any claim as to why I'm the preferred DM.

I should really just call off this silly discussion now, but here's one more question. Each member of my group fudges when they are the DM. None of them, when they have the chance to strictly let the dice fall as they may, does so. So if none of them really like fudging, why do they do it themselves, and why does every member of the group feel that the group as a whole prefers fudging (since that's how they run the game)?


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The difference being here, of course, that at no point does Robin Laws ever, EVER state that there is ((virtually)) zero chance of a DM who doesn't follow his advice being a good DM.




That's a fairly specific criterion for discerning whether he is also one true waying. I'm going mainly by the title: Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering. These are laws. These are the laws of good gamemastering. I, Robin Laws, wrote them.



> He never states that his advice is the only fount of knowledge




See above commentary. And I don't think I've seen RC claim to be the chosen one. 



> and that if you do something that differs from what he's saying that you are a weak DM or a "not as good as you could be" DM.




I'll crack open my copy tonight, but perhaps you are right. Does it matter if you are? I didn't claim Robin Laws wrote a book of brazen rudeness.



> He does say, "Here is what works for me.  I think these are good ideas that will help your game."  I don't recall him making any judgements about other people's tables that RC is so obviously doing here.




Well, it's not called Robin's Laws of How I Game-Master But I Am Not Making Any Judgments, is it?



> To me, there is no real difference between mechanically supported fudging (like Action or Fate points) and ad hoc fudging.  In both cases, you are altering die rolls.




To me, there is. Dice are not sacred things, they are tools. Whether you are dealing with dice or fate points, you can rest assured that death and failure are real possibilities.



> If you trust your DM and know that he has a good grip on the game, why should it bother you if he shaves a roll or two?  Why does it have to be done in front of you?  Either way, the dice are going to be changed.  Why break suspension of disbelief if you don't have to?




Already covered, but to reiterate:
1. Because if I find out later, I'll feel really cheated, and possibly feel a sense of let-down at misplaced pride and courage.
2. Because it will be detected. Period. 



> Again, to me, the "Fudge Pool" that Raven Crowking advertises, only needs about one or two chips in it per campaign.  That's how often I feel that a DM might need to fudge.  If it's to the point where you're fudging every session, that's much more indicative of a larger problem since the whole point of fudging is to smooth out some of the rougher edges that can come with random generation.
> 
> IOW, if those rough patches are occuring every session, then there's some serious problems in the group.  However, OTOH, if it happens once in a blue moon, then I really don't see the need for a structured mechanic.




Now we are in general agreement. The game should be able to walk on its own legs, most of the time.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, let me see.  I can't say that fudging is bad, in general (no specifics) or you jump in and ask me if I work for the Pentagon now.



You should stop playing the victim here, it doesn't become you. You're not just saying fudging is generally bad, IYHO. You're saying it's bad for everyone, and that those who think it's good for them are deluding themselves, and that you know better than they do what their players really want.

All of this about how we prefer to pretend to be elves.



Raven Crowking said:


> I guess what you are trying to say is "Thou Shalt Not Say Fudging Is Bad".



Thou shalt not insult other posters and call their integrity into question while doing so.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> That's a fairly specific criterion for discerning whether he is also one true waying. I'm going mainly by the title: Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering. These are laws. These are the laws of good gamemastering. I, Robin Laws, wrote them.



I've never read the book, but I do hope you're basing this argument on more than the title of the book, which is clearly a play on the author's name.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 27, 2010)

This is a pretty interesting thread. One thing that is for certain is that the folks who are against fudging have an intense opinion on the matter... it's really a big deal for them.

For me, I've moved from being a GM who rolls behind the screen to out in front of it for the last few years, and I've found that if anything, it's changed my game for the worse. Like most people, I was a "almost never fudge" GM, but I always considered fudging a die roll to be just another arrow in my GMing quiver. It was sort of the "black arrow" that was used only in extreme situations.

If rolling out in front of anyone has had a benefit I haven't really seen it, I just started to do it to make the game more of a "chips fall where they may," sort of thing, and now it's pretty well established.

The one playstyle effect I've seen from it is that it has encouraged players to play more conservatively, since they're now absolutely convinced that there's no safety net that might catch them if they play in-genre but have poor luck. I'm not sure that I like that result, but it's there.

After reading this thread, if anything, I'm convinced that the kind of GM who'll roll behind the screen is more to my liking: a lot of the folks posting here with a "zero tolerance" for fudging seem to think that this makes people enjoy their games more. I guess I'd just like to point out that this isn't universally true... I certainly would have more fun in a game where the GM would fudge maybe one roll in a hundred rather than wreck an evening's fun or end their campaign prematurely.

I think the most important point is that fudging the occasional die roll isn't about not wanting to be challenged: it's more about understanding that a die roll doesn't take story, character or genre into account, and I find those sort of things to be more important the more I find myself playing.

In any case, carry on...

--Steve


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

Here's something I can't figure out. Back when I played AD&D, we played by the book. There was no fudging that I know about. Now, the same guys I played with back then that are still playing (generally 3E and 4E, though we've dipped into AD&D on occasion as well), all fudge. I still play with a couple of them.

So, my _personal experience_ is that letting the dice fall strictly as they may is something enjoyed by teenagers, but you grow out of it. As you mature, you start fudging. So it's either an evolutionary step in a gamer's life, or it's simply a more mature way of playing. I mean, I've played D&D for 21 years and this has happened to _everyone _I know.

But would I reach that conclusion, much less argue it vociferously on a messageboard for pages on end? *Of course not*. It's a ridiculous conclusion based on a ridiculously small sample and completely ignores many things I've read and heard about gaming over the years. I've had many exchanges on this board with people for whom this clearly did not happen.

I can either assume they're lying or deluded, or I can include their experiences with my own when I'm thinking about things. I prefer to do the latter.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 27, 2010)

SteveC said:


> <snip>
> 
> I think the most important point is that fudging the occasional die roll isn't about not wanting to be challenged: it's more about understanding that a die roll doesn't take story, character or genre into account, and I find those sort of things to be more important the more I find myself playing.
> 
> ...





I sandbox play.  Story is taken care of by the group and is organic in nature rather than scripted.  Any defeat short of a TPK, the story continues with the protagonists chastened and struggling to rebuild.

I have no interest in adjudicating differently depending on the character at risk. 

I find the best way to take genre into account is to pick a game system that strongly supports the genre and playstyle I expect the game to have.  More forgiving game systems generally have a visible "break the bad luck" mechanism available or construct characters capable of withstanding the luck and carrying on.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

Nagol said:


> I find the best way to take genre into account is to pick a game system that strongly supports the genre and playstyle I expect the game to have.  More forgiving game systems generally have a visible "break the bad luck" mechanism available or construct characters capable of withstanding the luck and carrying on.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret this to mean you don't think D&D supports this playstyle very well. Since the fudging we're talking about happens very rarely, the system is almost irrelevant. It just doesn't come up often enough to justify a change in ruleset. If you like the ruleset as a whole, it's infrequent enough to be irrelevant for that decision.

And as for genre, my preferred genre is D&D. That's one reason I like to play D&D.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 27, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret this to mean you don't think D&D supports this playstyle very well. Since the fudging we're talking about happens very rarely, the system is almost irrelevant. It just doesn't come up often enough to justify a change in ruleset. If you like the ruleset as a whole, it's infrequent enough to be irrelevant for that decision.
> 
> And as for genre, my preferred genre is D&D. That's one reason I like to play D&D.




For me, D&D isn't a genre.  The genre is emulating old-style swords and sorcery fiction a la Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser or Conan.

I don't feel fudging fits the genre well -- pitting your skills, wits, and luck against the hostile environment and emerging victorious and rich or mouldering in the depths to be picked over by the next group of brave/foolhardy souls.  

Additionally, as per my last comments in the thread I feel I am abusing the trust of the group (is that phrasing better than dishonest?) when I present a method of random determination and substitute a covert fiat.  Much as I expect I would feel if I were rolling a weighted die during the course of play.  If I step outside the expected rules I want the players to be cognizant to it.

I'm not against "fix-it" systems.  I've used several different ones in the past.  The one the group had the most fun with was Whimsy Cards from Lion Rampant.  All of systems were agreed to by the group in advance, fully visible to the player in operation, and partially or wholly in the player's control for use.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 27, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I've never read the book, but I do hope you're basing this argument on more than the title of the book, which is clearly a play on the author's name.




I own and have read it, if that's what you're asking.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 27, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> *You should stop playing the victim here, it doesn't become you. *You're not just saying fudging is generally bad, IYHO. You're saying it's bad for everyone, and that those who think it's good for them are deluding themselves, and that you know better than they do what their players really want.
> 
> All of this about how we prefer to pretend to be elves.
> 
> ...




Paging Alanis Morissette...


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2010)

Nagol said:
			
		

> If I step outside the expected rules I want the players to be cognizant to it.




But, again, how is it stepping outside the expected rules, when the rules explicitly tell you to expect it?  It's not like we're actually doing something that's against the rules of the game.  We're actually doing something that is expressly permitted BY the game.

Now, I can totally see the abuse of trust thing.  I can.  But, if the players have given you explicit permission to do it, is it still abusing the trust of the players?


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, again, how is it stepping outside the expected rules, when the rules explicitly tell you to expect it?  It's not like we're actually doing something that's against the rules of the game.  We're actually doing something that is expressly permitted BY the game.
> 
> Now, I can totally see the abuse of trust thing.  I can.  But, if the players have given you explicit permission to do it, is it still abusing the trust of the players?




Surely not _abuse_. It is a good use, though? Dropping an ancient red wyrm on a party of 2nd level heroes isn't breaking the rules either, still not a great idea in most cases.


----------



## Imaginary Number (Apr 27, 2010)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want to hear more about jig-winking.  Any takers?


----------



## Nagol (Apr 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, again, how is it stepping outside the expected rules, when the rules explicitly tell you to expect it?  It's not like we're actually doing something that's against the rules of the game.  We're actually doing something that is expressly permitted BY the game.
> 
> Now, I can totally see the abuse of trust thing.  I can.  But, if the players have given you explicit permission to do it, is it still abusing the trust of the players?




The expected rules for the players are the same rules they're playing under and the same rules I was using 2 minutes earlier in the combat and will revert to when I next adjudicate an action.  That the game gives the authority to deviate from the ruleset does not make such deviation expected.   Additionally, most of the so-called "authority" presented has been advice to the DM or cautions to the players that the DM may act in an arbitrary manner, not codified rules.  Being given the authority to lie doesn't make a lie any more truthful.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I own and have read it, if that's what you're asking.



You said you're going "mainly" by the title. I was asking if there's actual content of the book that supports the idea. The title is just a play on his name. If my last name was Laws and I was writing a book of advice, you'd bet I would use the device as well. I mean, if his name was Robin Axioms the books would undoubtedly be Robin's Axioms of Good Gamemastering.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 27, 2010)

Imaginary Number said:


> I don't know about the rest of you, but I want to hear more about jig-winking.  Any takers?




http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...appointed-d-d-4th-edition-47.html#post4550024


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

Imaginary Number said:


> I don't know about the rest of you, but I want to hear more about jig-winking.  Any takers?



It would probably make as much sense as anything in this thread at this point!


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 27, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> You said you're going "mainly" by the title. I was asking if there's actual content of the book that supports the idea. The title is just a play on his name. If my last name was Laws and I was writing a book of advice, you'd bet I would use the device as well. I mean, if his name was Robin Axioms the books would undoubtedly be Robin's Axioms of Good Gamemastering.




Mostly I'm saying I don't have the book in front of me, and also that the title says enough for my purposes. Good gamemastering is, presumably, not bad gamemastering, which means Robin Laws has deprecated someone's GMing style.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Mostly I'm saying I don't have the book in front of me, and also that the title says enough for my purposes. Good gamemastering is, presumably, not bad gamemastering, which means Robin Laws has deprecated someone's GMing style.



