PDA

View Full Version : fudging rolls isn't as good as you think it is.



Jolly Steve
2009-07-20, 02:08 PM
My contention is that DMs tend to vastly over-rate the necessity/fun of fudging rolls.

In case it's relevant: I play regularly, have never DMd live but have DM'd a little by email, and also run this (http://www.ageoffable.net).

DMs seem to give two main reasons for fudging rolls:

i) the players get upset if they die for no reason. It's frustrating and random. It's not fun.

ii) you have a great dramatic moment coming up, then it doesn't happen
because someone rolls a 1. That sucks.


i) the players get upset if they die for no reason. It's frustrating and random. It's not fun.

In my experience it's very common for DMs to say that it's necessary to fudge rolls. It's also very rare for players to say it's necessary.

Of course players might think it but not say it. But it also raises the possibility that DMs have the wrong idea about what players want.

Consider the following, an adventure idea which I just made up, deliberately designed to be as cliched as possible.

"The caverns have always been full of monsters and other dangers. Many have entered, yet none have returned. Now an even greater danger has arisen. While others tremble behind thick walls, you have dared to face the undead sorcerer, and vowed to slay him, or die in the attempt."

Now, with this pitch, the players have been told that their players might die, because they're going into danger. There's nothing in there about fairness, or dramatic appropriateness, or 'challenging the characters but not killing them'. There's a lot about, in game terms, the real possibility of a TPK. I just told you that a whole bunch of people haven't come back.

Of course it could be the case that the game is presented as one thing, but that players want another. It could be that players, on the whole, don't say so, but that DMs have correctly guessed this desire.

But if people turn up to your chess game saying they want to play chess, and you decide they mean checkers...


ii) you have a great dramatic moment coming up, then it doesn't happen
because someone rolls a 1. That sucks.

Again, I've often heard DMs talk about how they provide drama and story for the players.

I've rarely, if ever, heard players talk about how they want their DM to provide drama or story.

I've often heard players talk about drama and story provided by the players' actions (including outstandingly stupid ones), and by randomness. Start a thread called "funniest player death ever", "luckiest roll" or "most stupid character", and another one called "best DM-created fantasy world" and see which one lasts longer.

Sorry to say this DMs, but maybe your great fantasy epic isn't that great. Maybe you're called Game/Dungeon Master and not Fanfic Master for a reason.

Secondly, and maybe more importantly, random player death is story.

If you do any kind of writing course, you'll hear the phrase "show, don't tell."

If you have this really great introductory paragraph about the dangers of your awesome world, and later on a TPK, which one do you think the players are going to remember? Which one's going to get across the idea of 'a dangerous fantasy world' better? Which one, in short, is effective 'story-telling'?

In conclusion:

i) the players get upset if they die for no reason. You don't know that, and the game is very clear that it's about dudes who can die for no reason.

ii) you have a great dramatic moment coming up, then it doesn't happen
because someone rolls a 1. That sucks. Maybe it's not nearly as great as the dramatic moment that happens precisely because someone does roll a 1.


PS None of this should be assumed to apply to young children, who may well get upset if they die for no reason, and who can be assumed to want you to tell them stores.

Indon
2009-07-20, 02:16 PM
i) the players get upset if they die for no reason. You don't know that.
I'm sure many DM's know that.

Character death can also introduce story problems, so you can hold it off for convenience.

Personally, I prefer ad hoc'ing mechanics (say, to KO a player rather than killing them) to fudging rolls, unless I accidentally miscalibrated the difficulty of a combat.

My players may not mind dying for no reason, but they would definitely mind (and realize) if they're dying because I screwed up the difficulty of an encounter.

archon_huskie
2009-07-20, 02:16 PM
Too many maybes in your argument. It is the DM's call on what is best for the game. Period.

Tengu_temp
2009-07-20, 02:21 PM
PS None of this should be assumed to apply to young children, who may well get upset if they die for no reason, and who can be assumed to want you to tell them stores.

So you're basically saying that people who have a different approach to this aspect of roleplaying than you, and don't like when their character dies or a possibly great situation becomes a bad joke because of low rolls, have the mindset of young children?

The Professor
2009-07-20, 02:21 PM
Too many maybes in your argument. It is the DM's call on what is best for the game. Period.


This +1. There's just too many variables dependant from group-to-group in order for us to discuss this properly.

Teln
2009-07-20, 02:24 PM
Players usually don't like TPKs caused because you overestimated the party.

BRC
2009-07-20, 02:27 PM
i) the players get upset if they die for no reason. You don't know that, and the game is very clear that it's about dudes who can die for no reason.

ii) you have a great dramatic moment coming up, then it doesn't happen
because someone rolls a 1. That sucks. Maybe it's not nearly as great as the dramatic moment that happens precisely because someone does roll a 1.


PS None of this should be assumed to apply to young children, who may well get upset if they die for no reason, and who can be assumed to want you to tell them stores.
You're right, I don't know that a player would rather have their character die due to a bad roll than continue playing. You have convinced me, I shall no longer fudge rolls to save PC's.

On that note, I also don't know that my PC's want CR-appropriate encounters. From now on, I shall ignore CR's when making encounters.
I also don't know that my PC's want Treasure or Experience from encounters. No more of that.
Come to think of it, I don't even know if my Players really want to play DnD. From now on, rather than playing DnD, we shall make bricks. Because making bricks is useful, and everybody wants to be useful.

Mystic Muse
2009-07-20, 02:30 PM
you're not going to win this Jolly steve.

on topic, I'd HATE it if my character died . and in the example of the adventure you gave you're not specifying the levels of the people who went in. were they commoners? were they level 5s while you're level 10? were they level 20? "many have not returned." is absolutely meaningless.

valadil
2009-07-20, 02:31 PM
Fudging depends on the type of game you're running. I aim for lots of plot and intrigue. Sometimes this has to take precedence over game mechanics. That said, the GM is responsible for letting the players know what kind of game they're playing. I've been in a few games where die fudging doesn't happen. Those also happen to be the games where characters don't have names, just classes. I get bored of those games really quickly, but can see how someone more interested in tactical combat would prefer that type of game.

Believe it or not, one of my groups has tried to tell me to fudge dice more often. I put them into single digits too frequently (no accidental deaths, just tough fights) and they suggested that I wasn't fudging enough. I've even suggested running a more tactical game where death will happen and the players refused to play it. They just weren't interested in that type of game.

But the main reason why I fudge rolls is because I'm a demanding GM. I require pages of backstory. If someone comes up with a cool and interesting backstory, I don't want to invalidate their work because my d20 was mean. It's one thing if the character has been around and resolved some of his plot. But someone who spent 6 hours writing their backstory and 1 hour playing the character before dying isn't going to write a second backstory for the replacement character. It's too much to ask of PCs. And I wouldn't ask it of them if I was running a more hazardous campaign. I wrote 14 pages of backstory for my current Mage character. In Deadlands you're lucky to get half a page out of me. It's just not worth the work in some games. But I require the work in my games and I don't want to screw the players over for it.

Finally, there are different kinds of fudging. Changing a crit into a hit is one thing and that seems to be what you're talking about in your post. Saving your players is one kind of fudging. Saving NPCs or encounters is another.

My biggest struggle as a GM is figuring out how long a game session will take. If I expect a combat to run 90 minutes, but the last monster drops after 30, that's not fair to the players. Ideally I'd improvise the last hour of game, but that's not always an option. So I inflate the enemies' hit points and let the fight continue. I'd much rather do that than let the session end early and disappoint the players (though like I said before, if I can improv something else I'm more than happy to do that instead).

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-20, 02:33 PM
When I DM, I don't fudge rolls--I play by the same rules the players do, and tell them up front that if they do something stupid or if the dice come up badly I'm not going to change it. My players appreciate knowing this, and accept it just fine.

