Following the dice

[Nhia]

Does a good DM follow the dice or alter them to make the adventure exiting and fun? What are your veiws on the matter?:smallsmile:

[Hiro Quester]

Does a good DM follow the dice or alter them to make the adventure exiting and fun? What are your veiws on the matter?:smallsmile:

Question of clarification: Do you mean that a DM might have the monster attack with 1d8 instead of 2d6, for balance reasons? Or give the monster only +5 instead of the statted +10 in its attack?

Is it that kind of thing you are asking about?

[Flickerdart]

The correct answer is "don't ask for a dice roll unless both failure and success are interesting."

[Amphetryon]

Does a good DM follow the dice or alter them to make the adventure exiting and fun? What are your veiws on the matter?:smallsmile:

If you're going to change what the dice read, don't roll them, because the roll clearly doesn't matter in that case.

[Doctor Awkward]

Does a good DM follow the dice or alter them to make the adventure exiting and fun? What are your veiws on the matter?:smallsmile:

I assume you are asking about fudging dice rolls behind a DM screen in order to facilitate the some desired result (I.E.: keeping a player from dying to a random crit, failing (or passing) enemy or player skill checks, and so on).

For starters, to clarify what Flickerdart said, you should not roll the dice in the first place unless the group's success or failure will actually alter the narrative.

Meaning, if the party comes to a cliff, and the only way they are going to progress in the quest is to climb that cliff, then they climb the cliff. Unless you plan on having an encounter attack them while they are climbing, don't waste everyone's time by making them roll. They scale the cliff and move on.

The same thing goes for following a goblin raiding party through the woods. If the party has no other obvious leads aside from that, then they follow the goblin horde. Don't bother rolling Survival to track them, unless getting lost will lead to another avenue of exploration that's relevant to your story.



Once you are in a situation where rolling dice is appropriate, there are two schools of thought regarding the outcome of rolls:

1) Mechanics trump story. The dice fall where they fall. If you are spotted by an enemy and your ambush is ruined, deal with it and move on. If your fighter dies in one hit because that Power Attacking CR 3 orc just crit with his greataxe, them's the breaks. The advantages of this style of play is that every single roll of the dice is exciting, and can alter the flow of the game in an instant. The downside is that it encourages IP-proofing during character building, and players will tend to focus much more on the mechanical abilities on their characters rather than the role-playing elements of them.

2) Story trumps mechanics. DM's that run these sorts of games are much more concerned with telling an interesting story than they are with following the rules. It's hard to do that when half the party is murdered by a wandering group of goblin bounty hunters on account of unlucky dice rolls before they can even learn why the king's daughter was kidnapped in the first place. The advantage of this style of play is that players become much more invested in their characters and their personalities, and may take a greater interest in your world as a result. The downside is that the tension and excitement of rolling dice is mostly gone. If the party knows you fudged a die roll once, they know you're going to do it again, and they will never really be concerned about the outcome of an encounter unless it's the climax of a story.

Neither one is really better than the other. It all depends on the preferences of you and your group.

[Nhia]

I assume you are asking about fudging dice rolls behind a DM screen in order to facilitate the some desired result (I.E.: keeping a player from dying to a random crit, failing (or passing) enemy or player skill checks, and so on).

For starters, to clarify what Flickerdart said, you should not roll the dice in the first place unless the group's success or failure will actually alter the narrative.

Meaning, if the party comes to a cliff, and the only way they are going to progress in the quest is to climb that cliff, then they climb the cliff. Unless you plan on having an encounter attack them while they are climbing, don't waste everyone's time by making them roll. They scale the cliff and move on.

The same thing goes for following a goblin raiding party through the woods. If the party has no other obvious leads aside from that, then they follow the goblin horde. Don't bother rolling Survival to track them, unless getting lost will lead to another avenue of exploration that's relevant to your story.



Once you are in a situation where rolling dice is appropriate, there are two schools of thought regarding the outcome of rolls:

1) Mechanics trump story. The dice fall where they fall. If you are spotted by an enemy and your ambush is ruined, deal with it and move on. If your fighter dies in one hit because that Power Attacking CR 3 orc just crit with his greataxe, them's the breaks. The advantages of this style of play is that every single roll of the dice is exciting, and can alter the flow of the game in an instant. The downside is that it encourages IP-proofing during character building, and players will tend to focus much more on the mechanical abilities on their characters rather than the role-playing elements of them.

2) Story trumps mechanics. DM's that run these sorts of games are much more concerned with telling an interesting story than they are with following the rules. It's hard to do that when half the party is murdered by a wandering group of goblin bounty hunters on account of unlucky dice rolls before they can even learn why the king's daughter was kidnapped in the first place. The advantage of this style of play is that players become much more invested in their characters and their personalities, and may take a greater interest in your world as a result. The downside is that the tension and excitement of rolling dice is mostly gone. If the party knows you fudged a die roll once, they know you're going to do it again, and they will never really be concerned about the outcome of an encounter unless it's the climax of a story.

Neither one is really better than the other. It all depends on the preferences of you and your group.