I guess he'd better get in line, then.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 27, 2010)

Nagol said:


> I sandbox play.  Story is taken care of by the group and is organic in nature rather than scripted.  Any defeat short of a TPK, the story continues with the protagonists chastened and struggling to rebuild.
> 
> I have no interest in adjudicating differently depending on the character at risk.
> 
> I find the best way to take genre into account is to pick a game system that strongly supports the genre and playstyle I expect the game to have.  More forgiving game systems generally have a visible "break the bad luck" mechanism available or construct characters capable of withstanding the luck and carrying on.



Sure: if there is a style that's suited to "let the dice fall where they may," I'd say that sandbox play is perfect for it. I know that this style of game is immensely popular these days, but to be honest it's not for me. I think this comes from playing it to death during the summers in high school and college. 

I'd never say that having fudging in a game is the only way to make it a good one (in fact, if you do it poorly, it can make the game worse) I'd simply say that it's an effective tool (one of many) for a GM's arsenal in a campaign that I would enjoy. The ironic part of my post is that I'm currently running with the dice out in the open, so I'm a fudge hypocrite, I suppose .

Since I do favor the story game more than sandbox, I'll add that I think D&D can do a good job with this format: I'm running War of the Burning Sky, which I'd call more of a story adventure than a sandbox, and it's been very popular with my group.

--Steve


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Surely not _abuse_. It is a good use, though? Dropping an ancient red wyrm on a party of 2nd level heroes isn't breaking the rules either, still not a great idea in most cases.




Ok, let's expand that a bit.  Why is dropping an ancient red wyrm on a 2nd level party a good thing? Well, because it's not fun.  Obliterating PC's is no fun for everyone.

So, basically, the judgement criteria is "What's fun for this table"?  If something is not fun, then it's bad.

I can totally understand that people might find fudging to be not fun.  100% understand that.

But, since the judgement is "what's fund for this table", then can we really say that fudging is never good for the table?  It's not good for your table.  It probably isn't good for mine either.  But, I'm not about to completely write it off as always bad either.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 27, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hey, Umbran, I tried to address it as "general advice".  Do you remember your response to that?




No. I remember my reaction to you claiming something something was, "not generally recommended".  I thought I had already clarified this.

"General advice" is advice you give that is general in scope, or broad in application.  "Don't sauté without some fat or oil in the pan" is general advice - it applies to pretty much any sautéing.  

That which is "generally recommended" is that which is recommended by most who speak on the subject.  

You effectively asserted you know what most people think, when you have no source for such knowledge, and I called you on it.

You can give general advice, so long as you admit that it is coming from you, personally, and isn't something like an industry standard.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't think we have enough information to make that call. Based on this thread and numerous others I can easily believe that there are groups out there who prefer storytelling to the more gamist aspects of play. These folks might have different reasons for playing than we do (other than generally to have fun of course)



Obviously I agree with this.



ExploderWizard said:


> Dying is only one possible fate for a D&D character. This fate represents the ultimate state of loss.



I don't agree with this. At the end of my last Rolemaster campaign (and for these purposes RM and D&D are similar enough to be interchangeable) one of the players was considering sacrificing his PC in order to trap an elder evil in the void and keep it from threatening the world. In the end, the party came up with a scheme whereby he didn't have to (they used the Soul Totem from Bastion of Broken Souls to create a duplicate of the PC's soul in a simulacrum and then have the simulacrum bind the evil entity). But up until the last moment he was ready to. And dying in that way wouldn't have constituted failure - it would have been a second-best success for the PC, and an undiluted success for the player (ie the story would have been one of heroic self-sacrifice - instead it ended up being one of the mortals tricking the gods through turning their own magical devices against them).

I infer from this experience that whether dying counts as a failure or not - let alone the ultimate failure - is heavily context dependent.



ExploderWizard said:


> I suppose one could play a game in which the PC's were all immortal beings and death was completely a meaningless and unimportant issue.



In most supers games the PCs are mortal, and death would be meaningful and important. But the action resolution mechanics mostly keep it off the table.




ExploderWizard said:


> The conflicts and struggles in this game would involve other issues rather than combat. Perhaps the goals of the players would be to bring about a particular outcome against forces attempting to prevent that outcome. The mechanics
> combined with player choices would determine if the desired outcome actually happened, the opposing forces won a complete victory, or something in between.



It could even be the case that the goal isn't known to the players except in very general terms (we want this campaign to turn out interestingly, and to be interesting in the process also!)

It could even involve combat - lots of it - provided that the combat didn't result in PC deaths that are meaningless rather than interesting. To achieve this depends upon either (i) encounter building guidelines that minimise meaningless but life-threatening encounters, or (ii) action resolution mechanics that minimise meaningless PC deaths, or both (or maybe other options I haven't though of).

When Fifth Element and other talk about fudging, I see them as talking about tweaking (ii) - ie the action resolution mechanics - because something has gone wrong with (i) - ie a PC's life turns out to be threatened by a relatively meaningless encounter.



ExploderWizard said:


> This could be a very viable game with no death taking place at all.
> 
> Death is just a basic part of D&D.



I agree about viability. I don't agree about D&D. I think D&D - at least 4e - can be a game where death need not be on the table a lot of the time. The GM has almost total control over it (because of the knockout mechanics) and the players have a lot of control over it (because of the way the action resolution system works eg healing powers, action points, dailies etc) and the encounter building guidelines give the GM a lot of guidance in setting up encounters in the first place.



ExploderWizard said:


> It does not have to be true for every game. All that is needed is a chance to succeed, a chance to fail, and for the ultimate outcome to be unknown to the participants.



I don't think it hurts a game if the participants know that the ultimate outcome will be an awesome story. That is, I don't think the chance of boredom or triviality needs to be on the table in order for the game to be fun. I prefer, both as player and GM, to find out what that story is by helping to create it at the table - if the story is already known in advance, what's the point of playing? I know some people are happy simply to play through a story the GM has already written, but I'm not one of them (and I don't have any interest in GMing in that way either).


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2010)

Nagol said:


> I find the best way to take genre into account is to pick a game system that strongly supports the genre and playstyle I expect the game to have.



Agreed. But sometimes there are other constraints on choice of game (familiarity, cost, other players' preferences etc).

For a long time my group played Rolemaster because of the mechanical beauty of characters in that system, which feeds though heavily into the action resolution mechanics. But as a GM I did have to fudge from time to time at low-levels in order to stop the game being derailed by meaningless and arbitrary criticals.

Now you might object - why not just start at mid-levels where the PCs have the healing to handle those criticals? or why not introduce fate point mechancis? or ...

The answer to the first is partly tradition, and partly that RM rewards in certain ways starting a PC at 1st level, because of the organic build that takes place. The answer to the second is Well, we didn't, and maybe in future we might, but in some ways fate points don't fit that well with Rolemaster's ultra-purist simulationist mechanics.

In any event, we've now solved the problem and made fudging redundant (in our group) by shifting to 4e - but that's a consensus option that wasn't available until recently.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The difference being here, of course, that at no point does Robin Laws ever, EVER state that there is ((virtually)) zero chance of a DM who doesn't follow his advice being a good DM.




What a coincidence.  Neither do I.

Please, Hussar, show me where I say that.

What I do say is that I think, in general, fudging makes you a "not as good as you could be" DM.  That doesn't valuate where you are starting from, except as relative to where you could be.  I also give specific reasons why I believe so, which you are free to accept or dismiss.

Interestingly enough, you have agreed that the purpose of fudging is to fix a problem that exists.  It amazes me that you would then conclude, should you address the reasont the problem exists so that it no longer exists, your DMing would not improve.  That seems to be as clear, and as basic, as logic gets.

It is my belief that, in nearly every case, there is a better solution to the problem than fudging.  I agree that, sometimes, it would take a time machine to fix it in the best possible way -- the problem has occurred before you sit at the table.  That doesn't mean that you cannot prevent future problems from occurring.

You may not have the time or the inclination to do so, but as discussed at length earlier in this thread, not having the time or inclination to fix a problem in no way makes not fixing the problem best practice.  To quote from earlier in this thread:  "I have no time or inclination" may be a reason for suboptimal performance, but that reason doesn't somehow make that performance optimal. Choosing the lesser of two evils is better than choosing the greater, but it is still not as good as choosing no evil at all.

Speaking of not having the time or inclination, I have spent some time going through this thread again, looking for one phrase I used in a low-key manner some time ago.  And either I decided it was unwise then, or I am too lazy to find it now, but......

........The degree to which your goal is to make a predetermined outcome occur is, IMHO, the degree to which your "game" is not a game.  Another conversation that we have had at some length, I know, and you may not disagree with me, I know.  But, since we both know this, I am sure you will understand that my comments (those comments made with all those IMEs and IMHOs over pages of this thread) apply only if your "game" is a game.  The degree to which your "game" is not a game (as I define it) is the degree to which, IMHO, my reasoning cannot apply.



> Again, to me, the "Fudge Pool" that Raven Crowking advertises, only needs about one or two chips in it per campaign.  That's how often I feel that a DM might need to fudge.




Imagine, however, that your DM feels that the pool need be 100 chips?  Or 10 chips per session?  The purpose of the pool is, again, to (1) remove the intended deception, and (2) put the amount of fudging allowed in the players' hands.

Nothing more; nothing less.



Nagol said:


> http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...appointed-d-d-4th-edition-47.html#post4550024




Ah, good times.....good times.



Umbran said:


> You effectively asserted you know what most people think, when you have no source for such knowledge, and I called you on it.
> 
> You can give general advice, so long as you admit that it is coming from you, personally, and isn't something like an industry standard.




Umbran, you either don't know what you are talking about, or you know what you are saying is wrong.

Go back through this thread.  My posts are littered with "IME" and "IMHO" and "It is my belief that".  I give my reasons for my beliefs, and invite folks to examine them, either accepting them or rejecting them as they will.  Despite your attempts to interject vitriole in the thread, and despite your direct insults at times, I have avoided interaction with you as much as possible.

AFAICT, this is simply personal with you.

Even when I said that the set of GMs for whom fudging is vanishingly small, I specifically admitted the inclusion of at least one GM to that set (Piratecat), so your basis of claim of OneTrueWayism fails on all accounts.  OneTrueWay cannot allow a known exception, or it is at least TwoTrueWayism.

That the set is vanishingly small, in my belief and IME, makes it unlikely that any given individual is a member of that set, and determines the bar of my skepticism.  But I am not so foolish, or so untrained in critical thinking, as to imagine that my bar of skepticism means that I can parse what _*is*_ in each individual case, as opposed to _*what I believe is likely*_.

But, then, that principle is used in the same way in the Philosophy of Science, and you ought to be familiar with it.  The reasoning behind it has been described upthread, very well, by Jeff Wilder.  That you find it necessary to pretend otherwise is beneath us both, and does no service to this thread.


IMHO.


IME.



YMMV.



As I have said many, many times over the course of this discussion.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 27, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I infer from this experience that whether dying counts as a failure or not - let alone the ultimate failure - is heavily context dependent.




True enough. At times, meaningful victory can be found in death. 



pemerton said:


> It could even involve combat - lots of it - provided that the combat didn't result in PC deaths that are meaningless rather than interesting. To achieve this depends upon either (i) encounter building guidelines that minimise meaningless but life-threatening encounters, or (ii) action resolution mechanics that minimise meaningless PC deaths, or both (or maybe other options I haven't though of)




This is where I disagree. 

The excitement that comes from playing adventures as a game rather than a story is basedon not knowing if the eventual outcome will be an epic story about mighty heroes conquering the villian or a tragic tale of a handful of nobodies who got dissolved by green slime while trying to seek their fortunes. 

If a game does feature life or death combat within the context of the game world then I see no point in running such combatunless those stakes are meaningful. If only a handful of combats were deemed interesting enough to be considered potentially lethal then I guess I would only run a handful of combats for the entire campaign. 
Rolling the dice for combat under any other circumstances is like filming the walk-through. Whats the point? 




pemerton said:


> When Fifth Element and other talk about fudging, I see them as talking about tweaking (ii) - ie the action resolution mechanics - because something has gone wrong with (i) - ie a PC's life turns out to be threatened by a relatively meaningless encounter.




When playing the game, death as a possible result of engaging in combat (any combat) is part of the decision making process that helps define the choice of joining combat as meaningful. If the players are aware that the mechanics and the tweaking will generally see them through the "regular"
combats then how is their decision to engage in the activity meaningful? 