When one of my players DMs, he sometimes fudges rolls--He prefers drama and heroism over strict rules adherence, and tells us up front that if we do something dramatic or heroic, he might change a bad roll (as long as it wasn't a stupid idea). While playing, we appreciate knowing this, and accept it just fine.

Why is one of these approaches not as valid as the other?

Mystic Muse
2009-07-20, 02:33 PM
When I DM, I don't fudge rolls--I play by the same rules the players do, and tell them up front that if they do something stupid or if the dice come up badly I'm not going to change it. My players appreciate knowing this, and accept it just fine.

When one of my players DMs, he sometimes fudges rolls--He prefers drama and heroism over strict rules adherence, and tells us up front that if we do something dramatic or heroic, he might change a bad roll (as long as it wasn't a stupid idea). While playing, we appreciate knowing this, and accept it just fine.

Why is one of these approaches not as valid as the other?

because Jolly Steve doesn't want it to be.

Tengu_temp
2009-07-20, 02:34 PM
Come to think of it, I don't even know if my Players really want to play DnD. From now on, rather than playing DnD, we shall make bricks. Because making bricks is useful, and everybody wants to be useful.

This part convinced me that your post was not sarcastic at all, and that you really meant it.

Grynning
2009-07-20, 02:38 PM
You're right, I don't know that a player would rather have their character die due to a bad roll than continue playing. You have convinced me, I shall no longer fudge rolls to save PC's.

On that note, I also don't know that my PC's want CR-appropriate encounters. From now on, I shall ignore CR's when making encounters.
I also don't know that my PC's want Treasure or Experience from encounters. No more of that.
Come to think of it, I don't even know if my Players really want to play DnD. From now on, rather than playing DnD, we shall make bricks. Because making bricks is useful, and everybody wants to be useful.

I lol'ed. BRC wins one internets.

To the OP: I think you're misunderstanding how most people use fudged rolls. I've never heard of a group that actually ignored natural ones rolled in combat; those do add to the fun sometimes. And I really don't think that fudging the occasional roll in favor of drama and excitement makes the game "too easy." The challenges of RPG's are character building, teamwork, problem solving, etc...not appeasing the random number god.



I've rarely, if ever, heard players talk about how they want their DM to provide drama or story.
Um...then what is the DM providing? Random collections of monsters to kill? That's not role-playing, that's just a miniatures game.

truemane
2009-07-20, 02:47 PM
First off, in general, if the players know you're fudging then you aren't doing your job as a DM. Part of the social contract betweem player and DM is the consistent application of objective rules. It's assumed that the DM has veto power, but it's also assumed that the DM uses these powers as seldom as can be arranged.

If you tell your players: "I'm going to fudge the rolls in this combat," then you're telling players that their own rolls mean nothing (at least in terms of game mechanics). And their bonuses and penalties. And therefore their choices and strategies. And so we might as well toss the dice away and play free-form.

Players, in my experience, accpet that some manner of roll-fudging occurs but don't make a big deal of it so long as everything APPEARS fair. In the same we assume characters are using the bathroom but seldom make a bog deal of it.

So, yes, DM's fudge rolls. For all kinds of reasons. But the fudging should CREATE the kinds of situations you're saying it prevents. Drama. Memories. Stories.

Jerthanis
2009-07-20, 02:51 PM
I don't mind losing my character to an ignoble death... every other member of my group has explicitly stated that they view it as "humiliating", "Frustrating", "Upsetting", and it's explicitly a failure on the part of the DM if it happens. When I DM, do you think I fudge rolls if the PCs are in danger? Of course.

Instead of implying that most DMs are assuming their players are not okay with dying when they are, I'd suggest DMs simply ask how the players feel about character death, and play towards their preferences as best as possible.

I think "dramatic moments" fall under circumstance bonuses... if the DM thinks a plan is good, and likely to succeed, the DM can apply whatever bonuses he feels are appropriate... this is identical to "fudging" the result. If a PC tries something cool and rolls poorly, he shouldn't be punished moreover than if he had tried something mundane and rolled poorly, because that's just mean for no reason.

valadil
2009-07-20, 02:52 PM
First off, in general, if the players know you're fudging then you aren't doing your job as a DM. Part of the social contract betweem player and DM is the consistent application of objective rules. It's assumed that the DM has veto power, but it's also assumed that the DM uses these powers as seldom as can be arranged.


This is why I prefer fudge up instead of down. It's a lot more believable to tell the players the dragon is still standing when it's at -100 hp than to tell them it misses with all 6 attacks.

Indon
2009-07-20, 02:53 PM
First off, in general, if the players know you're fudging then you aren't doing your job as a DM. Part of the social contract betweem player and DM is the consistent application of objective rules. It's assumed that the DM has veto power, but it's also assumed that the DM uses these powers as seldom as can be arranged.
But a game in which the players are experienced DM's will extend that social contract to understanding of actions the DM takes to streamline the game.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-07-20, 02:58 PM
Again, I've often heard DMs talk about how they provide drama and story for the players.

Yes. I do. They've told me so.


I've rarely, if ever, heard players talk about how they want their DM to provide drama or story.

Obviously, from the above example, you haven't sat at every gaming table ever. Which is understandable...I haven't either. But I do know that I've personally only had a few groups that didn't want drama and a story.


I've often heard players talk about drama and story provided by the players' actions (including outstandingly stupid ones), and by randomness. Start a thread called "funniest player death ever", "luckiest roll" or "most stupid character", and another one called "best DM-created fantasy world" and see which one lasts longer.

Yeah...because the first are funny, and can be summed up within a few sentences at most. Can I summarize to a group of people I've never met (within a single forum post, no less) the real majesty of some of the campaign stories I've been in? Nope. I can possibly link them to the thread if the game was online, but I'd never deign to lessen those adventures by summarizing them in a few lines.


Sorry to say this DMs, but maybe your great fantasy epic isn't that great. Maybe you're called Game/Dungeon Master and not Fanfic Master for a reason.

Or maybe we're not called the Fanfic Master because...wait for it...MAYBE WE'RE NOT WRITING A FANFIC! I'm personally quite offended by this statement. You're telling all of us that we're not capable storytellers. I happen to know that I am, thank you very much. I think so, my players think so, and those people who have read my games and commented on them think so. Your opinion of my work (which you've never seen) doesn't mean anything to me when compared to theirs...take time to actually do some research on a bunch of people who can write a story, and then we'll talk. I'll happily listen: I like debate.



If you have this really great introductory paragraph about the dangers of your awesome world, and later on a TPK, which one do you think the players are going to remember? Which one's going to get across the idea of 'a dangerous fantasy world' better? Which one, in short, is effective 'story-telling'?

For me? The description combined with a present threat that doesn't have to kill them. My player's know it's a dangerous world...they've seen it and had its effects described to them. Many times they've been beaten, and many times my players barely escape with their lives. They see their friends and allies fall around them. But they're the heroes, and I cut them some slack. I'm not just a Game Master, and they don't want me to be...I'm a Game Master and a Story Teller. When was the last time you saw a good movie that killed all the main characters twenty minutes into the film, hmmm?

In conclusion: don't generalize. You're not always right. I have no objections to reading your experience, but if you try to pass it off as a universal truth I won't hesitate to point out that you're wrong. That said, I'm up for a civil discussion if you care to have one. Discussion is fun. :smallbiggrin:

Piedmon_Sama
2009-07-20, 02:58 PM
I don't mind losing my character to an ignoble death... every other member of my group has explicitly stated that they view it as "humiliating", "Frustrating", "Upsetting", and it's explicitly a failure on the part of the DM if it happens. When I DM, do you think I fudge rolls if the PCs are in danger? Of course.

Agh, I have exactly the same problem. :smallsigh:

Both my friends who play with me have been playing their character for 2 and 1 years, respectively, and at this point they'd throw a fit if they had an "unfitting" death. I still act like I'm not fudging any rolls, but yeah.... I think they know.

