PDA

View Full Version : As They Roll vs. Handwave



Gamer Girl
2011-05-26, 12:21 AM
So, when you play a game, any game really, but even more so RPGs...there are only two overall styles. Yes, there are thousands of lesser styles, but only two over styles.

They are:

The Dice Roll as they May/Pure Chance--This is the style I play. This style puts forth that one of the main strengths of a RPG, the thing that makes it different and unique, is that anything can happen any time any where. Any time you roll the dice, the result can be anything. And in this style the game goes by the dice rolls, always. This gives the game a unique feeling, as anything can happen. there is a chance things can go wrong, but also that they can go right. A character/playing piece in this type of game can die/be removed at any time. The dice over ride the story and or plot. The GM of this style won't change rolled effect and will let ''The Dice Roll as they May''.


The Handwave--In this style the story and plot is king, with the dice a far distant second. In this style everyone just Handwaves the whole randomness with a wink so everyone knows it's not even close to really being random. No matter what is rolled, the GM will change things to keep the story or plot going the way they want it too. This gives the game a safe and comfortable feeling, as players known when and when not they have to worry. A character/playing piece in this game knows they are safe from death/removal at least 85% of the time. So much so that the players know that they don't have to even try(though they will 'for fun'). The GM of this style largely ignores the dice and just does thing they way they like.



So I wonder how many do each way? Post a reply and vote! (And yes there can only be two ways. Either anything can happen or the GM steps in to change things. And even if you only change things ''once in a while'' it's still more then enough).

Note that there is nothing 'wrong' with either style. Note that Pure Chance can only be found in a game, even more so a RPG with dice(and real life, of course). The Handwave, is of course, used in all fiction. No matter what novel, TV show or movie you pick, they all Handwave everything for the plot. You know a main character can never die, the same way no major things can be changed. When the Enterprise is damaged and about to be destroyed by a supernova...well, you know it will never happen. But still you just handwave it and sit back and pretend that the Enterprise is in danger, as if the ship and crew would just be randomly obliterated 22 minutes into a show and that they would cancel the whole Star Trek franchise forever more..based on the writing of one episode. It's the same way you know that Batman will never be killed on page three of a comic and then DC would shut down and never, ever, ever produce another Batman comic ever. But to enjoy the comic you just handwave it and 'pretend' like Batman could really die.



So I wonder how many do each way? Post a reply and vote!

Knaight
2011-05-26, 12:22 AM
So, where do diceless systems fit into this paradigm?

Gamer Girl
2011-05-26, 12:37 AM
So, where do diceless systems fit into this paradigm?

Well dice less game still have random chance right? So it would still depend on if you do what random chance has happen or you hand wave it.

Knaight
2011-05-26, 12:43 AM
Well dice less game still have random chance right? So it would still depend on if you do what random chance has happen or you hand wave it.

No, they usually don't. There are a handful of games that use card based or Jenga based resolution systems instead that use random chance or something sort of resembling it, but dice less usually means there is no randomness in either task or conflict resolution.

Ranos
2011-05-26, 12:53 AM
I guess it would fall in the first category, since you're not handwaving anything ? Eh, I don't know.

To be frank, there are some assumptions in the thread that I'm not sure are always true. I'm the kind of GM who doesn't fudge, but that doesn't mean my game is a meatgrinder. It's just that the thing keeping my players from a horrible death isn't me. It's the system itself. You don't need an omnipotent GM to feel safe and comfortable.

Bobmufin52
2011-05-26, 12:56 AM
I have to agree with knaight, there are a few games that don't use any sort of randomness in it, but things aren’t hand waved by the DM. A socially-driven RPG is a good example. The PCs have to build up relationships with key NPCs to fulfill certain goals, and the GM doesn’t just let them get that relationship through a Diplomacy check or a simple talk; they have to gain the NPCs trust or become his friend and such.

El Dorado
2011-05-26, 01:00 AM
I've played with DMs who run both types of games.

Typically, the a dicing DM runs a longer campaign. The randomness of the dice rolls helps bolster excitement, even when the game hits a lull. Events and story arcs are not tied to a particular character; this makes it easier to introduce new character without upsetting the story too much.

A handwave DMs tends to run a shorter game. His game has a definitive beginning, middle, and end. These DMs have a story to tell and it's important that the PCs survive because they are tied very closely to events in the campaign.

Danin
2011-05-26, 02:37 AM
I'm the DM and I roll on the same table as my players, where everyone can see. There is no going back. There is no saving them when the dice have laid claim upon their victim. The only thing I have been known to hand wave is the HP of bad guys. Reduce it when I realize I've over matched my PCs terribly, and (by far the more often) raise it when a challenge is getting destroyed too quickly.

But the dice? The dice lay where they lay. There is a reason why my players bring a spare character rolled up to my sessions.

Comet
2011-05-26, 03:49 AM
I do both, depending on the game, group, mood, snacks, venue or whatever. Handwaving is in effect more often, though.

Usually when I handwave (not a huge fan of the term, by the way, as it implies a degree of 'whatever' that is not just there in story-heavy games) it's exactly concerning character death. Characters can fail and embarass themselves, but when one actually dies the game comes to a halt and there's a moment of extra work involved to get the player involved again with a new character. That breaks flow.

So, yeah, I like to hide my rolls as a GM to have that bit of extra control, but I don't hold any punches as long as the game can keep going even if the players 'fail'. Character death, unfortunately, is often more lame than exciting so I tend to strafe around that particular kind of incident, but every other kind of failure is OK and can even serve to make the story and characters better.

Earthwalker
2011-05-26, 04:21 AM
Well I should apologize to Gamer Girl before I vote. Its clear she is trying to get a idea how the playground plays by voting and my vote is not going to help.

I vote 1 of each.

For DnD and Pathfinder I play by the dice and roll my dice in the open for the players to see. (or in DnD / Pathfinder I try not to roll dice and let my players use defense rolls so they are rolling my NPCs to hits and damages for me). I mainly do this as we play a more “tactical” game when combat rolls round, in fact its like playing two games if I am honest a roleplaying bit, then a tactical bit. (This I don’t like but it seems to work)

For Runequest / Shadowrun I usually play with a screen and I hide my dice rolls. Generally these games are a lot less focused on combat. Combat is usualy a quick and bloody affair a lot more time is spent planning and finding solutions that don’t require combat. These games I make a lot more calls on what does and doesn’t happen. The dice do still have some say, generally the players are given plot armour, both systems have a mechanic to help save the players from death.