If the DM has determined that an encounter is relatively meaningless then why play it out?




pemerton said:


> I don't think it hurts a game if the participants know that the ultimate outcome will be an awesome story. That is, I don't think the chance of boredom or triviality needs to be on the table in order for the game to be fun. I prefer, both as player and GM, to find out what that story is by helping to create it at the table - if the story is already known in advance, what's the point of playing? I know some people are happy simply to play through a story the GM has already written, but I'm not one of them (and I don't have any interest in GMing in that way either).




This is where understanding other reasons for playing comes in. If the primary purpose of playing is to explore the ongoing story of the adventurers instead of playing the game to determine if there will be a story then the issues being discussed here have no meaning. If telling the story is more fun than playing the game for a given group then have at it.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Ok, let's expand that a bit.  Why is dropping an ancient red wyrm on a 2nd level party a good thing? Well, because it's not fun.




Because it's an abuse of authority. If the GM thought it was funny, and a couple of the players at least snickered, but one player felt cheated out of the promised campaign, I think that one player is entitled to feel poorly used. 

Fun is the object; that does not mean that every means of achieving that goal is itself "fun." Whatever the heck fun is, anyway.



> Obliterating PC's is no fun for everyone.




I think many people have seen it done. That it's a sign of immaturity does not mean it doesn't happen, people are immature--all of us, if you go back far enough, thought we may not all have the natural talent for spite.



> So, basically, the judgement criteria is "What's fun for this table"?  If something is not fun, then it's bad.




That is true, but it's not all that is true.



> I can totally understand that people might find fudging to be not fun.  100% understand that.
> 
> But, since the judgement is "what's fund for this table", then can we really say that fudging is never good for the table?  It's not good for your table.  It probably isn't good for mine either.  But, I'm not about to completely write it off as always bad either.




It's utterly futile to talk about whether a red popsicle is better than a green popsicle, but it's easy to argue that a frozen popsicle is better than a melted popsicle. I do not deny that some people might prefer melted popsicles, or that some people will choose to classify a popsicle at that moment it is eaten. However, I can say without reservation that, for general purposes, a melted popsicle is not as good a popsicle. If someone asked for a good popsicle, I would not recommend a melted one.

EDIT:

Exhibit A:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Melted-Popsicles-are-Better/191836691407


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 27, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You may not have the time or the inclination to do so, but as discussed at length earlier in this thread, not having the time or inclination to fix a problem in no way makes not fixing the problem best practice.  To quote from earlier in this thread:  "I have no time or inclination" may be a reason for suboptimal performance, but that reason doesn't somehow make that performance optimal. Choosing the lesser of two evils is better than choosing the greater, but it is still not as good as choosing no evil at all.




Ultimately though, I'd hope you agree that time and inclination are some of the most important constraints upon DMing.  If you fail to view those as valid limits, then you can take the pursuit of optimal GMsmanship to absurd heights.  ("Have your notes professionally reviewed by Wizards or Paizo staff." "Develop a playtest group with a psychological profile as similar as possible to your normal gaming group.")

So practically... "find some numbers that sound right, and adjust them during play, preferably with a minimum of disruption to the session" might actually be a best practice.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Because it's an abuse of authority. If the GM thought it was funny, and a couple of the players at least snickered, but one player felt cheated out of the promised campaign, I think that one player is entitled to feel poorly used.
> 
> <snip>




The easiest way to control abuse of authority is to have the use of authority audited.  That's what happens when the players become aware of DM fiat.

The players become aware of the amount of fiat and its use in the campaign -- saving people, driving tension, whatever.

The players can then give informed feedback as to their preferences for fiat both amount and variation -- something that is not possible when covert fudging occurs.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> If a game does feature life or death combat within the context of the game world then I see no point in running such combat unless those stakes are meaningful. If only a handful of combats were deemed interesting enough to be considered potentially lethal then I guess I would only run a handful of combats for the entire campaign.
> Rolling the dice for combat under any other circumstances is like filming the walk-through. Whats the point?




The fact is that Dungeons & Dragons is a game and some people find the mechanics of combat themselves fun.  Is it that you don't find any part of D&D fun unless character death is on the line, or is it just combat?


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 27, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> Ultimately though, I'd hope you agree that time and inclination are some of the most important constraints upon DMing.  If you fail to view those as valid limits, then you can take the pursuit of optimal GMsmanship to absurd heights.  ("Have your notes professionally reviewed by Wizards or Paizo staff." "Develop a playtest group with a psychological profile as similar as possible to your normal gaming group.")
> 
> So practically... "find some numbers that sound right, and adjust them during play, preferably with a minimum of disruption to the session" might actually be a best practice.




Within the limits of time and space, anything might be a best practice. In some theoretical situation, firing a real live pistol at the game table might be optimal, but even if that seemed to be the case, I am not taking responsibility for knowing the future. I think it's hard to go wrong with

1. Be honest, trusting, and trustworthy
2. Trust the process, not the outcome
3. Be content with whatever happens

and pretty easy to go wrong with

1. Presume to know better than your players what is good
2. Rely on your own preferences and prejudices
3. Be dissatisfied with perceived anticlimax

Now, that is not formulaic for not fudging. Some GMs have already chimed in that they rely on empathy with their players, try to provide a good shared experience, and enjoy gaming and story-making even though they may intervene in some areas. Nonetheless, I feel fudging the dice is a move away from the first set of maxims and toward the second. YMMV


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 27, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> Ultimately though, I'd hope you agree that time and inclination are some of the most important constraints upon DMing.  If you fail to view those as valid limits, then you can take the pursuit of optimal GMsmanship to absurd heights.




If we are to pursue this line of reasoning, I would suggest that we seperate time and inclination, because they are constraints for different reasons.  A DM with a time constraint may well wish to prep better, but be unable to do so.  A DM with an inclination constraint may well know that doing X is better, but choose to do Y because it is easier (or whatever).



> So practically... "find some numbers that sound right, and adjust them during play, preferably with a minimum of disruption to the session" might actually be a best practice.




If the alternative is absurdist, it might be.  In general, though, the alternative is not.

We could also differentiate between "best practice" on a temporary basis, and "best practice" overall.  For example, if Racer X was of the opinion that not fudging was best practice overall, then any temporary fudging would, presumably, be a stopgap until the root problem could be cured.  If, OTOH, Racer X believed fudging was no problem, any given incidence of fudging is not a stopgap, and the root problems are unlikely to be resolved.

In either case, there is a problem of deception with fudging (again, assuming we are talking about a game and not some other form of recreation), which something like the Fudge Chip Pool were introduced.


RC

EDIT:  *IMHO & IME.  YMMV.*


----------



## SteveC (Apr 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Ok, let's expand that a bit.  Why is dropping an ancient red wyrm on a 2nd level party a good thing? Well, because it's not fun.  Obliterating PC's is no fun for everyone.
> 
> So, basically, the judgement criteria is "What's fun for this table"?  If something is not fun, then it's bad.
> 
> ...



For me, this is the crux of the argument: I've played in games that were fudge-heavy, and didn't enjoy them. Does that mean that all fudging is bad? No. Some players don't prefer it in a game, but again, does it make it universally bad? No.

A GM has many tools in their arsenal to make the game more interesting, more entertaining, and more fun. Fudging a die roll is just one of those tools. It also happens to be a tool that a GM who's game I would enjoy might employ every so often. 

This sort of attitude works very well in a campaign that's more focused on story, which is the sort of game I've come to enjoy. Suggesting playing an entirely different game because the GM might be called on to fudge a die roll every so often is just silly.

So fudge or don't based on your play-style and the style of the game you're running...and with the right group of players you'll have a good time.

--Steve


----------



## Mallus (Apr 27, 2010)

Nagol said:


> The players can then give informed feedback as to their preferences for fiat both amount and variation -- something that is not possible when covert fudging occurs.



This is an excellent point.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 27, 2010)

Agreed.

I suspect that, in some cases, the objection to a fudge chip pool arises from exactly this.


RC


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The excitement that comes from playing adventures as a game rather than a story is basedon not knowing if the eventual outcome will be an epic story about mighty heroes conquering the villian or a tragic tale of a handful of nobodies who got dissolved by green slime while trying to seek their fortunes.
> 
> If a game does feature life or death combat within the context of the game world then I see no point in running such combatunless those stakes are meaningful. If only a handful of combats were deemed interesting enough to be considered potentially lethal then I guess I would only run a handful of combats for the entire campaign.
> 
> ...



I have some inclination to agree with this, especially about not playing out meaningless combats.



Benimoto said:


> The fact is that Dungeons & Dragons is a game and some people find the mechanics of combat themselves fun.



But I also have some inclination to agree with this. And I'd add - part of what can make a combat fun is that the players get a chance to express their PCs via the action resolution mechanics. This is a bigger deal in some systems than others - not such a big deal in AD&D or RQ, where there is not much round-by-round choice to be made (your best attack, defence etc were already chosen at character generation) but a big deal in 4e and Rolemaster, for example, because every round the player has a range of options from which some selection has to be made. Especially where those choices are flavourful and affect the way the combat unfolds, they can be meaningful choices _even if_ death is not on the table.

To give a concrete example. Suppose the player of the samurai chooses a high risk, high reward strategy. If the samurai cuts down all the opponents like chaff, we have a story about prowess and also, perhaps, about arrogance. If the risks are realised, and the samurai is actually beaten off by one of the opponents, having to fall back and receive healing wile the monk goes on to finish the combat, then the story becomes one about reliance, teamwork, succour and perhaps comeuppances.

These meaningful player choices which lead to differences in what's happening in the story - both in the gameworld, and at the metagame/thematic level - can take place even if PC death is not on the table because the samurai and monk are virtually guaranteed, if played cleverly, to wipe out the opponents one way or another.

To try and reconcile my two inclinations: I agree with Exploder Wizard that we should avoid meaningless encounters, but really want to stress that combat and encounters can be meaningful (for some players) even if death is not on the table because they can still provide an outlet for meaningful choices that express the character of the PCs and drive the story forward. And I'm saying this not just as theory, but based on my actual play experience.

On the other hand, Exploder Wizard, I get a strong sense that what I've described is really not the sort of D&D game you're interested in playing. And obviously that's fair enough. I'm enjoying this conversation about different playstyles. Apart from anything else, it's making me work hard to try and express what exactly it is that I enjoy about fantasy RPGing, and how the mechanics of the game feed into that.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Go back through this thread.  My posts are littered with "IME" and "IMHO" and "It is my belief that".



That by itself is not enough. For example if I said:

_IMHO, your reasoning for not liking fudging shows that you have the mind of an 8-year-old._

That's obviously insulting. IMHO wouldn't get me out of that being insulting.

_It is my belief that DMs who do not fudge are control freaks who don't care about the players' fun.
_
"It is my belief that" would not get me out of a personal attack.

_IME, all good DMs fudge._

That may be IME, by I have no evidence to support it, nor could I ever have evidence to support such a broad claim.

Qualifying a badly-worded, overgeneralized, often-insulting argument in this way does not prevent it from being badly-worded, overgeneralized, and often insulting.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 27, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I infer from this experience that whether dying counts as a failure or not - let alone the ultimate failure - is heavily context dependent.



That matches my experiences playing RPG's. The importance of PC death depends on your level of character investment. 

It's hard for me to see PC death as the ultimate loss condition when, in every game I've ever played in, you jump right back into play, often with a character that's more-or-less equally capable. Perhaps 'ultimate' doesn't mean what I think it means . 

I mean, wasn't D&D was the first game to feature 'unlimited continues'?

Thinking along these lines led me to go the death-lite route in my campaigns. I began to see PC death in terms of the loss of a _personality_ I liked to play. This stopped making sense to me. A big chuck of what I get out of the game is characterizing my PC's. Being forced to ditch one role --in the actor-y sense-- in favor of a new one because I encounter one of the games failure conditions began to look unnecessary. 

So long as I could fail at something I deemed meaningful, PC death became unnecessary, even contrary, to my goals. Fortunately, I game w/some like-minded people. 



> In most supers games the PCs are mortal, and death would be meaningful and important. But the action resolution mechanics mostly keep it off the table.