Personally, I like the element of pure danger in a game, not just when a storyteller thinks it's appropriate. I want Climb Checks where if you fall, you're screwed, and Swim checks that come down to one Swim Check and a Fortitude Save or certain death. I want the real possibility that something our characters can't handle is lurking in the shadows and ready to drag one of us off.

valadil
2009-07-20, 03:03 PM
In my experience it's very common for DMs to say that it's necessary to fudge rolls. It's also very rare for players to say it's necessary.

...


I've rarely, if ever, heard players talk about how they want their DM to provide drama or story.


When you DM more often you'll hear more feedback from the players about how much fudging or drama they want. I'm not about to tell you what your players will say on those matters, but it's possible you haven't heard this kind of commentary because you haven't DMed much so you haven't heard any feedback.

I still say that with fudge or without, both are valid but I prefer to fudge.

Indon
2009-07-20, 03:04 PM
Oh, Djinn reminded me:


Sorry to say this DMs, but maybe your great fantasy epic isn't that great. Maybe you're called Game/Dungeon Master and not Fanfic Master for a reason.

They're also called Storytellers.

BRC
2009-07-20, 03:12 PM
On another note, I Think Steve is mistaking "Fudging a roll" for "Not letting PC's die, ever." Fudging a roll to save a PC means not letting that specific PC die in that specific instance. With you're standard 4-person group, one person dieing can cripple things. And it's one thing to die as the Boss is going down, it's another to step into the dungeon, and get taken down by a Greataxe Crit to the face. It's not a matter of the player crying like a baby, it's a matter of them wanting to do more than sit there for two hours while their buddies struggle to kill some orcs because they lost their wizard. I can almost imagine the following scene
DM: Ooh, it looks like that kills you, here, I'll just have it knock you into negatives.
Player: okay.
Jolly steve: *Bursts through a wall* NO! THE DICE SAID YOU DIED. TAKE IT LIKE A MAN! DO NOT ACCEPT THIS CODDLING. IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE HEAT, GET OUT OF THE OVEN!

Or, for another situation . We are in a fight, the PC's are winning, but the fight has gone alot longer than the DM expected. The DM wants to finish the adventure this session, so he fudges in the PC's favor so they can win faster and move on.


Remember, the first rule of DnD is "Have Fun". What you are saying is that every game of DnD with every group will be more fun without fudging rolls. Unless the group in question consists of "Little Kids". Yes, some groups may prefer putting themselves completally at the whim of the dice, they may prefer a game where, if the dice say you die, you die and the party just has to make do. And for a group like that, a good DM will not fudge rolls.
However, some groups would rather beat the dragon due to a few fudged rolls, than die horribly by playing strictly "By the book". I know that if my DM fudges a roll, I've forgotten about it thirty seconds later. I don't think "Man, I know we beat the dragon, but it dosn't count because the DM fudged that saving throw"

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-20, 03:23 PM
When I DM, I don't fudge rolls--I play by the same rules the players do, and tell them up front that if they do something stupid or if the dice come up badly I'm not going to change it. My players appreciate knowing this, and accept it just fine.

When one of my players DMs, he sometimes fudges rolls--He prefers drama and heroism over strict rules adherence, and tells us up front that if we do something dramatic or heroic, he might change a bad roll (as long as it wasn't a stupid idea). While playing, we appreciate knowing this, and accept it just fine.

Why is one of these approaches not as valid as the other?

My thoughts exactly.

There is no "One True Way" to do things; that goes for the vast majority of creativity as well; but roleplaying in particular.

*edit*

Also a big +1 to Djinn and Tonic.

GoatToucher
2009-07-20, 03:32 PM
"I've rarely, if ever, heard players talk about how they want their DM to provide drama or story. "

What then do the players want the dungeon master to provide?

Kylarra
2009-07-20, 03:34 PM
"I've rarely, if ever, heard players talk about how they want their DM to provide drama or story. "

What then do the players want the dungeon master to provide?

Loots and exp.




:smalltongue:

Curmudgeon
2009-07-20, 03:36 PM
I like honesty. As DM I roll the dice right out in front of everyone. The players see if the enemies are doing well or poorly, and while they may not know what modifiers those enemies have, they can certainly tell when a 1 or 20 shows up.

Halaster
2009-07-20, 03:40 PM
Well, I'm a little torn on the whole issue, because I'm torn between simulation and storytelling. What Jolly Steve advocates here is basically full-on simulation. The dice get to say what happens, the GM has no input. A computer game would run just the same in the instant in question. That has a certain appeal - the one with the encounter tables and random rumor lists - and I occasionally dream about a campaign evolving randomly from a consistent set of meta-rules. In the end though, I usually wind up more satisfied with producing a well thought-out story and running that. It's also a lot less work, because, what Steve omits is this: maybe the players don't want the GM to provide story and drama, but then something else has to do that. So you need die rolls simulating all the politics, monster migrations and rises-of-evil that power the game. Now think about the books you could fill with that....

So, well, maybe players aren't looking for drama and story, and maybe they wouldn't mind being killed by chance. But I enjoy providing drama and story, and I prefer to decide myself if and when my PCs die. And, frankly, it's my game, I play it the way I want to, and if the players don't complain, I'll assume they're fine with it.

That said, it doesn't always need a die fudge. Just let them screw up, then save their sorry behinds in-story.

Jarawara
2009-07-20, 03:44 PM
Jolly Steve:

I was going to quote your post, and give a line-by-line refutation, including my own experiences of 29 years of DMing (of which has shown me that some players *DO* want you to fudge to avoid meaningless deaths, and that some players *DO* want story, and that some DM's *ARE* storytellers.)

But everyone else got to the thread before I did, and quite frankly their responses are far better than mine could be. I'll quote the one I liked the best, as it pretty much sums up the whole issue.


When I DM, I don't fudge rolls--I play by the same rules the players do, and tell them up front that if they do something stupid or if the dice come up badly I'm not going to change it. My players appreciate knowing this, and accept it just fine.

When one of my players DMs, he sometimes fudges rolls--He prefers drama and heroism over strict rules adherence, and tells us up front that if we do something dramatic or heroic, he might change a bad roll (as long as it wasn't a stupid idea). While playing, we appreciate knowing this, and accept it just fine.

Why is one of these approaches not as valid as the other?

That really is a perfect response, in a nutshell. Like I've said in other threads, it's all D&D. We all play differently, some of us fudge, some of us don't. Some of us are storytellers, some of us are roleplayers, some of us just let the dice create the story, some of us don't bother with that at all and just play hack and slash.

Somebody's signature line comes to mind right now: "There are roleplayers, and there are roll-players. The ROLEplayers are the real gamers."

Nice quote. And utterly, completely, totally INCORRECT. People who game, are gamers. Roleplaying, story, fudge or no fudge... irrelevant. We all are gamers, and to each their own.

So in conclusion, the only reason I'm debating you is that you seem to imply that we should only be doing it your way. You are wrong. But I do admit there is merit in your way. Enjoy your game, I'm sure your gamer group will too. I will enjoy my way.

(Personally, I like walnuts in my fudge.) (I don't know why I wrote that, it just came unbidden.)

*~*~*

Edited, even though I haven't hit the 'Post' button quite yet...

In defense of Jolly Steve, I should point out an interesting memory I just had.

In 29 years of playing and DMing, I have run quite a few campaigns, seen story arcs run for years, characters who still are active after decades of play, and adventures I've played to the far reaches of the world (well, several different worlds, different DM's).

And yet, of all those experiences, there are three gaming sessions that stand out, of dozens of campaigns and hundreds of sessions, three alone that pop to mind before all others.

I died, in all three of those sessions.

Actually, I've died many more times than that, but what makes them particularly memorable is that it was a TPK in two of the three sessions (I was the last man standing in each, before finally succumbing to injuries), and in the third, I was able to bring every single character I had ever had in that entire campaign world, and LOST EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, and of the total party size of over 80 PC's and NPC's, of which only FIVE survived.