Jan Mattys
2011-05-26, 05:53 AM
So, when you play a game, any game really, but even more so RPGs...there are only two overall styles. Yes, there are thousands of lesser styles, but only two over styles.

As always, the flaw lies in the premise.
Yours is wrong.

There's a myriad different styles, and they are not "lesser" ones. The different blends of plot and chance is much more complicated than simply saying "which one trumps the other in your games?"

It depends on the group (some aren't pro-active enough to be left without guidance, some just enjoy to be the driving force behind the major events), on the setting (what-ifs are better suited for freestyle, while historical campaigns... not so much), on the overall feeling you aim for (oneshots and long running campaigns can use very different styles to work properly), on the different system you are using...

Also, two important points:
1) The good GM will make it look like the weird dice "will fit into his general plan" even if it is not so. At the same time, he will make sure that "planned events" will not look like planned ones.

2) A good GM will use the different styles in the same campaign and even at the same time in order to achieve his goal, which is to make the whole thing the funniest possible for the players. Players who can consistently rely on their dice will fear nothing and will rapidly slide towards optimization. Players who get used to be pawns in the GM's plot-driven story will lose interest. Finding a balance is the whole point of a good GM's job. Also, frustrating optimizers with plot and shocking inert players with dice is the funniest part of being a GM :smallbiggrin:

Totally Guy
2011-05-26, 06:52 AM
There's a myriad different styles, and they are not "lesser" ones. The different blends of plot and chance is much more complicated than simply saying "which one trumps the other in your games?":

This is how arguments start. First you say ^, then you say this:


Also, two important points:
1) The good GM will make it look like the weird dice "will fit into his general plan" even if it is not so. At the same time, he will make sure that "planned events" will not look like planned ones.

2) A good GM will use the different styles in the same campaign and even at the same time in order to achieve his goal, which is to make the whole thing the funniest possible for the players. Players who can consistently rely on their dice will fear nothing and will rapidly slide towards optimization. Players who get used to be pawns in the GM's plot-driven story will lose interest. Finding a balance is the whole point of a good GM's job. Also, frustrating optimizers with plot and shocking inert players with dice is the funniest part of being a GM :smallbiggrin:

Of course the implication is that if you do not do those things then you aren't a "good GM".

And we've gone back to somebody saying there are 2 ways. But this time it is you.


When I GM, I roll dice openly and I describe failure before hand. This way everyone know that there are no illusions about what is at stake with every roll. I like to treat the game as a game first. But of course this isn't for everyone.

dsmiles
2011-05-26, 07:03 AM
I do both, depending on the game, group, mood, snacks, venue or whatever.
+1 to this. It's not always best to "handwave," nor is it always best to just let the dice fall as they will.

Jan Mattys
2011-05-26, 09:11 AM
This is how arguments start. First you say ^, then you say this:



Of course the implication is that if you do not do those things then you aren't a "good GM".

And we've gone back to somebody saying there are 2 ways. But this time it is you.


When I GM, I roll dice openly and I describe failure before hand. This way everyone know that there are no illusions about what is at stake with every roll. I like to treat the game as a game first. But of course this isn't for everyone.

You're totally right and I retract my points entirely.
I didn't want to sound an hypocrit. I wanted to point out that inbetween the two extremes of the OP lies the RPG world and it's the world in itself that's defined by the unique blend you create. It's not "there's x and y, how many parts of x you need for every y in your games?", but it's a far more finely tuned recipe.

Basically I just wanted to say: "Categorization done good is a bad approximation of reality. Categorization done bad is a lie and using it as a premise for an entire survey is pointless."

But of course I left out the most important thing, which is:
- "In my opinion"

valadil
2011-05-26, 09:23 AM
I've done both. I started out as a handwaver. But I don't fudge a thing in my current game. Right now I prefer going by the dice, but I might switch it up again if I found myself with a group who preferred a safety net.

Enix18
2011-05-26, 09:42 AM
As other folks are saying, it is naïve in the extreme to think that all people playing rpgs everywhere can be grouped into two distinct categories. Many DMs will use a combination of your proposed styles in varying degrees, and some will use neither.

I myself am one such example of a DM that blends the two styles, which I think most everyone must do to some extent. I like to let the dice fall as they may: sometimes my heroes will have dramatic success in the face of adversity, and other times their actions will miserably fail, whatever the d20 wills. But I am perfectly willing to fudge the dice when it is necessary—accidental TPKs, for example, contribute absolutely nothing to the average campaign, and I will never allow one to happen in my D&D games.

However, do the players know that? No, they don't—and that brings up a good point. Your description of these two styles of play implies that "handwaving" is a negative thing. It gives the whole game a soft and fluffy, "safe and comfortable" feeling that lets the players "know that they don't even have to try". This is absolute BS. Just because I fudge the dice does not mean I treat my players like babies, nor does it mean they think they're invisible. I have had plenty of characters die, and I have had some players think that I'm a terrible stickler for the rules at times—because I don't let them see when I'm fudging the dice. When I bend the rules, I bend them in secret, and for my players the game alway seems challenging whether I read the dice objectively or not. I'm no idiot who loudly proclaims, "Well, you guys should be dying now, but since my entire campaign is a pushover I'm changing the results and letting you live!" However exaggerated that may sound, it's the way you're painting people who fudge dice. And that is just stupid.

TheCountAlucard
2011-05-26, 09:43 AM
I do a pleasant mix of both; I'll generally assume that the impact of a player character's actions are enough such that they'll have repercussions on the plot, meaning I'll have to adjust accordingly, but on the other hand, I don't just "leave it all to the dice." Especially since I'm running Exalted right now. :smalltongue:

I also disagree that making the game plot-centric means you need to coddle the PCs and hold their hands; even in my most railroady games, I do nothing to hold their hands.

Making it fun, on the other hand, I always try and do that.

Jarawara
2011-05-26, 09:47 AM
Flawed premise, on the basis that two distinct traits are lumped together:

One trait is 'bow to the dice gods' or 'handwave the results'. The other is 'let the game go where it will', or 'stick to the story'.

These traits do not necessarily overlap.


I have seen games where the DM and players conspire to handwave the results and over-rule the results of the dice, simply because the mood inspired them and they saw an interesting new direction to take the game. No story was involved, and anything could happen at any time, anywhere. Why bother with dice, if it's all just make believe?

I have seen games where the group sticks to the dice results, no matter the cost, no matter the pain... and if necessary they make new characters to continue their pursuit of the same storyline. Story above all, no matter how many setbacks and ill luck the dice bringeth upon the players.