In some supers games, it's more shared expectations. For example, it's rather easy to make Mutants and Masterminds lethal. Ditto Champions, I think -- it's been a while since played it.



> I know some people are happy simply to play through a story the GM has already written, but I'm not one of them (and I don't have any interest in GMing in that way either).



Same here. I have no story in mind when I DM, outside of creating characters and conflicts for the players to interact with, if they so choose. But I also have no problem w/running a campaign where the players can keep playing their PC of choice, so long as it amuses them to do so.

Though who knows what the future will bring? Maybe when my next stint as DM comes up my group will ask me to lower the death-flag and make the campaign old-school lethal.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 27, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> "It is my belief that" would not get me out of a personal attack.
> 
> _IME, all good DMs fudge._





Oh nooooes.  I'm being attacked.



Really, if you think something like that is insulting, or worse yet "a personal attack" you are finding offense in shadows.


EDIT:  If anything is being "attacked" in this thread, it is the right to use critical thinking, or to hold a viewpoint that includes any form of valuation.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 27, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> The fact is that Dungeons & Dragons is a game and some people find the mechanics of combat themselves fun. Is it that you don't find any part of D&D fun unless character death is on the line, or is it just combat?




I find a lot of fun in playing apart from combat. If a session doesn't happen to contain a combat but the group has a good time and remains engaged in the game then there is nothing lost. 
The mechanical aspects of combat are fun too. Fudged results of these aspects are not fun (for me).

It doesn't matter what the context of the combat is or how important the struggle is to the "big picture". Once the dice come out and the mechanics are in play I simply prefer that they be used to resolve the action as intended. 
Part of playing a game is abiding by the rules and accepting the results of fair play, win or lose. If the DM has plans involving the PC's that cannot be interrupted by the results of fairly applied mechanics there
is no point in applying those mechanics in the first place. 

What this all boils down to is this: Is the group there to play a game or engage in a session of wish fulfillment storytelling? Both can be fun if everyone is on the same page. Players expecting a game and getting a story instead might be dissappointed and vice-versa.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Because it's an abuse of authority. If the GM thought it was funny, and a couple of the players at least snickered, but one player felt cheated out of the promised campaign, I think that one player is entitled to feel poorly used.



That doesn't really address Hussar's point. As you show here, one player's "abuse" is another player's "fun time."

To me, "abuse" means doing things with your authority that the group does not enjoy. If all of your players enjoy fighting that red dragon at 2nd level, then dropping it on them is not abuse. If they hate it, it is abuse.

What does and does not constitute abuse, then, depends entirely on the group's preferences. That's a theme of the thread:* it depends on the group.*

Now, achieving agreement within a group is not always easy (see your example), and there are usually compromises that needs to be made. But there is no use of a DM's authority that can be inherently labelled as being abusive. Again, because this is a game of make-believe. If the group likes it, then _it's not abuse_.

You can't say that pitting a red dragon against 2nd-level characters is an abuse of DM authority without considering who's playing the game. Maybe that's what the group wanted: to fight a nigh-impossible foe, maybe they'll get REALLY lucky and one of them might survive. If they have fun fighting the dragon, then it's not abuse.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 27, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If we are to pursue this line of reasoning, I would suggest that we seperate time and inclination, because they are constraints for different reasons.  A DM with a time constraint may well wish to prep better, but be unable to do so.  A DM with an inclination constraint may well know that doing X is better, but choose to do Y because it is easier (or whatever).



The counter to that is the tired old "it's just a game" argument.  There's already a separate thread on the topic of which activities make GMing into "work".  If eschewing some of those "work" activities even though it may involve more fudging at the table makes for a net increase in fun, then I'd suggest that's a best practice.

Besides, aren't most time constraints really just inclination constraints?  I am inclined to play my home game once a week, thus I only have the time between sessions to prepare.  I am inclined to work for a living although I could theoretically just mooch off my significant other, another factor increasing my time constraints.  I am inclined to spend time writing this post, even though that's time I'm not spending ensuring less fudging at the game table this Thursday.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Oh nooooes.  I'm being attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> Really, if you think something like that is insulting, or worse yet "a personal attack" you are finding offense in shadows.



Now, who gets to decide what someone finds insulting? You, I guess?



Raven Crowking said:


> EDIT:  If anything is being "attacked" in this thread, it is the right to use critical thinking, or to hold a viewpoint that includes any form of valuation.



Nonsense. Perhaps it's the right to say anything you like and claim truth, even though do not have (even cannot have) evidence to support it, that's being attacked.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 27, 2010)

Benimoto said:


> The counter to that is the tired old "it's just a game" argument.




 (shudder) 



> Besides, aren't most time constraints really just inclination constraints?  I am inclined to play my home game once a week, thus I only have the time between sessions to prepare.




Okay; I can agree with that.

The remainder of my earlier response still stands, however.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 27, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Now, who gets to decide what someone finds insulting? You, I guess?




No.  If you want to take offense, no power on Heaven or Earth can prevent you from doing so.  You have proven that more than adequately.

And now, having tried to tip my hat to you already, I will do so again.  

I see no value in continuing down this line with you.

(You may now post & have the last word. At least so far as my exchanges here with you are concerned.  )


RC


----------



## Mallus (Apr 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The excitement that comes from playing adventures as a game rather than a story is basedon not knowing if the eventual outcome will be an epic story about mighty heroes conquering the villain or a tragic tale of a handful of nobodies who got dissolved by green slime while trying to seek their fortunes.



I'm with you until the nobodies get dissolved by the slime. For me, a campaign is exciting so long as the PC's can fail to conquer the villain --and perhaps then play through the consequences of that failure. I see see slime-dissolving as somewhat counter-productive (because then the PC's won't have to deal w/the aftermath of their initial failure).

Think of it in terms of the Rocky movies. Rocky 2 would have been much less interesting if Apollo Creed had killed Rocky in the ring at the end of first movie, leaving Rocky 2 to feature an entirely different protagonist coincidentally also named 'Rocky'. 



> If only a handful of combats were deemed interesting enough to be considered potentially lethal then I guess I would only run a handful of combats for the entire campaign.



This is more-or-less what I shoot for in my campaigns. No random encounters, no filler rooms in the dungeons (well, actually, no dungeons at all).



> If the players are aware that the mechanics and the tweaking will generally see them through the "regular" combats then how is their decision to engage in the activity meaningful?



This is why you eliminate 'regular combats' in favor of ones where something the PC's care about (or will care about) is at stake. 



> If the primary purpose of playing is to explore the ongoing story of the adventurers instead of playing the game to determine if there will be a story then the issues being discussed here have no meaning.



The point I'm trying to make is it's still a possible to make a _game_ about a group of protagonists who rarely, if ever, die. Death-lite doesn't mean _game_-light (or _predetermined story_-heavy).


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> What this all boils down to is this: Is the group there to play a game or engage in a session of wish fulfillment storytelling? Both can be fun if everyone is on the same page.



There are, of course, more options than "playing a game" and "wish fulfillment storytelling." There's a whole spectrum of playstyles in there that cannot be characterized by either of these two extremes.

Not to pick on ExploderWizard, because this is common in this thread, but the words you choose to state your position affect others' reactions to it.

If you don't like fudging and say "Fudging is fine...if you like _wish-fulfillment storytelling_. I'd rather play an _honest game_", that's loaded with implications. Similarly, "Fudging is fine...as long as you realize _you're being dishonest_".

If you really believe that fudging is simply a matter of preference, there's no need for dismissive language such as this. Now we know that some posters don't believe it's a matter of preference, but that's a different story.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> (You may now post & have the last word. At least so far as my exchanges here with you are concerned.  )



My last word will then be this. Dude, it's not just me. You can try to portray this is a lone individual who's making unreasonable readings of your posts. But it's not just me. Several other posters have noted the tone and content of your posts and the implications they have with respect to other players' preferences. It's not a lone voice out to defame you, it's a number of very experienced gamers calling you on your claims.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 27, 2010)

pemerton said:


> But I also have some inclination to agree with this. And I'd add - part of what can make a combat fun is that the players get a chance to express their PCs via the action resolution mechanics. This is a bigger deal in some systems than others - not such a big deal in AD&D or RQ, where there is not much round-by-round choice to be made (your best attack, defence etc were already chosen at character generation) but a big deal in 4e and Rolemaster, for example, because every round the player has a range of options from which some selection has to be made. Especially where those choices are flavourful and affect the way the combat unfolds, they can be meaningful choices _even if_ death is not on the table.
> 
> To give a concrete example. Suppose the player of the samurai chooses a high risk, high reward strategy. If the samurai cuts down all the opponents like chaff, we have a story about prowess and also, perhaps, about arrogance. If the risks are realised, and the samurai is actually beaten off by one of the opponents, having to fall back and receive healing wile the monk goes on to finish the combat, then the story becomes one about reliance, teamwork, succour and perhaps comeuppances.
> 
> ...




In my games, once the dice come out, there are no guarantees. 

I think a note here about death and the stakes of combat are in order. I do not mean to imply that every confrontation in the campaign will effectively be " toe to toe nukkler combat against the russkies". 

First and foremost, results arising from the loss of combat will dependent on the nature of the enemy and the game world situation. This is a factor that affects the decision making process.

For example: The party opens up a door while exploring a dungeon. They see a filthy room infested with giant rats. One of the factors in play regarding their decision to fight the rats is the nature of the threat. The rats are critters of animal intelligence most likely to eat fallen PCs. The threat is therefore one of a grisly death and becoming rat food. 
The rats will not capture a fallen PC or give any quarter no matter how much it might suck for a PC to become rat chow.

A different example: The party is asked to turn over their money and possessions by a group of bandits in the forest.
Unless the party has information that these thugs are merciless killers a fight with these enemies need not be lethalif the party is unable to defeat them. Smart bandits know that a sheep can be sheared many times but roasted only once. 
The bandits will likely knock out, strip and bind the PC's and make off with their stuff.  This is good for the bandits. After all the PC's might get new stuff, come back looking for vengeance, and the bandits can rob them again! 

Every situation is different and the NPC's/monsters will do whatever they believe is in their best interestwith regard to defeated PC's. The players can certainly try and influence the default situation with offers of surrender, parley, or whatnot. Once again, the viability of these attempts depend on the nature of the foe. 

In these situations there doesn't need to be any fudging to arrive at a less than lethal outcome. 




Mallus said:


> The point I'm trying to make is it's still a possible to make a _game_ about a group of protagonists who rarely, if ever, die. Death-lite doesn't mean _game_-light (or _predetermined story_-heavy).




If the game you are playing doesn't feature activities that players could possibly think could result in character death then I agree.



Fifth Element said:


> There are, of course, more options than "playing a game" and "wish fulfillment storytelling." There's a whole spectrum of playstyles in there that cannot be characterized by either of these two extremes.
> 
> Not to pick on ExploderWizard, because this is common in this thread, but the words you choose to state your position affect others' reactions to it.
> 
> If you don't like fudging and say "Fudging is fine...if you like _wish-fulfillment storytelling_. I'd rather play an _honest game_", that's loaded with implications. Similarly, "Fudging is fine...as long as you realize _you're being dishonest_".




Implications, or the harsh truth?



Fifth Element said:


> If you really believe that fudging is simply a matter of preference, there's no need for dismissive language such as this. Now we know that some posters don't believe it's a matter of preference, but that's a different story.




It is, and always has been a matter of preference, to play a _game_ or not. 
Neither option is badwrongfun if the participants are enjoying the process.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Implications, or the harsh truth?




Of course we could say that we'd prefer a collegial and deliberated game rather than one run by a hard-ass slave to dice. Full of implications or the harsh truth?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 27, 2010)

In my experience, almost every DM I have known since 1978 has fudged the dice at some point in their games.  And almost every Player I have known or played with has known this to happen at some time in their character's career.  They have all felt that fudging is OK, as long as it isn't abused or if the fudge occured and no one was the wiser. 

[As a matter of clarification, I am talking about fudging a die maybe 1 time every 10-20 sessions or so.  That's a lot of dice rolls, so the fudging instance may have weight for the moment it occurs, but not over the course of the campaign.]

This is a LOT of DMs and Players in the past 32 years.  The reason I can say this, is that the fudging topic of discussion inevitably came up with almost every game group after the group had settled a bit and been established.