Three gamesessions, three total wipeouts. Two of them didn't matter, the campaign was either so early that we just restarted, or was just random play - but the 75+ kill session totally wrecked the flow of the game and forced the DM to come up with an entirely different grand finale. (No, we didn't lose 75 people in the grand finale.... we lost it in some random time filler the gamesession just before the grand finale! HA!!!)

Two TPK's and a total trainwreck of a grand finale would seem like a disaster, and losing EVERYONE I'd ever played was also a bummer... but 20 years later it still is the most memorable game session I've ever played in.

I think Jolly Steve understands the weird enjoyment one can have from experiencing such... 'occurances'. (I had trouble coming up with the right word there. 'Disasters?' 'Tragedies?' 'Dark Comedies?' Or how about 'Exhilarating, Bone-Chilling, Nerve-Wracking moments of Pure Awesome?')

TPK's can wreck a game. Your players probably don't want to lose their characters. Losing a character to just a random die roll is even worse. But if it occasionally occurs, if danger sometimes overtakes you, if tragedy sometimes strikes... if outright disaster totally TPK's the party and the campaign... the players might still be talking about it with wistful eyes and excitement in their voice, unto their old age decades from now.

I mean... wouldn't that be a tale to remember!

Jarawara
2009-07-20, 03:50 PM
OK, I think PairO'Dice-Lost has just become the most quoted poster in recent history, all for his one single post. We should get an internet meme going and post his quote all over the web, till in chain letter fashion it starts getting posted back to us. :smallcool:

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-20, 04:08 PM
OK, I think PairO'Dice-Lost has just become the most quoted poster in recent history, all for his one single post. We should get an internet meme going and post his quote all over the web, till in chain letter fashion it starts getting posted back to us. :smallcool:

Thanks...I think? :smallwink:

Jarawara
2009-07-20, 04:21 PM
Thanks...I think? :smallwink:

You're welcome, I'm sure! :smallbiggrin:

FlawedParadigm
2009-07-20, 04:24 PM
Jolly Steve seems to have evacuated the thread. I don't think the thread went quite the way he wanted it to. That's one of those harsh lessons of the internet; other people think differently than you.

(Also, in Steve's defence, you're picking this fight in the wrong forum - the grand majority of posters here either are here because of or came here because of OotS...an exercise in story-telling. If you tried this on a more hardcore-gaming-oriented forum, things might look more as you want them to.)

InkEyes
2009-07-20, 04:34 PM
I've had characters die a few times now in my games. The deaths are almost always during random fights midway through a dungeon or whatever. It's usually followed by an extended break in the game for the pcs to discuss what should be done with their fallen ally. Either the dead pc's player has to sit out of the game for an hour or two to make a new character while I find some way to incorporate them into the game, or the party has to spend time resurrecting the character/traveling to someone who they can beg a res off of.

What I'm saying is, random character deaths can be a huge buzz kill, even if the player in question doesn't mind the death. It can break the flow of the session and force one of your friends to sit out of it for a large chunk of time. This is a game: you're running a series of imaginary encounters for a circle of friends to interact with; if you or a friend you're running the game for is not having fun, then what's the point? Some people just don't enjoy experiencing the random and anonymous death of something they've been building a personality and history for over an extended period of time.

Killer Angel
2009-07-20, 04:36 PM
In my experience it's very common for DMs to say that it's necessary to fudge rolls. It's also very rare for players to say it's necessary.

Of course players might think it but not say it. But it also raises the possibility that DMs have the wrong idea about what players want.


See this way. I (as a Player), once faced a fight with a BBEG.
We wipe the floor with him, and not for our superior tactic, but because our DM overestimate the Bbeg.
We finished him in a fight that should have been on a razor's edge, and we were full of hp and resources.
I don't even remember the details, 'cause it was a boring fight.
If the DM had fudge the dice and raised the hp of our enemy, the fight would have been more satisfactory.

Once (as a DM), I fudge a fight for this reason, giving the BBEG two "free" rounds: it was a memorably fight.
In the final of this "free round", I scored a crit, but i decide that the "confirm" was failed: if i'm fudging in favor of the bbeg, it's not fair if I kill someone...

Jolly Steve
2009-07-20, 04:39 PM
Well, maybe you're right.

BRC
2009-07-20, 04:42 PM
Well, maybe you're right.
...wow, somebody just admitted they were wrong on the internet... I'm both shocked and relieved for the human condition. When faced with overwhelming opposition, most people simply fade away and stop posting. They almost never acknowledge that their opinion has been changed.

Sir, I salute you.

FlawedParadigm
2009-07-20, 05:14 PM
Wait, are we sure that was Jolly Steve posting there, and not someone else using his name, like a little brother or something? :smalltongue:

Seriously, congratulations on accepting others' points of view as potentially valid (at least for their own circumstances).

Ninetail
2009-07-20, 05:19 PM
My contention is that DMs tend to vastly over-rate the necessity/fun of fudging rolls.

In case it's relevant: I play regularly, have never DMd live ...

Yes, it's relevant.

Run a face-to-face game for a couple of years, and you'll find that you get more player feedback on such matters. You also get to see just what a disruption to a game a random death mid-adventure can be. In play-by-post, the player can come up with a new character before more than a couple of posts have been added (depending on the game speed, of course); in face-to-face, that player is generally sitting out of the action for at least an hour or two.

More, if you're a story-focused GM who calls for detailed histories. (Story, by the way, isn't generated by the GM. It's the GM and the players working together interatively. This, primarily, is what separates it from fanfic.)

Lots of people do play face-to-face games where life is cheap and characters are generated in maybe 15 minutes. OD&D was like that. It can be a fun way to play, as long as everyone knows the score going in.

Not the only way to play, though.

Mystic Muse
2009-07-20, 05:28 PM
Jolly steve I salute you for admitting you may have been wrong. YAY! you aren't like Miko!:smallbiggrin: in all seriousness not many people would admit they were wrong no matter what evidence has been thrown in their face.

you've helped me regain a little bit of faith in humanity.

Deepblue706
2009-07-20, 05:34 PM
DMs need to know what the players want. But, their wants might adapt to the story. If the plot is so specific that it requires unique PCs and cannot bend to something such as death of one, then the players will not want to die. If they're given reason not to care so much, they may not.

I believe making such restrictive plots tend to make the game more linear, which to me, makes D&D less enjoyable. I play for the aspect of Freedom, which includes the Freedom to Fail. If I cannot fail becaue the story requires my success, the gameplay is simply too linear for my tastes (as far as D&D goes).

But, I don't think it's wrong to enjoy something else. Although, I'd probably not play D&D if I wanted a game to give me special treatment. In fact, at that point, I would probably not play a game. So, I sympathize for this guy.

EmperorSarda
2009-07-20, 05:59 PM
As a player, here are some of my thoughts. I've actually been playing Exalted for a bit as the friends I game with are playing that. There is more story telling in that definitely. So let me tell you of two deaths that occurred and the different responses to it.

The circle was in Chiascuro, the Zeniff of the party decided to use his massive persuasion skills and started building up a cult following. Also, seeing a molten glass lake in the city from 1st age towers that melted down, we decided to use that to build a monument to the Unconquered Sun. My character was a Night caste, gaining influence in the thieves guild to take it over and expand its influence and had some good background. Anyways, we find out a massive 1000 person army is coming after us, and we discover that the leader is a Fire Dragon Blood that has the artifact 4 or 5 Immaculate Dragon Armor, and a level 5 Solar killing object.

My Night, being the sneaky one, goes by night to the army, and destroys their food supply and kills one of the commanders. We also discover that someone who provided us with Orichalcum were working against our backs and are actually Sidreals.