So, gamergirls premise, that sticking to the dice and random story direction are connected, and that handwave the dice, fixed story are similarly connected, is utterly false.


So too is your further stipulation that "even if you only change things 'once in a while' it's still more then enough". That's like saying there are law-abiding citizens and hardened criminals, and that as a child you snuck a cookie from the cookie jar, so you are lumped in with the hardened criminals.

It is possible to 'once in a while' step in to fix the totally unreasonable dice result, or 'once in a while' redirect the party back on track, and still be in the catagory of the 'obey the dice/let the game go where it may' crowd.

*~*~*

However, that being said, I clearly fall in the second catagory. While I can let the players go off track from the story, sometimes for months, even *years* at a time, and have them come back at it from an entirely different method... I still inevitably insist the story be pursued, one way or the other.

And once the fighting starts, we tend to find the dice as... unneccessary.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-26, 09:47 AM
As a player, I have absolutely no preference whatsoever. I will accommodate to whatever style the DM prefers. As a DM, I have no preference whatsoever, I will accommodate to whatever style the player prefers, but make sure I check beforehand. Some players like the "thrill of the dice" (which I can't really comprehend, but I'll go with it), and some like to feel like they're shaping a story and becoming the protagonists in an epic tale (which I suppose I can relate to).

A bit of clarification, though, I've yet to encounter a player or a DM that goes either way completely. I do believe that there's a bell curve here and that the majority of the community will fall somewhere in the middle. It is very hard to avoid dice rolling in a game where dice rolls govern practically everything, and it is very hard to create a story that grips the players personally and makes them feel invested with the plot, if there's always the niggling feeling that any random encounter could be the arbitrary end of their beloved character (not that death must necessarily be the end of the character, after all, there's always a quest to bring them back... I'm talking about DMs who say things like "Welp, that elf is gone. Hope you brought another character!" "But can't we... go on a quest to bring him back?" "Hahaha, don't be silly. Roll up another one."), and it's simply human psychology to avoid getting attached to things that might be lost forever at a moment's notice. And conversely, it's just as hard to remain invested in the plot if there is no feeling of risk and the possibility of loss if things don't go right.

I am not saying that either way is better, merely that you'd be hard-pressed to find adherents that restrict themselves to just one extreme.

RndmNumGen
2011-05-26, 09:47 AM
I would like to say I go purely for number 1, but sometimes I look at the dice and just go "What?!?!?" at which point handwaving may appear. I am currently trying to reduce the amount of handwaving in my games, to make the overall structure more interesting, random and dangerous, but sometimes I just can't agree with the dice.

For example, if there are some bad rolls that kill one or two party members, I'm likely to roll with it. If something happens that screws up the entire progression of the game, killing more than half the party of completely screwing up the game in other ways(such as the McGuffin falling into a pool of lava), I'm likely to be tempted by handwaving... and often succumb.

Vladislav
2011-05-26, 09:50 AM
So, when you play a game, any game really, but even more so RPGs...there are only two overall styles. Yes, there are thousands of lesser styles, but only two over styles.

They are:

The Dice Roll as they May/Pure Chance--This is the style I play. This style puts forth that one of the main strengths of a RPG, the thing that makes it different and unique, is that anything can happen any time any where. Any time you roll the dice, the result can be anything. And in this style the game goes by the dice rolls, always. This gives the game a unique feeling, as anything can happen.
Well, I do a little bit of both. In games I run, there's an even more unique feeling, as anything can happen, including handwaving :smallbiggrin:

Jarawara
2011-05-26, 09:54 AM
Well, I do a little bit of both. In games I run, there's an even more unique feeling, as anything can happen, including handwaving :smallbiggrin:

Ha! That made me laugh out loud! :smallbiggrin:

dsmiles
2011-05-26, 09:55 AM
I don't understand the assumption that Handwaving = Bad DMing. That's exactly what it is, too, an assumption. And we all know what an assumption does.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-26, 10:16 AM
I don't understand the assumption that Handwaving = Bad DMing. That's exactly what it is, too, an assumption. And we all know what an assumption does.

Makes a butt out of umption?

No, Handwaving is bad. The term is inherently pejorative. If you're handwaving, you're skipping over the important things you should be addressing. That's what the term MEANS.

Next there'll be a post criticizing people for assuming abusive DMs are bad....

dsmiles
2011-05-26, 10:19 AM
Makes a butt out of umption?

No, Handwaving is bad. The term is inherently pejorative. If you're handwaving, you're skipping over the important things you should be addressing. That's what the term MEANS.

Next there'll be a post criticizing people for assuming abusive DMs are bad....Here the correct term should be "fudging," then, not "handwaving." Unless we're operating under the assumption that a DM/GM who fudges is a bad DM/GM. Which is also not 100% accurate.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-26, 10:22 AM
Makes a butt out of umption?

No, Handwaving is bad. The term is inherently pejorative. If you're handwaving, you're skipping over the important things you should be addressing. That's what the term MEANS.

Next there'll be a post criticizing people for assuming abusive DMs are bad....

Technically, handwaving is the act of distracting a listener to gloss over a complex point. It's a debating technique. Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/handwave). Unless this is applied to rules debates, it isn't actually possible to incorporate this term into gaming. What the OP is advocating with that word is the precedence of narrative over submitting to the result of the dice. Neither of those concepts are inherently bad or wrong.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-26, 10:22 AM
I think "as they roll" and "handwave" are probably insufficient to categorize DMs. Especially if all systems are included. How you are supposed to DM Paranoia is not how you are supposed to DM 3.5, and vice versa.

Even if replaced with fudging, I don't think a binary choice is accurate. Some people fudge extremely rarely. Some people roll the dice just to hear the sound they make. These styles are not the same.

Shadow, the term handwaving is routinely used to refer to plot elements, such as movie or book plots. It's used in a similar fashion, though. Still negative.

The Glyphstone
2011-05-26, 10:23 AM
Makes a butt out of umption?

No, Handwaving is bad. The term is inherently pejorative. If you're handwaving, you're skipping over the important things you should be addressing. That's what the term MEANS.

Next there'll be a post criticizing people for assuming abusive DMs are bad....

In that case, it's the fault of the OP for using bad terminology and automatically equating total obedience to random chance with = good and the only alternative being carebear-style 'everyone wins, yay'. Call it 'narrative emphasis' instead of 'fudging' or 'handwaving' and it becomes less pejorative...if ignoring the dice makes for a better story, it's valid to ignore the dice. This can be in the player's favor or against them, but whether it's good or not depends on if it's done with their consent.