My experience is different than Raven Crowking's or Jeff Wilder's, but it is no less valid an experience.

These DM's and Players aren't just a bunch of melted popsicles.

I could say that the rare fudge actually makes the game better, but I won't know because the fudging event has already happened and I cannot reverse time and change it.  But I do recall one case where it would have been better.

In one of my early campaigns, a player had become invested in his PC after a year or more and was really bummed when the PC died because of a die roll and a misunderstanding of the encounter details (1e/2e, no battlemat, purely room descriptors and the varied imaginations of 4 players and a DM).  When the player asked if he can simply be wounded badly instead of dead and still play the PC, I immediately thought that I should have just fudged the die and made him badly wounded in the first place.  Or tell him that he was criticaled and badly wounded and unconcious (instead of dead).

Would this "fudge" have been bad?  Am I a melted popsicle?


----------



## Mallus (Apr 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> If the game you are playing doesn't feature activities that players could possibly think could result in character death then I agree.



While the game we play does feature a great deal of _talking_, it has it's fair share of fantasy violence; sword fights, jumping out of airships, fighting nascent gods, etc. Come to think of it, some of the _talking_ could lead to the PC's death... in theory, at least.  

I get it that you prefer games where PC death is on the line. Which is cool. 

But why do you need PC death in order for a campaign to be considered a _game_? This is the part I don't get. If loss conditions exist along side victory conditions, and you _play_ in order to determine the outcome --ie opposed to having a predetermined outcome-- then it's a game, right?


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 27, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> When the player asked if he can simply be wounded badly instead of dead and still play the PC, I immediately thought that I should have just fudged the die and made him badly wounded in the first place.  Or tell him that he was criticaled and badly wounded and unconcious (instead of dead).
> 
> Would this "fudge" have been bad?  Am I a melted popsicle?




I think the player asking and you saying yes is way better than fudging.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 27, 2010)

Mallus said:


> But why do you need PC death in order for a campaign to be considered a _game_? This is the part I don't get. If loss conditions exist along side victory conditions, and you _play_ in order to determine the outcome --ie opposed to having a predetermined outcome-- then it's a game, right?




Quite correct. Victory and loss conditions that are _known to the participants_ along with a chance of either being achieved through play is enough to have a game. No one dies in Monopoly but it is still a game.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 27, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> That doesn't really address Hussar's point. As you show here, one player's "abuse" is another player's "fun time."
> 
> To me, "abuse" means doing things with your authority that the group does not enjoy. If all of your players enjoy fighting that red dragon at 2nd level, then dropping it on them is not abuse. If they hate it, it is abuse.




So I can make you an abuser by deciding I don't like your behavior?



> What does and does not constitute abuse, then, depends entirely on the group's preferences. That's a theme of the thread:* it depends on the group.*
> 
> Now, achieving agreement within a group is not always easy (see your example), and there are usually compromises that needs to be made. But there is no use of a DM's authority that can be inherently labelled as being abusive.




It does not intend entirely on the group preferences. It depends substantially, but it also depends on what the group's best interests are, whether they understand them or not, and also on what is real.



> Again, because this is a game of make-believe.




... Involving real humans...



> If the group likes it, then _it's not abuse_.




If the group likes it, then it's not abusing them. If the group likes it, but they introduce a new player who finds something abusive, then it can be called into question whether the behavior is abusive.



> You can't say that pitting a red dragon against 2nd-level characters is an abuse of DM authority without considering who's playing the game. Maybe that's what the group wanted: to fight a nigh-impossible foe, maybe they'll get REALLY lucky and one of them might survive. If they have fun fighting the dragon, then it's not abuse.




That's a facile response. The fact is, such a fight is going to be fun only as a vicarious exercise in absurd destruction. It is an abuse of authority, unless the GM is prepared to follow through with what was promised. If I did this as a practical joke, very well, but it falls on me then to be funny, and probably also to supply the game or an acceptable equivalent at some point. It is always an abuse in a (presumably) serious game, period, because it's non-serious.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> So I can make you an abuser by deciding I don't like your behavior?



No, this means that "abuse" in this case is completely subjective. Using the term "abuse" at all here is a bit sketchy, because the DM's authority only exists in an imaginary world.



pawsplay said:


> It does not intend entirely on the group preferences. It depends substantially, but it also depends on what the group's best interests are, whether they understand them or not, and also on what is real.



What do you mean by a group's "best interests"?



pawsplay said:


> If the group likes it, then it's not abusing them. If the group likes it, but they introduce a new player who finds something abusive, then it can be called into question whether the behavior is abusive.



Because that's effectively a new group. As I said, arriving at a group consensus as to what is and is not abuse can be complicated and needs to consider everyone in the group.



pawsplay said:


> That's a facile response. The fact is, such a fight is going to be fun only as a vicarious exercise in absurd destruction.



Possibly, but if that's what the players really want then the DM should do it. If that's how the players want to have fun, it would be a bad idea to force some other form of play on them.



pawsplay said:


> It is an abuse of authority, unless the GM is prepared to follow through with what was promised. If I did this as a practical joke, very well, but it falls on me then to be funny, and probably also to supply the game or an acceptable equivalent at some point. It is always an abuse in a (presumably) serious game, period, because it's non-serious.



There's the presumption. And that does explain your objection. So to further the point, whether or not something is abusive depends on the group's preferences and the particulars of the game they're playing at the time.

My point was that it is not inherently abusive, because there are situations where the players would desire it. If they have a reason to not desire it (such as it being a serious game), then it can be called abusive. But that doesn't change my point, because that falls under the umbrella of a group's preferences.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2010)

Mallus said:


> But why do you need PC death in order for a campaign to be considered a _game_? This is the part I don't get. If loss conditions exist along side victory conditions, and you _play_ in order to determine the outcome --ie opposed to having a predetermined outcome-- then it's a game, right?



This is the part I have been curious about also.



ExploderWizard said:


> Quite correct. Victory and loss conditions that are _known to the participants_ along with a chance of either being achieved through play is enough to have a game. No one dies in Monopoly but it is still a game.



This can be the case even in a game that features combat but which doesn't really put death on the table. Because even though in the typical fight loss and victory conditions for the PCs might be death/survival, for the _players_ it can be something else altogether (as per my samurai/monk example upthread).


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> My point was that it is not inherently abusive, because there are situations where the players would desire it. If they have a reason to not desire it (such as it being a serious game), then it can be called abusive. But that doesn't change my point, because that falls under the umbrella of a group's preferences.




But I didn't claim it was inherently abusive. I just said abuse would occur if something was inflicted on someone that they have a legitimate objection to based on the game format. 

Again, discharging a firearm during a game isn't inherently absuve or wrong, it just immediately becomes wrong every time it's done because of the consequences.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 28, 2010)

pemerton said:


> This can be the case even in a game that features combat but which doesn't really put death on the table. Because even though in the typical fight loss and victory conditions for the PCs might be death/survival, for the _players_ it can be something else altogether (as per my samurai/monk example upthread).




Umm. Of course it will be something else for the players unless they have to die along with the character. That's harsh. 

Death doesn't have to be a possible consequence of failure as long as the players are aware of this. Losing is losing, not dying. It would be very clear and not the least bit dishonest at all.

Trying to make the players _believe _that character death could result when in reality they are protected from such a fate is where the dishonesty creeps in.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 28, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I suspect that, in some cases, the objection to a fudge chip pool arises from exactly this.
> 
> ...




Umm, who's objecting to a fudge chip pool?  It's a good idea.  I would say that if your fudge chip pool has 50 or 100 chips in it, and they all get used in three sessions, you may want to examine why you're having to over rule the mechanics so often, but, the basic premise is perfectly sound.

In fact, that's why I rather prefer player fudging mechanics - Action points and the like.  Makes an excellent balancing mechanic and keeps everyone involved.

That doesn't make DM fiat rulings always bad though.



Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> EDIT:  If anything is being "attacked" in this thread, it is the right to use critical thinking, or to hold a viewpoint that includes any form of valuation.
> ...




Pssst.  Earlier upthread you asked for an example where you were being dismissive of anyone who disagreed with you?  Here's one.  You're basically saying that everyone who disagrees with you is no longer using critical thinking or is capabable of giving valuation to an idea.  Whether you put an IMO in front or not, that's pretty damn dismissive.

-----------------

Been thinking a bit on the idea of player fudging.  I don't like it, but I wasn't sure how to articulate why.  Then it came to me.  Excuse me a moment while I go into gaming story land.

When I ran the World's Largest Dungeon, one of the features of the WLD is a LOT of traps.  And very, very lethal traps at that.  So, the party rogue was kitted up the wazoo to deal with this.

So fine, he wanders along, trips a massive damage AoE trap.  Boom.  He sees the damage roll and the DC for his Ref save.  Makes his save, and takes no damage due to his improved uncanny dodge.  It's a resetting trap, so, he figures he's going to disarm it.  

In the process, he discovers three things:

1.  He can only fail his save on a 1.
2.  The trap will do enough damage on average to kill him outright.
3.  The DC of disarming the trap is quite high and he needs about a 16 to disarm it and will trip it every time he rolls 12 or less.

Player proceeds to try to disarm anyway.  Fails.  Fails.  Fails, boom, makes save.  Boom, makes save.  Fails.  Boom... rolls a 1, and dies.

Now, here I would 100% never think to fudge any of this.  Why?  Because the player has all the information.  It's an unusual situation, but, at this point in time, the player has all the facts in hand and chooses to gamble anyway.

((That and the death was just uproariously funny to boot  ))

But, bring this back around to player fudging.  Very few times do the PC's actually have all the facts on hand.  Unlike the DM, who does, they have no real idea of what comes next if they fail.  They might die, they might get captured, anything might happen.  And players trust their DM (or should anyway) to provide a scenario which everyone will enjoy.

If the player over rules the dice by fiat, he does so with imperfect knowledge most of the time, and it would be very difficult, without the DM actually handing the player his notes, for the player to ever be in possession of more than a fraction of the information.  Thus, the player's judgment of the situation is based on limited information.

IMO, not enough to make that sort of judgment call.

I do love the idea of Action point style mechanics though.  They make me happy.  Because they're limited beforehand, you can apply them without having full knowledge.  And, again, they make great balancing mechanics as well - see something like the Buffy RPG.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Pssst.  Earlier upthread you asked for an example where you were being dismissive of anyone who disagreed with you?  Here's one.  You're basically saying that everyone who disagrees with you is no longer using critical thinking or is capabable of giving valuation to an idea.  Whether you put an IMO in front or not, that's pretty damn dismissive.





Not at all.  That was not meant to paint with a broad brush, and I am sorry you read it that way.

All sorts of people are contributing to the conversation, on both sides, with interesting and thought-provoking material.  I've said as much, upthread.  There are only one or two people who are, AFAICT and IMHO, "attacking" anything in this thread, and they are specifically attacking reasoned argument and dissenting opinion.

If Opinion A and Opinion B are mutually exclusive, and the person who holds Opinion B accepts that others hold Opinion A (although he thinks they are wrong), but the person who holds Opinion A not only believes that the other person holds Opinion B, but *cannot accept that the other person holds Opinion B*, then it is the person holding Opinion A who thinks his opinion should be adhered to by all.....or, perhaps, that persons holding Opinion B should just shut up.

It is clear that smoking isn't good for you, or for the people around you, right?  Yet we know that some people smoke, some people like to smoke, some people don't mind others smoking around them, and some people like to get together to smoke.  That some people smoke, some people like to smoke, some people don't mind others smoking around them, and some people like to get together to smoke doesn't change whether or not smoking is a good idea or not.  It isn't wrongbadfun to enjoy smoking, but there is a price that has to be paid.  Saying that smoking is a bad idea, and that you will not be as healthy if you smoke as if you don't, is valid observation.

*But some smokers and manufacturers of tobacco products might take offense at that observation.  And they might try to twist it into something it is not.*

I was looking this morning at pages 17-18 in the 3.0 DMG, penned by well-known bully, egoist, and wrongbadfun guru Monte Cook.  While I'm not going to quote the entire passage, I will distill it:

*  The DM can't cheat.  If you want to fudge, no one can tell you no.