So one of the Sidreals basically messes with the demense where we were building the monument, causing it to explode. Before it does, the Zeniff sees the Sidreal disappear and gathers his priests together and he does a massively epic prayer to the gods to prevent the demense from exploding and destroying the city. His prayer, thought having over 20 successes from die rolls, fails and his character dies. It was an epic way to die, especially as the player described what his Zeniff did with every action. Next session however, the GM discovered she had read the rules wrong for exploding demenses and allowed the guy playing the zeniff to reroll again, and survived.

If he didn't, that would have been ok, but his survival made it more epic, which was the fun part, because of the roll playing.

Now flash forward to the battle with the army. We had taken care of the other units, and it was between us and Sparky, the massive Fire DB. Now, my Night caste didn't know too many attack charms, but decided to try using a thrown excellency to hit the DB. I missed. I honestly should have done something else, cause the DB attacked my character next. Because of the massive spear and massive stats, my Night was hit and struck with 20 dice of damage. A one shot kill. An attack that could have been avoided if I hadn't have used the thrown excellency charm and waited. If I had waited, I could have used the Seven Shadow Evasion to avoid being hit. Honestly, it was a regrettable death. Not something I really enjoy. But my character died.

So it depends on the death. If I had charged up and did something epic to kill the fire DB, that would have been different. But because the GM didn't fudge the rolls to get me into incapacitated or negative levels, it left a hollow feeling concerning the character death.

So I think story telling and epicness take precedence over die rolls.

skeeter_dan
2009-07-20, 06:01 PM
As a DM, I only fudge rolls if I've screwed up somehow. If I screwed up by making what was supposed to be a major threat to the PCs far too weak, I'll fudge the occasional roll in the bad guy's direction to make the fight a little more interesting. If a minor sidequest suddenly turns into a potential TPK, I'll fudge in the PC's favor. For the most part, I avoid fudging; my players are pretty accepting of character deaths, though they are generally pretty rare to begin with.

In the upcoming campaign that I'm planning, however, my players have been making their PCs for the last couple months, planning out interesting and intricate backstories that fit into the campaign world. I haven't written out a linear plot, but instead have general story arcs in mind for each character using input from each player. They're designed to be flexible as the game continues, but it's all planned to weave together into a conclusion that provides an interesting climax and conclusion for each character. In this situation, a random crit with a heavy pick in an inconsequential battle would derail a lot of hard work on both my part and the player's part. I would feel no shame in fudging that roll. At an interesting moment in a battle with their nemesis? I'm not fudging a thing. Even if it means they kill the BBEG earlier in the story than I expected or they die earlier than expected.

I want deaths to be interesting and dramatic. The last thing a death should be is anticlimactic.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-20, 06:02 PM
You know if you're really good, you fudge before rolling the die...

Raum
2009-07-20, 06:37 PM
My contention is that DMs tend to vastly over-rate the necessity/fun of fudging rolls.I agree with you. Fudging takes the element of chance out of the game. Worse, it's a lie. Ethically questionable at best unless explicitly allowed by the players. However I disagree with your reasoning / solutions.

The simplest solution is simply "Don't ask for rolls unless both success and failure are interesting." Essentially what Hamster said. But let's move on and look at the reasons you give for fudging:

i) the players get upset if they die for no reason. It's frustrating and random. It's not fun.Ok. In many games I'd agree. So don't put PCs in a situation where unexpected death is likely! Or use Fate / Luck / Karma / Benny points to allow the players to choose to avoid fates they dislike. Or both. Or find some other solution..even explicitly state you'll fudge to avoid PC death. After all, DMs who fudge simply to avoid a random death are probably making up for poor choices - either theirs or the players.


ii) you have a great dramatic moment coming up, then it doesn't happen
because someone rolls a 1. That sucks.This is simply a choice the group needs to make as a group. Is story drama or game chance more important? And if the group prefers the DM's set drama, enjoy! Some will.

MartinHarper
2009-07-20, 07:21 PM
I don't mind losing my character to an ignoble death... every other member of my group has explicitly stated that they view it as "humiliating", "Frustrating", "Upsetting"

In that situation, I would prefer to arrange things so that the PCs are not in danger of death, rather than making dice rolls that might kill them, and then fudging those rolls. Without wishing to spark an edition war, I chose to DM with 4e partly because it tends to be harder to accidentally kill players.

Milskidasith
2009-07-20, 07:21 PM
About the "poor choices" thing: it isn't necessarily a poor choice that leads to death. At level 1, your fighter could die to a level 1 orc who crits; that isn't exactly the kind of thing that you could blame the players tactics or the DMs choice of monster on.

Knaight
2009-07-20, 07:32 PM
Sounds like a poor choice of system then. Its a known risk playing D&D, if they don't want that to happen then there are other games where you won't just get killed instantly and randomly, or there are ways to prevent that. Fate/Luck/Karma/Benny points to quote Raum. Or systems where you can't just be killed, you have to be taken out of the battle, then someone has to finish you off, or one attack isn't going to kill you on its own when fighting something of equivalent skill. There are systems that meet the design goal "no random death" and there are systems that meet the design goal "random death". If you want one either find a system that fits it or modify one until it does. In D&D this is easy, just add Fate/Luck/Karma/Benny points.

Raum
2009-07-20, 07:34 PM
About the "poor choices" thing: it isn't necessarily a poor choice that leads to death. At level 1, your fighter could die to a level 1 orc who crits; that isn't exactly the kind of thing that you could blame the players tactics or the DMs choice of monster on.If a DM is trying to keep the PCs alive, putting them up against opponents with a significant chance of killing them is a poor choice. So whether said orc crits and kills in one hit or simply takes two hits to kill, it's probably too powerful for the group - if you're trying to avoid risk of death.

Matthew
2009-07-20, 07:41 PM
I am not sure about this; players should be somewhat upset when their character dies, same as when they lose at any game. It is something to avoid, but if you can avoid it as much by playing badly as playing well there seems hardly any point to playing at all. Some players will profess aversion to character death, but grow bored without the risk. It is hard to judge, and to some extent you have to foster a group approach one way or the other.

Knaight
2009-07-20, 07:45 PM
Yeah, but there is a difference between getting killed by a lucky crit when going for a low death game, and getting killed because you did something stupid. If you threaten a merchant in a city with a big guard force then leave, getting killed or arrested when the guards show up asking about the merchant is your fault. A poor decision on the part of the players should get one killed, and then there should be a certain chance of dying in general. What that chance is, and how much must be done to achieve it vary per group, as does the desired impact for stupidity. Picking a game that doesn't fit with the groups preferences on this position is a mistake, and thus mistakes have been made.

Thrawn183
2009-07-20, 08:19 PM
Well, almost everybody I know finds character death to be exciting. There's only one exception to this, and while he doesn't like it even if his mount dies, you should see him flip out when his character does.

This...is why I associate an inability to accept character death with gross immaturity. I find the correlation to be undeniable.

Knaight
2009-07-20, 08:44 PM
There is acceptance of character death, but there is also the simulationism and narratavism divide. I for one would rather have both my characters and major NPCs die doing something important. Dying during random encounter number 23 isn't fun. Granted neither is random encounter number 23, but that is beside the point.

There are exceptions obviously, dying in Paranoia is always fun(and believing otherwise is treason). But in general those that tend towards narrativism prefer to die in major events. Taking down a major opponent with you, buying time for your allies to flee, defiant last stands, dying upon the delivery of an important message, all those are fun. Random encounter 32 isn't so much.

Forbiddenwar
2009-07-20, 09:07 PM
Great comments from many perspectives.
I have been DMing in face to face games for 10 years, and it seems what most of us is saying is this:

Fudging rolls is a tool.
It's a tool a DM uses to enhance the gaming experience, like graph paper, flow charts for events, maps of cities, the monster manual, encounter tables, etc
As a tool is can be used well. Good examples of this have already been mentioned: making the story or encounter more interesting by boosting hit points, mentally adding a +5 circumstance to a creature's bull rush, etc

The tool can also be used poorly: Examples of this have also been stated in this thread, when fudging rolls negates a PC decision or hurts a dramatic unexpected twist to the story(like a character's death).