Vladislav
2011-05-26, 10:23 AM
No, Handwaving is bad. The term is inherently pejorative. If you're handwaving, you're skipping over the important things you should be addressing. That's what the term MEANS.Not really.


The term handwaving is an informal term that describes either the debate technique of failing to rigorously address an argument in an attempt to bypass the argument altogether, or a deliberate gesture and admission that one is intentionally glossing over detail for the sake of time or clarity.
While the first definition is unarguably bad, the second, bolded, isn't. For example, haven't you ever met a DM who handwaved encumbrance - ie. glossed over encumbrance details for the sake of time and clarity? Was it a bad thing? I don't think so.

dsmiles
2011-05-26, 10:26 AM
In that case, it's the fault of the OP for using bad terminology and automatically equating total obedience to random chance with = good and the only alternative being carebear-style 'everyone wins, yay'. Call it 'narrative emphasis' instead of 'fudging' or 'handwaving' and it becomes less pejorative...if ignoring the dice makes for a better story, it's valid to ignore the dice. This can be in the player's favor or against them, but whether it's good or not depends on if it's done with their consent.
That's what I meant. You so smrt, Glyphstone!

Jarawara
2011-05-26, 10:37 AM
No, Handwaving is bad. The term is inherently pejorative. If you're handwaving, you're skipping over the important things you should be addressing. That's what the term MEANS.

I don't agree. Handwaving *can* be pejorative. But it can also simply mean 'glossing over the unimportant details' - which isn't necessarily a bad thing. And I think that's how 'handwave' is used in this in relation to this discussion thread.

Oy! And I is totally Ninja'd too! Several times!


Makes a butt out of umption?

Ha! Laughed out loud again! :smallbiggrin:

Shadowknight12
2011-05-26, 10:40 AM
Shadow, the term handwaving is routinely used to refer to plot elements, such as movie or book plots. It's used in a similar fashion, though. Still negative.

The fact that you mention the word "plot" here should be indicative that the term you're thinking of is not the one that's being used here, precisely because the plot is being emphasised above dice rolling. Are the rolls being glossed over, perhaps rewritten altogether? Sure. But are important parts being skipped over? No. Because to the people who emphasise plot, what's important to them is the plot. And they're not skipping over any of that.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-26, 10:42 AM
Not really.


While the first definition is unarguably bad, the second, bolded, isn't. For example, haven't you ever met a DM who handwaved encumbrance - ie. glossed over encumbrance details for the sake of time and clarity? Was it a bad thing? I don't think so.

Most of them, in my experience, resort to the encumberance rules when there is a question of if someone can carry something questionable. It's rare for people to do the math to see exactly how much their 18 strength fighter can carry...because so long as the answer is "more than I have on me", the number is unimportant.

But when you're discussing how much loot you can carry out of the dungeon you won't be able to return to...then it matters. I would not call only referring to the rules when a relevant situation arises handwaving. I'd call it...normal.

Handwaving would be if person A transported a 10,000 lb statue with him without bothering to explain how. There's a gap there, and in my experience, most DMs are willing to stop and check is something is implausble to accomplish within normal rules.

Edit: With regards to our Elder God...I don't think it's possible to usefully lump DMs into a mere two categories regardless of what they are. There are certainly more than two distinct styles of GMing, and a large number of GMs use different styles depending on the system.

Vladislav
2011-05-26, 11:02 AM
Not to derail the thread, but

It's rare for people to do the math to see exactly how much their 18 strength fighter can carry...because so long as the answer is "more than I have on me", the number is unimportant.
First, they won't know for sure unless they do the math, eh?
Second, that was my point exactly. Knowing for sure isn't sufficiently important, hence the math is handwaved.


Handwaving would be if person A transported a 10,000 lb statue with him without bothering to explain how. There's a gap there, and in my experience, most DMs are willing to stop and check is something is implausble to accomplish within normal rules.There's a very large interval of numbers between "obviously less than an 18-Str fighter could carry" and "10,000 lb". By only noting the extremes, you seem to have ... handwaved it?! :smallwink:

Tyndmyr
2011-05-26, 11:08 AM
Not to derail the thread, but

First, they won't know for sure unless they do the math, eh?
Second, that was my point exactly. Knowing for sure isn't sufficiently important, hence the math is handwaved.

A typical fighter build has no trouble carrying typical fighter gear. This is fairly well known. The guy has armor, a sword. Rope and some misc gear. It's not a problem for him. Even a wizard isn't likely to have problems carrying his usual stuff unless he dumped strength pretty hard. If you know that you're not even close, you don't need to do the math. No value to it.

The encumbrance limits are such that you don't typically need to use them frequently. This is good.


There's a very large interval of numbers between "obviously less than an 18-Str fighter could carry" and "10,000 lb". By only noting the extremes, you seem to have ... handwaved it?! :smallwink:

In a recent game, while we were carrying a fair bit of stuff already, the DM rolled on the random loot table, and got a rather ridiculous amount of copper coins...kept hitting that for each fight. A quick check to ensure we could carry it all happened. That is what encumbrance is for, really.

supermonkeyjoe
2011-05-26, 11:11 AM
Sorry to ruin your hypothesis that there are only two styles Gamer Girl but I do both while playing. Generally on an encounter by encounter basis, sometimes on an enemy by enemy basis.

So either a vote for both, or neither,or you need to add an additional option to take into account that there are other ways of playing that aren't just 'your way' and 'the other way that's the polar opposite of my way'

Vladislav
2011-05-26, 11:53 AM
Even a wizard isn't likely to have problems carrying his usual stuff unless he dumped strength pretty hard. If you know that you're not even close, you don't need to do the math. No value to it.
You are, as a matter of fact, wrong. A Str 10 human wizard (strong as average human) only has a 33 lb light load limit. If you take what counts as "wizard gear", and actually do the math, you will find out it adds to 33 lb or more easily. Staff, light crossbow with 40 bolts, spellbook, spell component pouch, bedroll, backpack, lantern with some oil, waterskin, trail rations, these things add up. But you wouldn't know it, since it's just "regular wizard gear" and "there's no value in doing the math".

In other words, you just handwaved wrongly, while telling all of us how bad handwaving is. Smooth move.