*  If there is a default method of playing D&D, it is not fudging.

*  If you do fudge, don't tell the players (he emphasizes this with italics), because if they know you fudge it will hurt the game.  How will it hurt the game?  Well, if you go upthread, you'll find the same reasons given.

The fudge chip pool is designed to ameliorate those reasons.

The only difference between Monte's opinion and mine, AFAICT, is that Monte believes that the DM can successfully conceal his fudging.  I think that's a poor gamble at best.  YMMV.


RC


"Given the choice between a truth they can appreciate and a lie they can live, most people will take you-know-what."  -- James Morrow, _Only Begotten Daughter_


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> If the player over rules the dice by fiat, he does so with imperfect knowledge most of the time, and it would be very difficult, without the DM actually handing the player his notes, for the player to ever be in possession of more than a fraction of the information.  Thus, the player's judgment of the situation is based on limited information.
> 
> IMO, not enough to make that sort of judgment call.





At the time the player chooses to fudge, the roll is made; a hit is turned into a miss, damage is reduced, whatever.  All the necessary information is there -- the player wanted one outcome, and got another.

There is, admittedly, an informational disparity between DM and players, but unless the DM can read the players' minds, no one knows more than a fraction of the complex interaction going on.

If that is a good reason for the players not to fudge; it is a good reason for the DM, too.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> But I didn't claim it was inherently abusive. I just said abuse would occur if something was inflicted on someone that they have a legitimate objection to based on the game format.



I'd say that's self-evident. And doesn't dispute my point that it depends entirely on the context and the players.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 28, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The only difference between Monte's opinion and mine, AFAICT, is that Monte believes that the DM can successfully conceal his fudging.




Actually, that's not true. There *is* a difference between Monte's opinion as expressed in the DMG and yours. His is authoritative as far as the recommended rules go, just as Gygax's was as the writer of the 1e DMG. Yours is not. The authoritative voice of a game cannot, by definition, be badwrongfun because the game defines the baseline assumptions and expectations of the game - the rules and basic practices.

That said, you're putting a spin on Monte's comments. Monte doesn't make any kind of blanket statement that fudging hurts the game. Rather, he says: 


			
				3.0 DMG said:
			
		

> It's important to the game that they believe their characters are always in danger. Consciously or subconsciously, if they believe you'll never let bad things happen to their characters, they'll change the way they act. With no element of risk, victory will seem less sweet. And if thereafter something bad does happen to a character, the player may believe that you're out to get him if he feels you saved other players when their characters were in trouble.




I would submit that his statement is *not* incompatible with letting the PCs suffer the consequences of their own decisions but ameliorating strings of bad luck when the players are, otherwise, playing quite prudently based on what the DM knows behind the screen. After all, a bit further up the page he also says:


			
				3.0 DMG said:
			
		

> A good rule of thumb is that a character shouldn't die in a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Monte doesn't make any kind of blanket statement that fudging hurts the game.




If you accept that removing something that is "important to the game", changing the way they act, making victory seeming less sweet, and the player believing that the DM is out to get him do no harm to the game, I concur.



> After all, a bit further up the page he also says:




He says that, please note, when describing the reasoning behind some DM's choice to fudge.  He does not say that it is a good idea, or advocate it himself.  He says, rather, (1) you may if you wish, (2) it is not the default way to play the game, and (3) here are some very specific problems it may cause if the players catch on.

Oddly enough, the same ones described upthread.


RC


(Oh, and having the same opinion as Stephen Hawking doesn't mean that I am a world-renowned cosmologist, or that you should accept Hawking's opinion because it comes from me; it does mean, however, that our opinions are the same.)


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If Opinion A and Opinion B are mutually exclusive, and the person who holds Opinion B accepts that others hold Opinion A (although he thinks they are wrong), but the person who holds Opinion A not only believes that the other person holds Opinion B, but *cannot accept that the other person holds Opinion B*, then it is the person holding Opinion A who thinks his opinion should be adhered to by all.....or, perhaps, that persons holding Opinion B should just shut up.



That assumes motivation on the part of B (which would be against forum rules, by the way, if this were a real person you're talking about).

The word "accepts" is loaded here. If the person with opinion B accepts that others hold opinion A, why would he continue to argue about it on and on? He's doing exactly the same thing as the person with opinion A, arguing his case. Yet he is characterized as accepting while the other is characterized as thinking that everyone should think the way he does.



Raven Crowking said:


> Saying that smoking is a bad idea, and that you will not be as healthy if you smoke as if you don't, is valid observation.



There's objective evidence behind that observation. This analogy doesn't work.



Raven Crowking said:


> *But some smokers and manufacturers of tobacco products might take offense at that observation.*



Of course they would, because they have a vested interest in the opposite. Their financial wellbeing rests entirely on the sale of tobacco.



Raven Crowking said:


> The only difference between Monte's opinion and mine, AFAICT, is that Monte believes that the DM can successfully conceal his fudging.  I think that's a poor gamble at best.  YMMV.



I prefer Gygax's take on this one.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Actually, that's not true. There *is* a difference between Monte's opinion as expressed in the DMG and yours. His is authoritative as far as the recommended rules go, just as Gygax's was as the writer of the 1e DMG. Yours is not. The authoritative voice of a game cannot, by definition, be badwrongfun because the game defines the baseline assumptions and expectations of the game - the rules and basic practices.
> 
> That said, you're putting a spin on Monte's comments. Monte doesn't make any kind of blanket statement that fudging hurts the game. Rather, he says:
> 
> ...




The problem I see with the advice in the 3.0 DMG is that anything which means life or death for a character is (by my definition) not trivial. If something trivial actually needs to be determined then either make a common sense ruling or roll the bones. If you decide to let the dice decide the outcome then accept the result. In this case most likely good judgement has already been applied while assigning probability
to the roll. Changing the result is akin to having no faith in your own judgement.

 Lets say you assigned the roll an 85% chance to succeed and the roll still fails, so you change the failure to a success. Your own decision to assign success chance to a roll has been second guessed and wasted-by you! This kind of fudging not only means that the DM 
has no faith in the rules or mechanics being used but in him/her self as well.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Lets say you assigned the roll an 85% chance to succeed and the roll still fails, so you change the failure to a success. Your own decision to assign success chance to a roll has been second guessed and wasted-by you! This kind of fudging not only means that the DM
> has no faith in the rules or mechanics being used but in him/her self as well.




That's an awfully binary example. Suppose, however, that the DM decides that being run over by a cart does 5d6 points of damage, knowing that the average outcome is going to be 17-18 points of damage, a reasonable value that will put a significant hurt on the 4th level cleric with 20 hp being run down. Then when he rolls it, he yatzees it at 30 points. Dead cleric. Maybe he then decides to shave off a die at leave it at 24, the cleric severely injured and in danger of death if the party doesn't react fast enough. That's an outcome that doesn't mean the DM has no faith in either the rules or the mechanic, just that a highly improbable result came from the dice.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

In case it is at all unclear, I would like to take a second to, once again, thank the majority of posters in this thread for their clear, rational, non-acrimonious postings.

Even though some particular post may not have swayed my particular opinion, I (for one) do appreciate the well-thought-out objections to my opinion.  I don't believe that there is anything incongruous with holding an opinion, and simultaneously being willing to accept that your opinion may not be correct.  

There is a difference between stating "This is what I believe" and "This is what I believe, and I also believe I cannot be wrong in that belief."  I should think that obvious, but I realize that there are some few for whom it is not.

Let me use a couple of semi-absurd examples that I hope will illustrate my point:

Let us say that I have never seen a shade of green that did not utterly disgust me.  I would then, naturally, hold the opinion that all shades of green are disgusting to me.  I would hold that opinion very strongly.  Were you to say, "I have a shade of green you will love", I would be unlikely to accept it is true without strong evidence, and, depending upon the effort required to actually obtain that evidence, I might dismiss the claim outright as being highly unlikely.

But I could be wrong.  There could be a shade of green out there so dazzling to my eyes that, not only do I love it, but I find that I can now tolerate (or even enjoy) other shades of green through my appreciation of that particular shade.

Another clear example is the smoking example.  I have a great deal of second-hand evidence that suggests smoking is harmful, and a reasonable amount of first-hand evidence that suggests the same.  It is, therefore, likely that I will conclude that smoking is harmful.  Now, it may also be true that my grandfather smoked, and lived with good health until his late 80s.  It may be true that your grandmother smokes, is 127, and is still going strong.  But neither of these isolated statements is likely to make me believe that smoking is not harmful, and that they could not have lived longer/be healthier without it.

But, again, I could be wrong.  It is entirely possible that the anti-smoking lobby, for whatever reason, has doctored the evidence, intentionally or not, to fit their bias.  My first-hand experiences could be coincidental.

But I would be foolish, in either the green or smoking example, to assume that I was wrong, or even assume that it was reasonably likely that I was wrong.

Anyway, I again wanted to offer a real heart-felt thank you to the majority of posters.  Even where I disagree with you, I appreciate the additional material/arguments to ponder.  Rational arguments are something that can be considered, answered, accepted, or rejected.  Even where arguments are ultimately rejected, the consideration of them allows for real growth.

I have said it before in this thread, and I will say it again:  Simply because I argue/believe one way, it shouldn't make anyone change what they are doing unless they find the argument compelling and not incongruous with his or her experience.  Otherwise, the guy on the ground floor who argues that the window is a perfectly fine way to leave a house is going to lead a lot of people on the 10th floor astray.  Especially if that guy has said, again and again, that he has never seen a house with more than one floor, and isn't at all certain that they exist.  

And to those people who are on the other side, have provided stimulating posts again and again, and haven't taken offense that I haven't agreed with them, a special thanks.  It is people like you that make EN World great!

(And, on this thread, that's quite a few people)

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> That's an awfully binary example. Suppose, however, that the DM decides that being run over by a cart does 5d6 points of damage, knowing that the average outcome is going to be 17-18 points of damage, a reasonable value that will put a significant hurt on the 4th level cleric with 20 hp being run down. Then when he rolls it, he yatzees it at 30 points. Dead cleric. Maybe he then decides to shave off a die at leave it at 24, the cleric severely injured and in danger of death if the party doesn't react fast enough. That's an outcome that doesn't mean the DM has no faith in either the rules or the mechanic, just that a highly improbable result came from the dice.




What is the chance of rolling 30 hp damage on 5d6?

EDIT:  1 in 7776.

So, lets say you assigned the roll a 7,775 in 7,776 chance to succeed and the roll still fails, so you change the failure to a success.  Your own decision to assign success chance to a roll has been second guessed and wasted-by you!  This kind of fudging not only means that the DM has no faith in the rules or mechanics being used but in him/her self as well.

The example is still binary; only the odds have changed.

Why not simply assign 5d6, with a max damage of 24, before rolling the dice in the first place?


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I would submit that his statement is *not* incompatible with letting the PCs suffer the consequences of their own decisions but ameliorating strings of bad luck when the players are, otherwise, playing quite prudently based on what the DM knows behind the screen.



Very true. The passage talks about there being "*no* element of risk." This again goes back to the characterization that players do stupid stuff because they *know* the DM will save them. Some DMs may play that way, but it's never what I've been talking about.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> That's an awfully binary example. Suppose, however, that the DM decides that being run over by a cart does 5d6 points of damage, knowing that the average outcome is going to be 17-18 points of damage, a reasonable value that will put a significant hurt on the 4th level cleric with 20 hp being run down. Then when he rolls it, he yatzees it at 30 points. Dead cleric. Maybe he then decides to shave off a die at leave it at 24, the cleric severely injured and in danger of death if the party doesn't react fast enough. That's an outcome that doesn't mean the DM has no faith in either the rules or the mechanic, just that a highly improbable result came from the dice.




Part of the DM's job when assigning the die range for that roll is considering the potential consequences of any possible result. If the DM knows that the cart is supposed to put a hurtin on whomever
it hits but not have a real chance to be fatal then the assigned die range should bear that out. 

perhaps a damage range of 15-20 on a d6 was appropriate for that occurance. Enough to really feel the bite or even knock the guy out but certainly not kill him. 
In your example the DM was perfectly willing to let death be an option when assigning the damage then second guessed his own decision with an arbitrary reversal. 5d6 is easily deadly to a 20 hp character.