The fudging rolls tool is more applicable in some gaming groups and situations and less in other gaming groups and situations. A good DM plays to the group he is playing with and knows when to use this tool and when not too.

Thurbane
2009-07-20, 10:31 PM
In the "old days" (1E/2E) we always played with the DM rolling all dice behind the screen. We accepted that the DM would fudge, and we were all fine with it.

In my current group (3.5), we all prefer that rolls are in the open, and we live and die by the consequences. It makes for a much more exhilerating game. Sure, it blows to be killed by a series of bad rolls, or a crit from a x3 or x4 weapon, but all in all, we now prefer an open style of play to any fudging. We lost our main tank (Dwarf Fighter 11) at last night's game to a Harm spell and a failed save.

Saph
2009-07-20, 10:40 PM
Actually, I'm kind of on Steve's side on this one.

I think it was a Paranoia rulebook which told GMs "If you're not willing to accept whatever the dice come up with, don't roll them in the first place". It's good advice. If you don't want the PCs to die, don't put them at risk.

In D&D, I go with the ruthless approach to character death. If the dice say you die, you die. If you want to keep playing the character, I'll find a way to let you do so (resurrection magic exists for a reason). But you're never going to have plot armour, so you just have to accept the risk.

That said, just to turn things around completely . . .

I ran a campaign once where the PCs couldn't die. It was a self-game, and the PCs were each playing themselves, transported to another world. And I made the decision right from the start (though without telling them) that no matter what they did, I wasn't going to allow them to get killed.

However, there are two big 'buts' to this:

The players were used to my D&D style, where I was quite happy to kill off characters left, right, and centre. They didn't know that I'd put up the safety net, so they were still scared when it looked like they were about to be killed.
The same rule applied to their enemies. They could defeat them, but they couldn't actually kill them.

That's how I generally run things: level playing field. I'm happy to use whatever baseline rules the players want, but those rules always apply both ways. If you can kill your enemies, your enemies can kill you. If you can't kill your enemies, your enemies can't kill you either. It's like deciding whether or not to play on a PvP server in an MMORPG.

But the one thing you aren't allowed is for your character to kill opponents, but for his opponents not to be able to kill him. I've no interest in running that sort of game.

- Saph

Thrawn183
2009-07-20, 10:49 PM
I don't understand complaints about getting killed in a really anti-climactic manner once you manage to get a few levels under your belt. I mean, sure, getting killed by a crit from a random orc is pretty lame.

A Tyrannosaurus is a CR 8. I remember how intense Jurassic Park was the first time I watched it. The only reason I can think of an encounter with a Tyrannosaurus, or another foe of equal threat, being boring and mundane is if you're really really high level (like 15, where a tyrannosaurus is no threat), or the DM has failed to make things interesting.

This is why I agree with the position that DM's fudge to frequently.

Mystic Muse
2009-07-20, 10:52 PM
I actually don't plan on fudging once my players can use the raise dead ritual. after that if they don't get a bunch of those it's their fault.

oh and they will because if you die and don't come back three times in this campaign you can't come back.:smallamused:

Sliver
2009-07-20, 11:35 PM
In soviet russia, the rolls fudge you!

Oracle_Hunter
2009-07-21, 12:06 AM
I think it was a Paranoia rulebook which told GMs "If you're not willing to accept whatever the dice come up with, don't roll them in the first place". It's good advice. If you don't want the PCs to die, don't put them at risk.
QFT

...I really need to get in a game of Paranoia sometime.

Anyhoo, this is pretty much it - if you don't want characters being killed off by lucky crits, then don't include critical hits in your game. Fudging dice in D&D is a slippery slope (yes, even back in TSR D&D); once you've decided to save your PCs by fudging, you've basically said "they will only die when I decide it is their time." I used to do some serious fudging back in the day (and I still do, on occasion) but it's a bad habit I'm trying to break.

It's all about setting expectations and sticking with them, really - if the system is designed to permit random death, then it should be expected; conversely, if the system gives the Players great control over how and why they die, they shouldn't expect to die at random. This is where I'll disagree with Saph - hiding the ball when it comes to expectations is more trouble than it's worth.

Shadowbane
2009-07-21, 12:27 AM
If a bad roll is going to kill my friend's evening, you better believe I'm going to fudge it in his direction. If the dragon crits and kills him when he's at full health, you had better believe the dragon will suddenly not crit.

I do this because it's one thing if the dragon crits and we play often. But if we're playing once a month, and my friend is going to spend the rest of our meeting character building if he gets slaughtered, uh, I'm not going to let that dragon kill him in one shot.

My PCs can and will die. But the game is for the enjoyment of my players.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-07-21, 12:27 AM
As a player, if I know the DM fudges rolls to save players, I have to assume he fudges rolls to save his big bads. Even if no suspense was lost by my character's effective invincibility, I'd still prefer a fair-dice DM just so the NPCs I want dead don't get plot armor either.

Shadowbane
2009-07-21, 12:33 AM
@above: I don't think you do. A Big Bad is different from a player.

elliott20
2009-07-21, 01:54 AM
{Scrubbed}

Worira
2009-07-21, 02:00 AM
{Scrubbed} He admitted to being, at least possibly, wrong.

Killer Angel
2009-07-21, 02:11 AM
{Scrubbed}

The discussion is interesting: fudgin rolls is an argument very faceted, and there are valid opinions from both sides.
{Scrubbed} I always like to remember the forum rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1).

elliott20
2009-07-21, 02:34 AM
{Scrubbed}
In terms of fudging, I think it depends entirely upon the purpose. and it really depends on how fudging changes the game. and then there's HOW you go about fudging a roll.

for example, say a PC wizard is trying to disable a device that can destroy the world. Failure here pretty much ends the game for you. the player rolls up a 1. If you go by your own rules, the world now must end, and the campaign is a monumental failure. Not exactly fun for the most players, if you ask me.

However, I can also understand that once you make a practice of fudging, you now put all of the player's accomplishments and risks they've taken into question. Were they really the great heroes who risked life and limb to save the world, or were you just being too kind and handing it to them on a silver platter? The crux here is not the question of to fudge or not to fudge, but it's whether or not you acknowledge the roll that is being made.

A fudged roll that completely ignores the results pretty much says, "I ignore that roll", which then calls into question of all that has transpired before, especially if done often enough. But fudging, when done in the context of simply scaling back a little to give the players a break, but STILL acknowledges that they made a bad roll? Now that to me is good fudge.

Maybe the wizard in question, instead of having the world end, the world ends... in a fashion... but not in a way that pretty much ends the game. (i.e. FF6, world of ruins style)

fudging, I dare say, is as much of an art as it is about putting together an appropriate encounter, and probably as much skill as putting together encounters for players that don't make the players feel like the GM is constantly just coddling them or ruining them.

Killer Angel
2009-07-21, 03:34 AM
well, it's possible that I'm just being paranoid, and Jolly Stevens is just reading and absorbing and actually believed he could be wrong. Maybe. but my gut tells me he's just trolling.


Well, at least his OP was well developed...


but alright, you guys are right. the discussion itself is a valid topic. So I'll weigh in too.


:smallbiggrin:


In terms of fudging, I think it depends entirely upon the purpose. and it really depends on how fudging changes the game. and then there's HOW you go about fudging a roll.


Agree.
The thing is: the DM job is to render the game entertaining. The players should have fun. It's what you intend for "fun" that matters.