Back on topic: there is nothing wrong with handwaving some aspects of the game that aren't important. Of course the question remain what is important, and here your, and your group's mileage may vary.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-26, 12:15 PM
You are, as a matter of fact, wrong. A Str 10 human wizard (strong as average human) only has a 33 lb light load limit. If you take what counts as "wizard gear", and actually do the math, you will find out it adds to 33 lb or more easily. Staff, light crossbow with 40 bolts, spellbook, spell component pouch, bedroll, backpack, lantern with some oil, waterskin, trail rations, these things add up. But you wouldn't know it, since it's just "regular wizard gear" and "there's no value in doing the math".

In other words, you just handwaved wrongly, while telling all of us how bad handwaving is. Smooth move.

Er, you made up all that gear, I did not. Therefore, you can hardly blame me for it. For one thing, I never bother with a staff. Given that light is a cantrip, I rarely bother with mundane light sources either.

The only character for which I've ever had a serious problem with encumbrance is the wizard with 3 strength I made once. That required some care and shuffling. Taking a spellbook out of a haversack was a danger. Ignoring it for such a character would be a handwave, absolutely.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-26, 12:18 PM
I don't understand the assumption that Handwaving = Bad DMing. That's exactly what it is, too, an assumption. And we all know what an assumption does.

I never said Handwaving was bad DMing. I thought my example of fiction would make this clear. We all watch/read fiction and like it. But in order to like it we need to handwave the chance factor. When you go see a movie, say Thor, you absolutely know that Thor won't die, nor will any big name character die, the Earth won't be destroyed and so forth. But you still watch and enjoy the movie. Even though you know Thor can't loose and will always win.

Like the example I used: DC will never put out a comic where Batman dies and then DC never, ever makes any more Batman related things. That will never happen. The fake deaths where you know they will be back don't count.

And yes, most DM's do a bit of both. Even me. But I do see handwaving as a slippery slope. Once you change one roll you then change another and another and then you have a 'standard TV episode' feel.

As I said, I think the randomness gives a unique feel to the game, and lets anything happen. And for a DM, this is the fun part, the story can take a life of it's own, out side of the Dms control, and go in a new direction. With the handwave style, everyone knows the story will stay on the same direction, and that 'new' directions are just plots by the DM.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-26, 12:24 PM
Like the example I used: DC will never put out a comic where Batman dies and then DC never, ever makes any more Batman related things. That will never happen. The fake deaths where you know they will be back don't count.

In the interest of pedantry, Batman is a role, not a person. The person playing Batman has met unfortunate fates before. Sure, comics tend to abuse the back from the dead thing...but yes, doing that too often CAN hurt a story. Once it's an expected thing, it can detract from the seriousness of things.

And while a penalty for failure is important for a realistic world and a gripping tale, a penalty need not be death. While I'm not a fan of fudging either, I wouldn't equate it with handwaving, and I'd consider a much broader definition of failure and loss than mere death.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-26, 12:37 PM
I am not disagreeing with anything you put forth, but I would just like to point something out that I felt was particularly interesting.


As I said, I think the randomness gives a unique feel to the game, and lets anything happen. And for a DM, this is the fun part, the story can take a life of it's own, out side of the Dms control, and go in a new direction. With the handwave style, everyone knows the story will stay on the same direction, and that 'new' directions are just plots by the DM.

"Anything can happen" is your premise, correct? Let's see if it holds up to detailed scrutiny. Let's be scientific here. We have three DMs. Alice is a very organised DM. She plans everything before the session. She has all the encounters premade, all the bits of description to read aloud pre-written, all the NPCs statted out and their dialogues pre-rendered. Claire never prepares for a session. She has "ideas" that she wants to pursue, but prefers to react to what the players do and come up with things on the fly. Bob is a little of both. He has some stuff premade but he isn't afraid to improvise if he has to. All three will be firm believers in your adherence to the result of the dice.

Now let's make our three lovely DMs run three parallel campaigns at the same time, and see how they react when a series of bad rolls makes the party take an unexpected detour. Alice is screwed, right off the bat. None of what she made will help her (because the party went off the tracks), and she is terrible at improvising. What does she do? Well, she can stammer and fail, of course, but let's assume that she pulls off a success. How? She takes those encounters she had already premade, tweaks them a little on the fly to fit the new situation and gives them to the party anyway.

Bob can improvise, sure, and unlike Alice, he can actually use that as a valid option. So he does. He improvises and adjusts to the direction the dice has pointed out. But what happens to the stuff that he has premade? Since he's no Claire, and he can't hold up improvisation forever, at one point he will have to pull an Alice and give the party what he had originally planned under a new coat of paint.

Claire, on the other hand, will do exactly what she has been doing all along. The dice actually never influence her at all because her style is adapting to what the players do. If she has an overarching plot in her mind and her method is like a rubberband that lets the players bounce off from place to place but they eventually end up somewhere close to where she intends them to (letting them do as they will but subtly guiding them to the overarching plot she's planning) then the dice don't actually matter at all because her usual strategy works just fine. If, however, she doesn't have an overarching plot and she's basically a "here are encounter guys, have fun!" type of DM, then the dice don't matter either because they don't actually make a difference. There's no difference between "Sonya dies in this dungeon, Sonya's player has to make a new character" and "Sonya lives to tell the tale" since Sonya isn't actually critical to the game. The game will carry on precisely as it always has whether the characters live or die, succeed or fail. The dice have not changed a thing.

Just something I thought was amusing about all this. :smalltongue:

Knaight
2011-05-26, 12:55 PM
Claire, on the other hand, will do exactly what she has been doing all along. The dice actually never influence her at all because her style is adapting to what the players do. If she has an overarching plot in her mind and her method is like a rubberband that lets the players bounce off from place to place but they eventually end up somewhere close to where she intends them to (letting them do as they will but subtly guiding them to the overarching plot she's planning) then the dice don't actually matter at all because her usual strategy works just fine.

Hardly. Reacting to what the players do is part of being an improvisational GM, other parts are reacting to what the characters do, and what the characters do is influenced by the dice. Say, at some point the characters force a confrontation with an enemy noble, drag the noble in front of the resident monarch, and try to reveal his plot for a coup. If they are successful, the game is fundamentally changed, as the world will be reacting to the power vacuum left by the imprisonment or execution of this noble and the others in the coup, the player characters gain imperial favor, privileges, and quite possibly wealth, lands, and followers. If they fail, the game is also fundamentally changed. The coup likely continues, the player characters are viewed as liars and incur the enmity of the monarchy, and probably a handful of nobles. Either way, the game has been shifted, and it is dependent on what happens at the confrontation, itself dependent partially on the dice.