A DM who didn't see the potential for death wasn't very experienced or didn't think it through. 
Mistakes happen. Characters die due to both player and DM mistakes during the learning process. The negative effects of those mistakes teach the lesson. If we smooth over all mistakes with fudging then play never improves on either side of the screen.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Let us say that I have never seen a shade of green that did not utterly disgust me.  I would then, naturally, hold the opinion that all shades of green are disgusting to me.  I would hold that opinion very strongly.  Were you to say, "I have a shade of green you will love", I would be unlikely to accept it is true without strong evidence, and, depending upon the effort required to actually obtain that evidence, I might dismiss the claim outright as being highly unlikely.



But what if someone says "*I* love this particular shade of green. Everyone in my family loves this shade of green." Would you then say "Are you sure they're not just saying that because they think you'll be upset if they told you they hated it? In my experience green is disgusting." Would that not be an absurd response?


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> What is the chance of rolling 30 hp damage on 5d6?
> 
> EDIT:  1 in 1296.



1 in 7776, I believe.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> 1 in 7776, I believe.




Correct; editted.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

I, in turn, would like to thank eveyone in the thread who has stated their reasons for not fudging without using dismissive, condescending or paternalistic arguments or phrases. Debates are never aided by name-calling, and if I myself have gotten riled up at times I apologize.

To paraphrase Umbran, I double-dog dare you to tell me why not fudging is awesome without resorting to loaded and inflammatory language like 'honest' and 'dishonest', or 'real game' and 'wish-fulfilment storytelling'.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I myself have gotten riled up at times I apologize.





Accepted.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I, in turn, would like to thank eveyone in the thread who has stated their reasons for not fudging without using dismissive, condescending or paternalistic arguments or phrases. Debates are never aided by name-calling, and if I myself have gotten riled up at times I apologize.
> 
> To paraphrase Umbran, I double-dog dare you to tell me why not fudging is awesome without resorting to loaded and inflammatory language like 'honest' and 'dishonest', or 'real game' and 'wish-fulfilment storytelling'.




Honesty and dishonesty are what they are. People can put different values on these depending on context but that does not transform them into something else.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Honesty and dishonesty are what they are. People can put different values on these depending on context but that does not transform them into something else.




"You must spread some XP around...etc...etc...etc....."


RC


----------



## Imaginary Number (Apr 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> A DM who didn't see the potential for death wasn't very experienced or didn't think it through.
> Mistakes happen. Characters die due to both player and DM mistakes during the learning process. The negative effects of those mistakes teach the lesson. If we smooth over all mistakes with fudging then play never improves on either side of the screen.




I agree with most of this.  With respect to the last sentence, though, I don't recall anyone in this thread advocating that a DM should "smooth over all mistakes" with fudging die rolls.  It bears repeating that pretty much everyone who has argued that the DM has the authority to fudge actually also reserves the use of that authority to the odd corner case in which the dice dictate a result that is incompatible with the individual group's expectations for the campaign, whatever those are.

In the example above, my own inclination would be to keep the result as rolled and have a dead cleric; as I mentioned dozens of pages ago, that's what I think Raise Dead is for.  But I also think that keeping or altering the roll is up to individual DM judgment, and I wouldn't disagree with a DM who altered the roll to generate a consequence less than imminent death for the character.  There are still "negative consequences" from which both player and DM could take something from the experience -- even if the character doesn't die, the DM nevertheless might learn something about assigning appropriate damage and the player might learn to avoid whatever caused the damage.  In other words, play might improve on both sides of the screen whether or not the DM determined to change the roll.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Honesty and dishonesty are what they are. People can put different values on these depending on context but that does not transform them into something else.



But just throwing the words around does ignore the context, and their use in this thread is not a valueless one, it clearly indicated a belief that one is right and one is wrong. No word has real meaning without its context.

As DM it's your job to come up with imaginary adventures in an imaginary world, where the players do not have all of the information that you do about what's going on in said world. In another thread, Raven Crowking admitted that making an event appear random when it is actually planned is okay (a time-honoured technique, even); even though this would fall under the broad definition of "dishonest". We're talking about a game here. Would you call bluffing in poker "dishonest"? It fits the dictionary definition. But a much more accurate term is "playing the game."

Part of the DM's job in playing the game is having all kinds of secrets from the players. You could call that dishonest if you like, and it fits in some sense. But it's a completely inappropriate use of the word in this context, when we're talking about games where different parties have different access to information.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

Imaginary Number said:


> It bears repeating that pretty much everyone who has argued that the DM has the authority to fudge actually also reserves the use of that authority to the odd corner case in which the dice dictate a result that is incompatible with the individual group's expectations for the campaign, whatever those are.



It clearly does bear repeating, since the idea that fudging DMs do or must fudge all the time is a pervasive one, despite clear explanations to the contrary.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> /snip
> 
> 5d6 is easily deadly to a 20 hp character.
> 
> ...




Umm, no it's not.  It's a 1 in over seven THOUSAND chance that it will be fatal.

So, I'm perfectly happy with 7775 different results.  I'm just not happy with one.  

Now, why didn't I cap it before I rolled?  Well, the fact that it's such a remote chance means I likely never thought about it.  

But, this ignores the main point.  The ENTIRE purpose of fudging is to fix a problem.  If you've already fixed the problem beforehand, then you would never, ever need to fudge.  

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.  

What I do disagree with is that I must be this super computer DM capable of calculating and taking into account all possible outcomes before I decide something, because, once I've decided something, despite the fact that I'm EXPLICITLY entitled to do so in the rules, I CAN NEVER TAKE IT BACK.

This discussion keeps circling back to this.

- You should not fudge, it's dishonest.  You're lying to the players.

- But, the rules specifically empower me to do so.  The GAME and the Game Designers both tell me that it's ok.

 - You should not fudge.  It's dishonest.  You're lying to the players.

- How can following the rules of the game be considered dishonest.  Presumably the players know the rules as well.  The rules say I can do this.

- You should not fudge.  It's dishonest.  You're lying to the players.

On and on and on.  How is it dishonest to use mechanics that everyone at the table knows exists?  The players know I'm entitled to change rolls.  The rules say so.  The game designers say so.  When I actually use this power, how is it dishonest?

Since the players know I am entitled to change any roll at any time, it comes down to a trust issue.  Do they trust my abilities to change the results of a roll in such a way that it results in a better game?  If they don't, then they should probably get a DM that they do trust.  

I don't get this slavish adherence to die rolls.  Why are you stripping the authority from the DM that is EXPRESSLY granted by the rules?  Do you take this further?  Is a DM no longer allowed to apply any rule without player permission?  If I want to add a template to a monster, is that dishonest?  After all, I'm changing the stats of that monster into something else.  

How is that any less dishonest?


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> On and on and on.  How is it dishonest to use mechanics that everyone at the table knows exists?  The players know I'm entitled to change rolls.  The rules say so.  The game designers say so.  When I actually use this power, how is it dishonest?



And further, even if it does meet some definition of dishonest, so what? Unless the players expect the DM to tell them eveything that's going on in the game explicitly, they must realize that the DM's job requires things to be kept from them to keep the game enjoyable. It's part and parcel of the role.

The comments in the thread seem to be along the lines of "You can do it, as long as you realize _you're being dishonest_." Okay....and? If 'dishonesty' like this improves the game for the players, so be it!

You are right about there being a trust issue. But if the players don't trust their DM to use his discretion (and a DM has a *LOT *of discretion), then there are bigger issues than whether or not he fudges.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> The comments in the thread seem to be along the lines of "You can do it, as long as you realize _you're being dishonest_." Okay....and? If 'dishonesty' like this improves the game for the players, so be it!




Now you're making sense.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 28, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Umm, no it's not.  It's a 1 in over seven THOUSAND chance that it will be fatal.
> 
> So, I'm perfectly happy with 7775 different results.  I'm just not happy with one.
> 
> Now, why didn't I cap it before I rolled?  Well, the fact that it's such a remote chance means I likely never thought about it.




See, I would never want to disturb such a remarkable result. If I rolled all 6s on damage, right in front of my players, I think it would be a scene to remember.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> See, I would never want to disturb such a remarkable result. If I rolled all 6s on damage, right in front of my players, I think it would be a scene to remember.



I'm very much with you on that one. I was once rolling monster damage on 4d6 plus something-or-other. It was going to be a big one. I rolled four 1s. I had to show the players that one, even though I don't normally show them my rolls.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Honesty and dishonesty are what they are. People can put different values on these depending on context but that does not transform them into something else.




Which is exactly the point.  

Linguistic communication is rarely, if ever, perfect.  But that doesn't mean you shoud go asking for trouble.  If you know ahead of time that certain word choices are apt to read differently than what you really intend to get across, why on Earth would you use those words?  Use words that are less-apt to be carried away on the sea of connotations!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> As DM it's your job to come up with imaginary adventures in an imaginary world, where the players do not have all of the information that you do about what's going on in said world. In another thread, Raven Crowking admitted that making an event appear random when it is actually planned is okay (a time-honoured technique, even); even though this would fall under the broad definition of "dishonest". We're talking about a game here. Would you call bluffing in poker "dishonest"? It fits the dictionary definition. But a much more accurate term is "playing the game."




Poker is very adversarial. In D&D the game can be won or lost by the players. The DM cannot do either. The DM's only victory is the players
having a good time playing. 



Fifth Element said:


> Part of the DM's job in playing the game is having all kinds of secrets from the players. You could call that dishonest if you like, and it fits in some sense. But it's a completely inappropriate use of the word in this context, when we're talking about games where different parties have different access to information.




Having information unavailable to the players is not being dishonest. Even fudging isn't dishonest if the players are aware of it. 



Hussar said:


> Umm, no it's not. It's a 1 in over seven THOUSAND chance that it will be fatal.
> 
> So, I'm perfectly happy with 7775 different results. I'm just not happy with one.
> 
> Now, why didn't I cap it before I rolled? Well, the fact that it's such a remote chance means I likely never thought about it.




Agreed.



Hussar said:


> But, this ignores the main point. The ENTIRE purpose of fudging is to fix a problem. If you've already fixed the problem beforehand, then you would never, ever need to fudge.
> 
> I don't think anyone disagrees with that.




OK. I'll buy that for a dollar. Now, how do we define "problem"? In a game laden with consequences that can depend on a random result, what constitutes a problem when a possible result of chance comes up? 

If we have defined for certain what we want (or more accurately DON'T want) then why employ methods which could bring about that which is undesired? 



Hussar said:


> What I do disagree with is that I must be this super computer DM capable of calculating and taking into account all possible outcomes before I decide something, because, once I've decided something, despite the fact that I'm EXPLICITLY entitled to do so in the rules, I CAN NEVER TAKE IT BACK.




Nobody needs to be a super computer. The exact odds of any occurance need not be known before determination of a roll. Heck, I didn't even know exactly how remote the chances of a 30 on 5d6 were until they were discussed here. The task at hand isn't about precise number crunching. All one has to do is look at the proposed possible outcomes and decide: are there any of these that are completely unacceptable? If the answer is yes and you roll anyway then YOU are creating the problem that needs fixing. 



Hussar said:


> This discussion keeps circling back to this.
> 
> - You should not fudge, it's dishonest. You're lying to the players.
> 
> ...





It's not at all as long as the players are aware of it. The rules also detail how combat is run, hit points are determined for PC's, and the nature of any ressurection mechanics available. Players might deduce from this that their PC's can be wounded or even killed during adventures. 



Hussar said:


> Since the players know I am entitled to change any roll at any time, it comes down to a trust issue. Do they trust my abilities to change the results of a roll in such a way that it results in a better game? If they don't, then they should probably get a DM that they do trust.




If the players know going in that they can only lose to a degree that the DM feels is appropriate and this is satisfactory then there are no problems.



Hussar said:


> I don't get this slavish adherence to die rolls. Why are you stripping the authority from the DM that is EXPRESSLY granted by the rules? Do you take this further? Is a DM no longer allowed to apply any rule without player permission? If I want to add a template to a monster, is that dishonest? After all, I'm changing the stats of that monster into something else.
> 
> How is that any less dishonest?