For example, I'm not sure that fudgin to avoid an unlucky pc death is so good.
Once I was killed in the first combat round, by the battleaxe of a frost giant with a lucky crit. I was slighty wounded previously, and I dropped to -12.
I was really pissed (it was a random encounter), but I'm glad the DM didn't fudge anything: D&D world is a dangerous place, and some monsters are dangerous also for the possibility of an high crit.
(Side note: we clearly saw on the DM face that he would have fudge the roll, if he only could... his face's expression was very funny).

It depends not only on the players, but also on the moment.

As a DM, I played a fight with a Yugoloth against the group, in one of the climax of a long adventure.
2 pc dead, 2 incapacitated, only 1 active, with few hp; the Yugoloth had 1 hp remaining: the pc failed the SR for 1... they didn't knew the yugoloth SR, so i declare the successful hit.
All my players jumped exalted on their chairs.
I'll never regret to have fudged that one.

Talic
2009-07-21, 03:50 AM
@OP:

It's basic psych. Everyone wants to feel special. They all want the drama, the risk, the possibility of dying.

But they don't want to die. That sucks.

So when you have that great cliche story, and assume people want it as written, I submit to you this:

Most people don't know what they want.

This is true in many aspects of life. Whether it's games, romance, or what-have-you, expect that if you ask a question about the desires of another, and the subject is more complex than their favorite flavor of ice cream, it's pretty safe to assume that they don't know. They just think they do.

To find out what people want? Observe them. People want what they gravitate to.

Yes, it's cynical. But basics is? In epic fantasy? People generally like being the A-Team. They like going into the situation that nobody can solve, and solving it. Compare that story versus:

"You're going into the lair of the kobold warband. It seems that every season, about this time, they start raiding the caravans, and have to be beaten back into their holes. Traditionally, the farmers just round up a posse, and flush them out themselves, but with the deepening drought, they can't spare the commoners to go scare the runts this year."

Real epic there. It sounds like the equivalent of taking out the garbage and doing the dishes. People get chores every day in real life.

In fantasy? Let them fantasize. Let them shine. Give them drama, action... If you fudge a few rolls here and there to provide them with that? No big.

As for the thread thing? Around every table? There's 4 players and 1 DM. As campaign world creating is pretty intense, you can expect a DM to have 1 or 2 in years and years of running.

Conversely, each of those four players can go through dozens of sheets. So there's more Characters than campaign worlds.

That said, the background for most characters being epic, most characters having a shining moment?

A DM setting the stage.

elliott20
2009-07-21, 04:07 AM
yes I am fully aware of the irony in my post. :smalltongue:

I always felt that fudging also has much to do with the system too. In games like Fate, fudging is an actual BUILT IN mechanic, which means that at some level, you're expecting it to happen.

Clearly, as you can see, it's not just about your general approach, but also about your players too.

Some games I've ran were about making the players AWESOME. In those games, fudging is pretty much a guaranteed thing. Even if the player's fail, they fail in a way that allows them to comeback.

In D&D, where the game has a certain level of grittiness built into the system, fudging becomes a bit trickier and requires a light touch. The same in systems like Burning Wheel, where fudging could probably ruin the game. And in systems like this, you fudge only if you KNOW what can increase your player's enjoyment.

I remember a long way back I was running an OA game, and the players at level 3 ran into a girallion (I think it's a CR 5 encounter). A tough fight, to be sure. But I didn't realize how deadly that encounter would be. First round, one of my players had just built her new samurai character, with a ton of interesting character potential and all that. First round, girallion charges in and punches twice, landing both hits. This also means that the creature gets a free "rend" attempt. at level 3, nothing can survive that. She ended up getting taken down to -17 in one round.

At this point I realized that I had totally ****ed this one up. At this point, I just came out to player and said, "look, I didn't realize how deadly this would have been, so how do you want to handle this?"

luckily, she was a good sport about it and said that she's cool with just letting the character die. The rest of the party, of course, didn't like that. They wanted to see her character do stuff with them and didn't like how deadly this encounter was.

so at their request, we came to a compromise. Instead of having her character ripped into two, her character was left alive, but lost the use of one arm, and basically couldn't get that arm back until she scored a high level healing spell. (Something that was quite rare in the game)

This actually led to her changing her character concept from cool samurai archetype to some kind of "one armed swordsman" character, which was actually really awesome.

Though, I'm not sure this is really fudging, but I think the spirit is the same.

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-21, 04:10 AM
General Rule:

Narrative Game ----> Fudge to Obtain a Scene

Sandbox ----> Take What You Roll

Exceptions Examples: Avoid Wipe, Supervillain Ovestimated.

Deadmeat.GW
2009-07-21, 05:14 AM
I think it depends on the situation...

We have had a our DM in LotFR fudge rolls because he gets...incredibly spawney sometimes.

Like getting over 150 damage on a roll of 5 ten-sided dice of which he keeps 3...
Don't you just love exploding dice :)?

All the players get somewhat exasperated when he goes on his lucky streaks because no matter what we do his rolls tend to beat us (and this is with the guy showing his dice rolls) but sometimes it is very funny to watch.

He does not hold back all the time so characters die but he does try and not kill characters off all the time because he is quite aware that one-shotting players characters when facing random mooks 5 times in a row is really boring since that player would end up writing characters for most of the games instead of playing.

And yes, I have been one-shotted technically 5 attacks in a row and he fudged it and said I was knocked flying out of a window and landed somewhere in heap unconscious, had a building collapse on me and had to dig myself out, had all my limbs shattered (good thing one of the guys can use healing spells so I can get back up without too much trouble) by a peasant with a club doing enough damage to kill the BBEG in one shot because the peasant missed the bad guy and hit me instead...(oops!), got pincushioned by enough arrows that I would pass for sieve quite easily (this while in cover and facing people who need to roll at least 2 tens on the dice while rolling 4 dice...) when I am driven enough to normally ignore anything short of instantly being knocked unconscious or death and each arrow did enough damage to kill me outright and the barn I was hiding behind...(when your plebs do enough damage to make Hida Kisada have to pick up his dice and roll very well to avoid taking damage you know they are doing well...) or the latest where he suddenly found out that the attack would kill me and kill the fellow player standing behind me in one shot..just because he rolled ridiculously on damage.

This guy has a great feel for story telling but his dice rolling is a serious issue when there is a system with exploding dice for skill checks and damage so he tends to fudge things that feel over the top or detract from the story line.

Last game he would have done a TPK because every single one of his attacks hit and every single hit would do enough to kill even the toughest guy in the party outright. He did end up killing one of the players as it was appropriate and the guy had not lost a character already.

When your DM ends up doing rolls which are beating 1 in a 100 odds on every single roll he almost has to fudge things because lets be honest doing a TPK because he rolled stupidly high and we did not roll ridiculously high is a bit of a downer.
I did not even get to act against the big bad, his initiative was so high I did not get an action before being chopped down and since initiative in this game keeps increasing if you are not getting hit he keeps going before anybody else and we were stuck fighting 30 mooks (which we were handling ok-ish since those we were killing but even then those mooks did massive amounts of damage and ate up all of our healing spells, when you take 30+ damage from a thrown rock, a 1keep 1 damage attack, on your healer you know you are in trouble) we could not mug the big bad.

Maroon
2009-07-21, 05:35 AM
What then do the players want the dungeon master to provide?
A sandbox. If I wanted railroaded drama, I'd go watch a train wreck. Excitement around every corner! Unknown frontiers! Intriguing conflicts! Limitless adventure! The rules are there to make the referee's life easier. Players can see a story where there isn't one.

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-21, 05:40 AM
Players can see a story where there isn't one.

True. You said a great thing.

Talic
2009-07-21, 05:55 AM
A sandbox. If I wanted railroaded drama, I'd go watch a train wreck. Excitement around every corner! Unknown frontiers! Intriguing conflicts! Limitless adventure! The rules are there to make the referee's life easier. Players can see a story where there isn't one.

-1.

This is not a "one extreme" or "other extreme" situation.