Sure, if you assume that there is either a specific overarching plot or no plot at all, the dice are irrelevant. But that itself is a false distinction, ignoring a great many plots, not the least of them being the emergent plot from the interactions between developed characters and a coherent setting.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-26, 01:18 PM
Hardly. Reacting to what the players do is part of being an improvisational GM, other parts are reacting to what the characters do, and what the characters do is influenced by the dice. Say, at some point the characters force a confrontation with an enemy noble, drag the noble in front of the resident monarch, and try to reveal his plot for a coup. If they are successful, the game is fundamentally changed, as the world will be reacting to the power vacuum left by the imprisonment or execution of this noble and the others in the coup, the player characters gain imperial favor, privileges, and quite possibly wealth, lands, and followers. If they fail, the game is also fundamentally changed. The coup likely continues, the player characters are viewed as liars and incur the enmity of the monarchy, and probably a handful of nobles. Either way, the game has been shifted, and it is dependent on what happens at the confrontation, itself dependent partially on the dice.

Sure, if you assume that there is either a specific overarching plot or no plot at all, the dice are irrelevant. But that itself is a false distinction, ignoring a great many plots, not the least of them being the emergent plot from the interactions between developed characters and a coherent setting.

Let's say that Claire is running two simultaneous campaigns, only in one of them, she's adopting the "rubberband strategy" (because she has an overarching plot) and in the other, she presents the characters with a world and lets them go nuts (also known as a 'sandbox' type of game). Now let's say that the scenario that you described happens in both campaigns. In the first one, Claire has an overarching plot. If the noble is a pawn being manipulated by the Big Bad, then the Big Bad isn't going to sit by while the heroes muck up with his schemes. If he's a genius (say, Int above 20), then he has a contingency ready and the noble is replaced... by another equally corrupt NPC. The overarching plot continues along.

If the villain is not a genius, then perhaps he lets this one slide, and generates a new strategy. The point is that the ovearching plot (heroes must confront Big Bad) is not altered because Claire has nothing planned. She's not assuming that her noble is undefeatable, and she wouldn't put him in a position where he can be reached by the heroes if she hadn't had at least an inkling of what to do if they succeed and if they fail. Now, in the second type of campaign, then she simply throws the next challenge at them. "Congratulations, you defeated the noble. Now there's an orc invasion coming. Go take care of that."

You say that I am positing a false dichotomy, and I'd love to find out why you think so. To me, it's perfectly clear. Either you have a an idea of where you're going with the campaign (no matter how vague) or you don't. What comes next is a difference of degree (in this case, a degree of vagueness).

potatocubed
2011-05-26, 01:23 PM
Now let's make our three lovely DMs run three parallel campaigns at the same time, and see how they react when a series of bad rolls makes the party take an unexpected detour. Alice is screwed, right off the bat. None of what she made will help her (because the party went off the tracks), and she is terrible at improvising.

Technically, if Alice is as good and organised as all that she'll have plans for what happens no matter what the characters do. She'll have tracks for every direction.

In practice, this doesn't ever happen. Planning in detail for all things a party might do is an exercise in futility.

Knaight
2011-05-26, 01:42 PM
Let's say that Claire is running two simultaneous campaigns, only in one of them, she's adopting the "rubberband strategy" (because she has an overarching plot) and in the other, she presents the characters with a world and lets them go nuts (also known as a 'sandbox' type of game). Now let's say that the scenario that you described happens in both campaigns. In the first one, Claire has an overarching plot. If the noble is a pawn being manipulated by the Big Bad, then the Big Bad isn't going to sit by while the heroes muck up with his schemes. If he's a genius (say, Int above 20), then he has a contingency ready and the noble is replaced... by another equally corrupt NPC. The overarching plot continues along.

You say that I am positing a false dichotomy, and I'd love to find out why you think so. To me, it's perfectly clear. Either you have a an idea of where you're going with the campaign (no matter how vague) or you don't. What comes next is a difference of degree (in this case, a degree of vagueness).
Your example of the fall out of my example only really works if you assume a campaign based on overcoming a specific challenge. I'm assuming an emergent plot, brought on by the setting and character goals, which is not a Villain vs. PC scenario. There are certainly people opposed to them, such as the noble, and who these people are has a huge impact on the eventual overall story. What I described was a turning point, where the end fundamentally changes. If the PCs succeed, the story changes into one more about agents of the crown, dealing with further intrigues. If they fail, it could become a story about seeking redemption, or survival and escape under new, more hostile leadership, or any number of things.

As for the dichotomy, your original statement was that there was either a plot with a defined end goal to approach, or there was no real plot at all. I'd argue that it is more a matter of where the story is going, and there are several variables in play. There is where the story ends up, there is how much is known about the course ahead of time, there are the different branches it could take, and how many of them there are, and in each of these there is a level of understanding.

Moreover, your two examples don't really fit the model of having an idea of where you are going or not. One of them is an example of knowing where you are going, the other is an example of not going anywhere. What I added to that is knowing what is going on, but not where you are going, because it in precisely that situation that the dice can actually have a meaningful impact.

dsmiles
2011-05-26, 01:50 PM
In practice, this doesn't ever happen. Planning in detail for all things a party might do is an exercise in futility.I like to consider myself "well-prepared." I generally plan for 4 or 5 different outcomes for each encounter/situation. But then again, I know my players pretty well, and can make educated guesses about how they will react. But even they will throw me off sometimes, and I have to wing it.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-26, 01:55 PM
Preparation and being able to improvise is not an either/or thing...it's quite possible to be good, or (unfortunately) bad at both. Both are useful skills, and should be honed with practice.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-26, 02:33 PM
Technically, if Alice is as good and organised as all that she'll have plans for what happens no matter what the characters do. She'll have tracks for every direction.

In practice, this doesn't ever happen. Planning in detail for all things a party might do is an exercise in futility.

There's a difference between having "an idea of what I can do if X situation happens" and having "premade encounters and NPCs and pre-written dialogue if X situation happens." All GMs should have the former. Only people like Alice would have the latter, and even only at points where this is actually likely to happen. And even then, I highly doubt there will be many DMs who won't recycle whatever they didn't use, simply because they don't want their hard work to go to waste.


Your example of the fall out of my example only really works if you assume a campaign based on overcoming a specific challenge. I'm assuming an emergent plot, brought on by the setting and character goals, which is not a Villain vs. PC scenario. There are certainly people opposed to them, such as the noble, and who these people are has a huge impact on the eventual overall story. What I described was a turning point, where the end fundamentally changes. If the PCs succeed, the story changes into one more about agents of the crown, dealing with further intrigues. If they fail, it could become a story about seeking redemption, or survival and escape under new, more hostile leadership, or any number of things.