Slavish adherence to the dice would mean giving up decision making to a random roll. As long as the DM decides if and when the dice roll at all then there is no slavish adherence to anyhing except the DM's own judgement.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> It's not at all as long as the players are aware of it.



If it's part of the rules, then the players should be aware of it. Now, do you mean that the players should be made specifically aware each time you do actually fudge, ie announce "I'm gonna fudge that one!" when you overrule the dice?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> In another thread, Raven Crowking admitted that making an event appear random when it is actually planned is okay (a time-honoured technique, even)




I apologize in advance for responding to this, because I intended you to have the "last word" viz-a-viz you and I; I will try to make my Will save in the future.

I just wanted to agree with you that I did, indeed, say that this is okay, and in order to make the apparent dichotomy comprehensible, I thought I should explain further.

There are three things involved here, and all involve honesty and information flow on the part of the GM:  

(1)  The GM has a responsibility to be honest about how he is implimenting the rules, as far as he is capable of so doing.

(2)  The GM has a responsibility to portray the campaign world as it would appear to the player characters, so that the players may make rational, meaningful choices within the context of what their characters would know.

(3)  The GM has a responsibility to portray NPCs within the scope of their personalities, so that the players can make rational, meaningful choices about whether or not they are trustworthy, as well as how trustworthy they are.

In the case of (2), above, the GM may be forced to conceal information about the randomness of information.

EXAMPLE 1:  Bob's character searches for traps where there are no traps.  The GM knows that Bob will find no traps, but makes a die roll anyway, because if he does not, he knows that Bob will gain information (either there are no traps, or there are no traps Bob's character can find) that his character could not reasonably know.

EXAMPLE 2:  The King sends assassins to waylay the PCs on the High Road, because the PCs have irked the King.  The assassins do not announce themselves as such, so the GM rolls dice as though this were a wandering (random) encounter.  Again, this is specifically to prevent the players from having immediate access to information that their characters could not reasonably know.  Follow-up may, or may not, reveal that the encounter was not random.

EXAMPLE 3:  Everyone in town is talking about the Giant Hamsters recently seen on Hampstead Heath.  The GM has given each player a number of rumours that their characters know, as well as where they heard them from.  The GM has used random rolls to determine the rumours, except the giant hamster ones.  If the players compare notes, or keep asking around, they can discover that everyone has heard of the giant hamsters, but the GM doesn't believe that the PCs would necessarily know this upfront.

This is acceptable even though this would fall under the broad definition of "dishonest" because of its relationship to responsiblities (2) and (3) above.  I would agree that a GM capable of covering all such instances without relying on dishonesty would be superior to myself in this respect, were that GM equally capable of dealing with (2) and (3).  As previously described, this is the lesser of two evils.

And, yes, bluffing in poker is dishonest.  Contesting your ability to deceive and see through deception is a large part of what poker is about.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> All one has to do is look at the proposed possible outcomes and decide: are there any of these that are completely unacceptable? If the answer is yes and you roll anyway then YOU are creating the problem that needs fixing.





This.


RC


----------



## Umbran (Apr 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> OK. I'll buy that for a dollar. Now, how do we define "problem"? In a game laden with consequences that can depend on a random result, what constitutes a problem when a possible result of chance comes up?




I don't think there's a single general answer.  We are not all looking for the same thing out of RPGs.  What constitutes a problem for one group may not be an issue for another group, and vice versa.

It would be for the GM and players of a particular campaign to decide who ultimately ought to decide what is a problem, and what isn't.  It seems to me that archetyically, that decision ends up in the GM's hands.  You may choose to put it where you will.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If it's part of the rules, then the players should be aware of it. Now, do you mean that the players should be made specifically aware each time you do actually fudge, ie announce "I'm gonna fudge that one!" when you overrule the dice?




Not really. As I already pointed out, yes the rules outline the possibility. The rules also cover the mechanical operations and possible consequences 
of adventuring activity. Disclosure comes from the very start. The players should know:

1) Are mechanical operations going to run open ended? When the dice are rolled do they count? Is the story of the campaign dictated by the actions resolved therein?

or:

2) Are mechanical operations going to be sometimes results oriented? When the dice produce an unwanted outcome will they be ignored? Are campaign events edited or modified to better fit with the desired story?

IMHO players who are playing in game #2 after knowingly signing up for it shouldn't be inquiring about specific acts of fudging and the DM is under no obligation to tell them when it happens. 

Dishonesty comes about when a DM advertises game #1 and delivers game # 2.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

Especially if the rules say Game #1 is the default.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> This is acceptable even though this would fall under the broad definition of "dishonest" because of its relationship to responsiblities (2) and (3) above.



I largely agree, and note that this means the DM being dishonest is _not inherently a bad thing_. Its use in this thread has clearly been as a bad thing - in fact I can't think of a use of the word that does not have predominantly negative connotations.

So the judicious use of fudging may be 'dishonest', but it's not the only dishonest thing a DM does, or should do if called for.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Dishonesty comes about when a DM advertises game #1 and delivers game # 2.



Sure, I'll buy that. Of course, it seems to me that most of the proponents of fudging in this thread aren't suggesting that they do that. For instance, I've made it quite clear that I fudge and the players know about it. So there's no dishonesty there. In fact, my suggestion that it depends on the group should imply that you do it only if the group finds it to be a good thing.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Sure, I'll buy that. Of course, it seems to me that most of the proponents of fudging in this thread aren't suggesting that they do that. For instance, I've made it quite clear that I fudge and the players know about it. So there's no dishonesty there. In fact, my suggestion that it depends on the group should imply that you do it only if the group finds it to be a good thing.




In that case there is no badwrongfun going on.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I largely agree, and note that this means the DM being dishonest is _not inherently a bad thing_.




You miss the distinction, I think:

The DM being dishonest is inherently a bad thing.

The DM being dishonest is not inherently the worst thing.

If being dishonest is necessary to prevent a worse thing, it is generally better to be dishonest.

If being dishonest is necessary to prevent a worse thing, it is still generally better to be as honest as possible.

If there is a way to prevent a worse thing that is not dishonest, and which does not cause another worse thing, it is inherently better than being dishonest.

(General Ethics 101  )


RC


EDIT:  Moreover, if there is a way to prevent a worse thing that is not dishonest, and which does not cause another worse thing, it is inherently not necessary to be dishonest.

(General Logic 101  )

*Admin: Whether you realise it or not, this is being condescending, and it never ends well. Please don't do it.*


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You miss the distinction, I think:
> 
> The DM being dishonest is inherently a bad thing.



This is disagree with. But you're again advocating that a perfect DM will not need to "resort" to this sort of thing. Whether or not that's true, I am discussing actual DMs, not theoretical DMs.

Given that no DM, no person, is perfect, there will be a tradeoff. Since all DMs need to make tradeoffs, making a tradeoff is not the mark of a subpar DM.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

My only goal here is to ensure that what I have said is properly understood by other readers, since you brought it up, and since I deemed it a mischaracterization of my intent.  

I have no interest in arguing with you about it; you may still have the last word.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The task at hand isn't about precise number crunching. All one has to do is look at the proposed possible outcomes and decide: are there any of these that are completely unacceptable?




Looking at all the proposed outcomes is not necessarily easy.  In D&D, it sometimes is.  But, in Deadlands, for example, figuring out the results of an attack includes a to-hit roll, a possible dodge, a hit location roll, rolling damage, applying armor or cover (which can vary by location), and long division.  The "possible outcomes" start branching really quickly.



> If the answer is yes and you roll anyway then YOU are creating the problem that needs fixing.




OMG!!!  YOU (in all caps!) are creating the problem!!!  

My response is... you seem to be making it sound like some huge deal, when it isn't.  

A couple hours ago, I made my lunch.  In the process, a small dollop of mayo fell on my counter top.  Problem: the counter is messy.  Did I create this problem, by not carefully considering my every motion with a butterknife and bread, and not deciding to lay out a tarpaulin to cover all surfaces before I opened the fridge to get my ingredients?  Perhaps.  Did I cause the problem by buying mayo in the first place?  Maybe.  

But who cares?  I had a paper towel handy.  I cleaned it up.  No biggie.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 28, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have no interest in arguing with you about it; you may still have the last word.







Speak......





Oh glorious Ceasar!........



Speak...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 28, 2010)

Umbran said:


> My response is... you seem to be making it sound like some huge deal, when it isn't.




If the players signed up for game #2 (see above post) then it isn't a deal at all.

If the players believe they are playing game #1 then there is an issue.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2010)

Umbran said:


> A couple hours ago, I made my lunch.  In the process, a small dollop of mayo fell on my counter top.  Problem: the counter is messy.  Did I create this problem, by not carefully considering my every motion with a butterknife and bread, and not deciding to lay out a tarpaulin to cover all surfaces before I opened the fridge to get my ingredients?  Perhaps.  Did I cause the problem by buying mayo in the first place?  Maybe.
> 
> But who cares?  I had a paper towel handy.  I cleaned it up.  No biggie.




If you concluded from this that (1) you were not responsible for spilling the mayo, (2) not being careful with the mayo is a good idea, or (3) it is better to clean up the mayo than not to spill it in the first place, then you have indeed proven Exploder Wizard wrong.

Or, at least, you have done so to any who concludes the same.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> If the players believe they are playing game #1 then there is an issue.



Yes, we've been over that and agreed. Now let's just say the players did sign up for game #2, and proceed from there.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2010)

Umbran said:


> But who cares?  I had a paper towel handy.  I cleaned it up.  No biggie.



Indeed. Perhaps a perfect Sandwich Maker (SM) would not have spilled the mayo. But you and I and everyone else are human, and are liable to make small messes from time to time. The choice then becomes: do you leave the mess there to rot while cursing yourself for not being perfect and worrying what others might think of you if they found out, or do you wipe it up and *enjoy your delicious sandwich*?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 28, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If you concluded from this that (1) you were not responsible for spilling the mayo, (2) not being careful with the mayo is a good idea, or (3) it is better to clean up the mayo than not to spill it in the first place, then you have indeed proven Exploder Wizard wrong.



And if he didn't conclude any of the above, but instead simply realized he made a mistake and cleaned it up?

I think the point is that having a paper towel ready to clean up the mess (fudging) is OK, because human beings (DMs, adventure writers, etc) make mistakes.

Does this mean that I need to fully disclose to my wife and kids (for whom I might make another set of sandwiches) that I spilled a drop of mayo, or can I clean it up and move on?  She knows I am human and may make a spill once in a while.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 28, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Yes, we've been over that and agreed. Now let's just say the players did sign up for game #2, and proceed from there.




Ok.  If the players agree that game # 2 is more to their liking then everyone is happy with what is happening. 

Or, as Darth Vader would put it:

_There is no conflict..........._


----------



## Nagol (Apr 28, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> And if he didn't conclude any of the above, but instead simply realized he made a mistake and cleaned it up?
> 
> I think the point is that having a paper towel ready to clean up the mess (fudging) is OK, because human beings (DMs, adventure writers, etc) make mistakes.
> 
> Does this mean that I need to fully disclose to my wife and kids (for whom I might make another set of sandwiches) that I spilled a drop of mayo, or can I clean it up and move on?  She knows I am human and may make a spill once in a while.




Perhaps your wife would like to know so as to keep track of the general cleanliness of the kitchen (mine sure does).  My wife has a different aesthetic sense and would want to potentially *really* clean the area before someone got food poisoning.

If I don't tell her then she won't think about it.  If you do inform her then she can at least make informed choices herself.  I find being forthright the best approach in general.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 28, 2010)

I think that after 53 pages and the conversation has drifted into the relative merits of cleaning up the kitchen, this thread has come to an end.

I'm pretty sure that everyone who wants to express an opinion here has been able to do so (indeed, it seems that part of the problem is that some people can't stop expressing their opinion).

It is fair to say that it has generated all the light it is likely to, and seems that positions are pretty much entrenched, so I'm going to close this thread.

If anyone thinks that there is as yet a good reason for it to remain open, then PM or email me with your reasoning. Until that point.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 29, 2010)

Left browser open for several hours, failed to see thread was closed.


----------