It's not either
"adhere to the glorious RAW at all times, and shun all fudging"
or
"yippee! No rules, we only roll because it makes us happy!"

There is room for bending the rules. This is especially useful in games where there are characters of differing levels of optimization, or in games where the DM dramatically overestimated party capabilities.

Should it be risk free? No.

Should a DM screwup cause a TPK? No.

Should a player who plays monks because he likes them suffer for being at the table with a devotee of the Tippyverse? No.

At the end of the day, it's about fun. The rules serve the fun, not the other way around.

It's like the matrix. Some rules can be bent. Others, broken.
Do you really think that's air you're breathing?

Saph
2009-07-21, 08:02 AM
So when you have that great cliche story, and assume people want it as written, I submit to you this:

Most people don't know what they want.

To find out what people want? Observe them. People want what they gravitate to.

I think this is basically true. And in my experience, players gravitate to dangerous games more than they gravitate to easy ones.

I've known many DMs. Looking back on them, though, I can pick out three who were especially good and especially popular. Other DMs weren't bad, but these were the ones whose campaigns got planned for obsessively and talked about even a year or more after they'd stopped running them.

And they all killed PCs ruthlessly. Up to the level of one PC per session, even.

So based on my observations, players like danger.

- Saph

Tiki Snakes
2009-07-21, 08:10 AM
The dice are not the boss of me. I take their decisions under advisement.

That said, I largely roll up front. Being as I DM 4th edition, it's harder to completely kill a player you don't want to completely kill. I routinely drop players for a quick nap. If it looks a problem, i tend to just remind the others that they should probably make a heal check or something, because X is still making Death Saving Throws, yeah?

I take it further, actually, and tend to make the players roll their own damage. You don't get fairer than that. Sadistic as it is. ^_^

The one time fudging was required was in KOTS's most infamous encounter, Irontooth. I didn't need to fudge much, just cancelled a crit. I'd already negated some of the 'game ends' problem by simply having the Kobolds be attempting to capture the pc's, to coerce them into helping them get out from under Irontooth's thumb.
It's how I tend to do my 'fudging'. By not fudging, but instead changing things other than the numbers.

Choco
2009-07-21, 10:02 AM
The dice are not the boss of me. I take their decisions under advisement.

That said, I largely roll up front. Being as I DM 4th edition, it's harder to completely kill a player you don't want to completely kill. I routinely drop players for a quick nap. If it looks a problem, i tend to just remind the others that they should probably make a heal check or something, because X is still making Death Saving Throws, yeah?

I take it further, actually, and tend to make the players roll their own damage. You don't get fairer than that. Sadistic as it is. ^_^

The one time fudging was required was in KOTS's most infamous encounter, Irontooth. I didn't need to fudge much, just cancelled a crit. I'd already negated some of the 'game ends' problem by simply having the Kobolds be attempting to capture the pc's, to coerce them into helping them get out from under Irontooth's thumb.
It's how I tend to do my 'fudging'. By not fudging, but instead changing things other than the numbers.

Thats a nice way to put it :smallbiggrin:

In the homebrew game I am running now, death is permanent. Though since I don't like fudging dice rolls I have modified the existing system to make players harder to kill. But yeah, I too have had to cancel out a crit before...

That is a kickass idea about making the players roll their own damage, I am gonna have to start doing that :smallamused:

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-21, 12:21 PM
One thing I'm going to be doing in a campaign later this year is partially adopting these (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/optional-death.html) rules. Not all of them; but I really like the negative-hitpoints = your positive hitpoint total.

I'm also cutting out instant-death magic entirely, as to be honest it does two things I hate: 1) Can trivialize an encounter for either side. Either A) It obliterates the monster or B) obliterates the PC. Or if both sides happen to be death-warded, it suddenly becomes pointless.

2) It goes quite far in discouraging blasting. "Why do hit point damage if I can just instant-kill you?" (There's still plenty of other ways of knocking someone out of the fight of course; but suddenly HP damage is actually important. Obviously Blasting is still sup-par technically; but at least it's not competing with "You're dead.")

I figure that the two above changes combined; and using the 4th edition "Your con score is added to your HP at first level" rule should allow me to avoid fudging too often.

I feel fudging is perfectly fine and valid - but it gets obnoxious when the dice seem bent on a laughable player death <x.x> So cutting out some of the worst offending situations should help make that a bit better.

dragoonsgone
2009-07-21, 12:24 PM
The dice are not the boss of me. I take their decisions under advisement.

That said, I largely roll up front. Being as I DM 4th edition, it's harder to completely kill a player you don't want to completely kill. I routinely drop players for a quick nap. If it looks a problem, i tend to just remind the others that they should probably make a heal check or something, because X is still making Death Saving Throws, yeah?

I take it further, actually, and tend to make the players roll their own damage. You don't get fairer than that. Sadistic as it is. ^_^

The one time fudging was required was in KOTS's most infamous encounter, Irontooth. I didn't need to fudge much, just cancelled a crit. I'd already negated some of the 'game ends' problem by simply having the Kobolds be attempting to capture the pc's, to coerce them into helping them get out from under Irontooth's thumb.
It's how I tend to do my 'fudging'. By not fudging, but instead changing things other than the numbers.

You sir are a sick and evil man. Can I come be your apprentice?

Jolly Steve
2009-07-23, 05:10 PM
PS This doesn't mean that DMs shouldn't try to be creative. Just that there are ways of being creative that work better in role-playing games. Interesting 'bits' - single encounters or individual characters - don't fall apart because someone rolled a 1.

Talic
2009-07-23, 05:33 PM
I think this is basically true. And in my experience, players gravitate to dangerous games more than they gravitate to easy ones.

I've known many DMs. Looking back on them, though, I can pick out three who were especially good and especially popular. Other DMs weren't bad, but these were the ones whose campaigns got planned for obsessively and talked about even a year or more after they'd stopped running them.

And they all killed PCs ruthlessly. Up to the level of one PC per session, even.

So based on my observations, players like danger.

- Saph

Unless danger wasn't precisely what they gravitated to.

I can run a game where the party feels, every encounter, like they are inches from death. And, if they do something dumb? They very well will die. But as long as the players play smart, there are few deaths.

Most players love it.

I can run a game where the party feels that deaths are a real risk. Because they are. Characters die frequently.

Most players like that too.

I've concluded that most players like my DMing style (not holding hands, and minimal railroading) moreso than that.

Players FEELING safe? I can tell you most don't like that. But there's no need to have regular deaths, as long as players believe that there could be.

Civil War Man
2009-07-23, 05:49 PM
For most systems, the sweet spot for a GM is to make it just hard enough that the players think that their characters are in real danger. Obviously doesn't apply as much to "death is cheap" systems like Paranoia, or campaigns which are 100% hack and slash. My personal experience as both a player and a GM, however, is that many players in a roleplaying scenario will have some level of personal attachment to their characters. They put a lot of time and effort into those characters, and it's not enjoyable to see such a character get arbitrarily killed off. I especially dislike it when some GMs almost immediately resort to killing off characters as a punitive measure (I can see it happening when the player is continually disruptive and they are getting kicked out of the group, but I've seen GMs who kill characters if the players go off the rails).

That's not to say that there's not a proper time for characters to die. The best times to have characters die is either to ratchet up the stakes (the characters of players who drop are easy fodder for this) or during the climax of the story. I've been in games where the epilogue was much cooler as a result of my character's death, for example.

In one particular instance (Mage: The Ascension), my character, a rabid gamer who awakened and took a sharp turn for the Chaotic Evil, was killed trying to liberate a pack of werewolves from Technocratic scientists (mostly for the lulz). As a result, his body was buried in the werewolf cairn and he was posthumously made an honorary member of the pack. It was his final "F--- you" to the universe, doubly so to the party's Euthanatos, who rescued him on several occasions when he almost died because she decided that she should be the only one who should be allowed to kill him. Good times.