As for the dichotomy, your original statement was that there was either a plot with a defined end goal to approach, or there was no real plot at all. I'd argue that it is more a matter of where the story is going, and there are several variables in play. There is where the story ends up, there is how much is known about the course ahead of time, there are the different branches it could take, and how many of them there are, and in each of these there is a level of understanding.

Moreover, your two examples don't really fit the model of having an idea of where you are going or not. One of them is an example of knowing where you are going, the other is an example of not going anywhere. What I added to that is knowing what is going on, but not where you are going, because it in precisely that situation that the dice can actually have a meaningful impact.

Yes, you say "an emergent plot brought on by the setting and character goals" and that's exactly what a sandbox game is, practically the definition. You have a world in which things happen, and there's no overarching plot that connects them. The PCs alter the course of the "plot" because there isn't one. In that case, you actually can't handwave because the only factor that determines what happens next is whether the PCs succeed or not on what they set out to do. And the factor that determines this success is dice-rolling. And you can't "handwave it for the sake of plot" here because there isn't one.

I used simplistic examples to get my point across, but actual complex mini-plots are just as valid as simple plotless encounters. They're self-contained moments where the characters actively change the nature of the world by action or inaction, by failing or succeeding. What the GM does is keep the nature of the world in mind and adapt accordingly.

So I still don't see why this isn't a dichotomy with various degrees of complexity.

erikun
2011-05-26, 05:54 PM
I hate to come in and sound like a sore thumb, but I can't help but note the rather harsh bias in the opening post, equating Pure Chance = good and Handwave = bad.

I'll also note that when you roll the dice, the result can not necessarily be anything. It can only be +/-20 within the bonuses to the roll. Success on difficulty rolls higher than that are entirely impossible, along with failure on rolls lower. Handwavium, on the other hand, allows literally anything by definition. Do we want to include crazy uncle Sam possessed by a demon? Want the BBEG to secretly be the halfling henchmen? Want the players to climb Mt. Olympus to bargain for a party member's soul? Well then, you can allow it without needing to roll on population distribution tables to see if it is allowed.

Of course, the best option would be to just use both methods. If a players wants to have a crazy uncle Sam possessed by a demon, then have them roll Contacts. Success means Sam is there are favorable to you (but still possessed). Failure means Sam is still there, but is still pissed that the character lost the family sword after burning down their house when they were younger. Plot hook, interesting character, and the potential reward of a "free" Contact at the end of a quest!


Also, there are quite a few stories where important people (including main characters) die at the end.

darkpuppy
2011-05-26, 07:36 PM
And yes, most DM's do a bit of both. Even me. But I do see handwaving as a slippery slope. Once you change one roll you then change another and another and then you have a 'standard TV episode' feel.

As I said, I think the randomness gives a unique feel to the game, and lets anything happen. And for a DM, this is the fun part, the story can take a life of it's own, out side of the Dms control, and go in a new direction. With the handwave style, everyone knows the story will stay on the same direction, and that 'new' directions are just plots by the DM.

Hrm. As one of the improvisational GMs that ShadowKnight is talking about, I see 'handwaving' (I've always called it "fudging" myself) as simply a tool, one of many in my arsenal. And I've always made it quite clear that, for the first few game days, they're safe, but after that, I'll only fudge if it's more interesting to do so than let the player die, or (in the case of "negative fudging") if they've done something monumentally stupid. Apart from that, I have a vague idea of where the plot is, I'll make character sheets for NPCs and little thingummies for people to coo over if I feel it's important enough and I have time...

...but, mainly, I sit at the twin altars of Plot and Character, facing the altar of Fun, and distinctly shunning the altar of Boring, whenever possible. As both a Dwarf Fortress/Roguelike player, and a long-time DM, I know that the Random Number God may make things interesting, but if it's given total control, it can also make things short.

Jan Mattys
2011-05-27, 02:08 AM
IBut I do see handwaving as a slippery slope. Once you change one roll you then change another and another and then you have a 'standard TV episode' feel.

1- Sliding down a slippery slope is sometimes very fun. Some players are perfectly ok with it, as long as the ride is fun.*

2- Even with players who would cut their own hands off before accepting anything but "pure dice", you only have the "standard TV episode" feel only if you make it obvious. There's about a hundred ways to apply the needed dose of "handwaving" without making it visibile. The dice only account for about 5% of a story, and THAT's where you have to roll with them. For the other 95%... well, youre the DM, you're Ao at the n-th degree. Making something happen the way you want it to is about as easy for you as snapping fingers. You just have to make sure you don't snap your fingers too loud.

As a personal note, I think my players need me to paint their gaming experience in bright colours providing excitement, danger, mystery, puzzles and intrigue. If they just want me to be their NPC-dice-rolling machine, they can well go home and play Neverwinter Nights. This implies a sort of social contact where I aim to provide all the above for the players, and they accept that I have to use tools for the job. "Handwaving" (to an extent) is one of them.
That's part of the deal, really.
I am a storyteller, not a heartless unimaginative machine rolling dice for you to interpret using your manuals. There's Baldur's Gate for it.


...but, mainly, I sit at the twin altars of Plot and Character, facing the altar of Fun, and distinctly shunning the altar of Boring, whenever possible. As both a Dwarf Fortress/Roguelike player, and a long-time DM, I know that the Random Number God may make things interesting, but if it's given total control, it can also make things short.
Also, very well said.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-27, 08:15 AM
There's a difference between having "an idea of what I can do if X situation happens" and having "premade encounters and NPCs and pre-written dialogue if X situation happens." All GMs should have the former. Only people like Alice would have the latter, and even only at points where this is actually likely to happen. And even then, I highly doubt there will be many DMs who won't recycle whatever they didn't use, simply because they don't want their hard work to go to waste.

I personally prefer to keep a large volume of material around. I don't prewrite dialog in most circumstances, since it's so very player dependant...but statted NPCs? Hell yeah.

I mean, statted NPCs are among the most reusable of resources. Keeping a stack of them around just means you've done your work in advance instead of at the last minute. It's terribly convenient. Hell, I'll even reuse stat blocks when appropriate.

It's not because I'm bad at improvising...I could run an entire campaign off my cuff if necessary...but because I really like having things done right. I don't like having players catch an awkward inconsistency because something was forgotten or what not. And when I prep in advance, I can sometimes put in more detail than otherwise. Important characters in my world sometimes have complex builds, and I like to get those right.

On the note of fudging, if I have to fudge, I've made a mistake somewhere. Something's been set up wrong, and since as DM, I'm responsible for the setup...my bad. It is my personal view that mistakes are best admitted to, rather than covering them up. Much better motivation to avoid repeating them. Yes, covering up the mistake is more seamless....at that point in time...but it is not as good as never having made the mistake to begin with, and I feel all DMs should be striving to improve.

My last such mistake was a while back. E6, and the players still hadn't capped out on level. They were looting a long abandoned city, including a trap-filled wizard's tower. The wizard had been a diviner, and the decor reflected this. Among the various stuff I'd put in there, I included a crystal ball. Seemed appropriate at the time. I hadn't thought to check the cost of any of this. Now, a bog standard crystal ball in D&D runs 42,000 gold. My players knew this, and they were actually listening to the flavor text. Oops. Now, sure, I could have spun some story to try to fix the cash aspect of them gleefully selling this, but eh...I just admitted I hadn't considered it. And they got the cash. They still gleefully tell that story, of course, but the game went on quite a while after the mad shopping spree than ensued. And now, I make damned sure to watch the value of the flavor stuff I put in adventures.

Friv
2011-05-27, 10:54 AM
I never said Handwaving was bad DMing.


But I do see handwaving as a slippery slope. Once you change one roll you then change another and another and then you have a 'standard TV episode' feel.

As I said, I think the randomness gives a unique feel to the game, and lets anything happen. And for a DM, this is the fun part, the story can take a life of it's own, out side of the Dms control, and go in a new direction. With the handwave style, everyone knows the story will stay on the same direction, and that 'new' directions are just plots by the DM.

Can you spot the contradiction in those two quotes?

Anyway, I'm chiming in with "False Dichotomy" here. I lean heavily towards a "let the dice fall where they may" style, but I also construct encounters so that death is extravagantly unlikely and negative consequences will not remove players from the game. In situations where handwaving occurs, it occurs by mutual consent of the table.

Also, where does your dichotomy cover games such as Mutants & Masterminds, in which the GM is actually supposed to give resources to the PCs when he handwaves? It's a part of the rules structure in which the GM's handwaves allow player handwaves in the future. Is that a handwave, or strict rules adherence?

Tyndmyr
2011-05-27, 11:00 AM
Also, where does your dichotomy cover games such as Mutants & Masterminds, in which the GM is actually supposed to give resources to the PCs when he handwaves? It's a part of the rules structure in which the GM's handwaves allow player handwaves in the future. Is that a handwave, or strict rules adherence?

I quite like such systems. They allow the GM flexibility/error recovery, while providing inherent restrictions to prevent abuse. I feel like 3.5 would be a better game if it had put more thought into that.

From a game design perspective, rule zero alone is a cop-out.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-27, 11:44 AM
I've found more and more that I ascribe to the "Handwave" philosophy. In one of my most recent games, a player was asking a priest to give him access to the temple archives in the interest of solving a mystery. He rolled a 13 against a DC of 25, but he worded his request so well, and was so polite, that I decided the priest would allow it, but discreetly. I'm getting better at running games with actual chance in it, "As They Roll," but I still have traces of the freeform gamer in me that prefers a good story to the random chance aspect of it.

oxybe
2011-05-27, 12:03 PM
...but, mainly, I sit at the twin altars of Plot and Character, facing the altar of Fun, and distinctly shunning the altar of Boring, whenever possible. As both a Dwarf Fortress/Roguelike player, and a long-time DM, I know that the Random Number God may make things interesting, but if it's given total control, it can also make things short.


let me buy you a drink, good sir or madam. if you're not of the drinking age, call me when you are.

you'll get your drink then.

when i tend to handwave a lot of the lesser fiddly bits away: how many arrows you've used, encumbrance (barring carrying things that are obviously too heavy to carry), every last GP/SP/CP spent on random and mundane gear, etc... mainly because that level of micromanagement eats up quite a bit of our game time in the early game, and at the late game we have bags of holding.

i also tend to handwave the unimportant mooks/redshirts/stormtroopers that try to oppose the PCs by letting the PCs describe how they handle them. spending 20 or 30 real-time minutes on a fight you know the PCs will win because the enemies aren't meant to be a challenge is a waste of time for me, mainly because i only have about 3-4 hours per week on a game. managing these fights

i usually try to follow these principals:
-is there a consequence for failure other then "i get up and try again"?
-does adding a random chance of failure add something to the game?
-does it follow the "rule of fun" or the "rule of cool"?

when it comes to rule conflicts, if i can't immediately find the answer, i would much rather handwave something for now and look it up later then have the game grind to a halt as we browse through rulebooks for the specifics of the rules.

i would also handwave away the rules if the character's actions would cause the scene to be awesome. the rules are nothing more to me then a framework to hang our story onto and i don't know about most people, but i would rather hear a good story over a math problem/theory.

now, while i do give the players a possible out for most situations and i never try to trap them in a way that they can't possibly escape, i'm a rather large proponent for the darwin awards, and stupid PC actions will be met with a "you sure?" followed by a "whelp... you dun goofed."

i also stress that failure is very much an option outside of death. you can always bounce back from failure. death is mostly just a speedbump/money sink or in the case of a TPK, a campaign ender.

failure however, moves the story along as just (or even moreso) then a victory.

so i always try to go for a failure instead of kill... i won't change the result of a dice once rolled (unless it's cocked) but i might not roll a dice at all depending on the situation.

this could be a bias though: i find it usually makes for a FAR more interesting game to see how the PCs react to a setback, rather then simply throw money at an already grateful cleric for rez.

TL;DR : i'll play 'em as they roll, but that's assuming i'll roll in the first place.

Necro_EX
2011-05-27, 11:59 PM
For me it changes from game to game.

The game I'm currently running for my local group is a gritty post-apocalyptic game with a lot borrowed from Mad Max and Fallout. In this game I'm letting it go with the dice. The players have AP so they have that little advantage, but it's a cruel world out there in the wastes, never know when a random mook might get that nat 20 and put a .44 through your heart.

Last game I ran was an actiony romp through Faerun and every now and then I'd give the party a little...extra help. I wouldn't do it often, but if I felt it would help support the drama I'd go for it and 'fix' a roll or two. I quit doing this in the later half of it, because I gave the party AP. Hell, I even let a couple of 'bosses' have Action Points as well.

That night hag became a lot nastier after that.