This is exactly what I mean! Me personally tend to lean to number 2. I've found that to get the players to focus, they need different things: one needs treasure, one needs dice rolling and fighting, one needs puzzles, and the last one I'm unsure of. But to give them all this, I need to roll the dice eventhough I "know" the outcome! They still laugh about the inexpirienced DM (me) and the fight where it kept coming monsters and they fought them off, although I gave the impression they should have run. I actually had it all under controll, and they had fun.

I just want to know how other DMs does it :smallsmile:

[Magma Armor0]

Typically, I find this is fixable when the enemy has a goal other than the players' deaths. If, after the unlucky crit (s) they get captured and have to spend the next couple sessions formulating an escape (without the benefit of their magic items),most players will regard that as enough of a punishment that they will strive to have it never happen again.

[Afgncaap5]

I used to believe, strongly, in fudging dice rolls in the players'. Then I read Tracy Hickman's XDM.

Now I don't fudge as much. There is, I think, value in letting players experience the consequences of the die roll if you can spin it into an amazing story. How can you have Gandalf come back as Gandalf the White if he doesn't fall to the Balrog?

[Sewercop]

I agree with what is said here. Only roll the dice if its meaningfull.
But let the players roll if they want that. Some players like to roll for everything.


I have faked rolls as a GM but I hate doing it. It is often towards the same players every time. Often to make them feel more included in the game.
But it is important that you don`t change mechanics in the world. If you let one player succeed and next session make one fail with the same roll for
the same task. Players do notice and it is often to the detriment of the ones that focus on that specific thing. Makes them feel wronged and can detract fun.

I fake rolls to make less mechanicly savy players feel valuable I guess you can say.

[Crake]

2) Story trumps mechanics. DM's that run these sorts of games are much more concerned with telling an interesting story than they are with following the rules.

I personally greatly resent this assumption. The way I see it is that DMs that run this way are much more concerned with railroading a story, rather than letting the events occur as they do and have the story develop based on the events that happen, not by pre-determining events that will happen. Fiating away people's deaths because it's inconvenient for your story is exactly that, railroading. Letting someone die doesn't stop the story, it changes the story. How are the players going to bring him back? ARE they going to bring him back? Do they have time? Do they have the money? If they don't, what are they going to do to accumulate it? Perhaps go into debt in a local church and be required to perform quests in return?

Story trumps mechanics doesn't mean that a DM is more interested in telling a story, that may as well be the stormwind fallacy. What they are interested in is telling THEIR story, rather than letting the story evolve and happen on it's own based on the events that occur and the actions that the players take. If you have NPCs with personalities and can determine how they would react to any given situation, you wouldn't need to pre-determine events and force them to happen by ignoring dice rolls, that's just lazy DMing.

Now others are saying to ignore dice rolls when the alternative is pointless, though I still encourage using a dice roll, not so much for success, but the time it takes for them to succeed. Obviously, if time is not a factor (which sometimes it isn't) then that's unnecessary either. But say for example, if the players attack the BBEG and hit him with a save or die, and you just automatically say he passes because you don't want him dead just yet, that's what I'm against.

tl;dr: DMs who let mechanics come first aren't less concerned with the story, they're more interested in a self evolving narrative rather than a railroaded, pre-determined story where the players have no agency.

[Threadnaught]

How can you have Gandalf come back as Gandalf the White if he doesn't fall to the Balrog?

Easy, have him kill the Balrog and die of exhaustion.

[Doctor Awkward]

I personally greatly resent this assumption. The way I see it is that DMs that run this way are much more concerned with railroading a story, rather than letting the events occur as they do and have the story develop based on the events that happen, not by pre-determining events that will happen. Fiating away people's deaths because it's inconvenient for your story is exactly that, railroading. Letting someone die doesn't stop the story, it changes the story. How are the players going to bring him back? ARE they going to bring him back? Do they have time? Do they have the money? If they don't, what are they going to do to accumulate it? Perhaps go into debt in a local church and be required to perform quests in return?

Story trumps mechanics doesn't mean that a DM is more interested in telling a story, that may as well be the stormwind fallacy. What they are interested in is telling THEIR story, rather than letting the story evolve and happen on it's own based on the events that occur and the actions that the players take. If you have NPCs with personalities and can determine how they would react to any given situation, you wouldn't need to pre-determine events and force them to happen by ignoring dice rolls, that's just lazy DMing.

Now others are saying to ignore dice rolls when the alternative is pointless, though I still encourage using a dice roll, not so much for success, but the time it takes for them to succeed. Obviously, if time is not a factor (which sometimes it isn't) then that's unnecessary either. But say for example, if the players attack the BBEG and hit him with a save or die, and you just automatically say he passes because you don't want him dead just yet, that's what I'm against.

tl;dr: DMs who let mechanics come first aren't less concerned with the story, they're more interested in a self evolving narrative rather than a railroaded, pre-determined story where the players have no agency.


You realize that, by that line of reasoning, people who don't roll dice every single situation that could possibly call for them are also railroading?

Why didn't we roll to climb that cliff? Stop railroading us. How come we didn't have to roll diplomacy in addition to our well-reasoned arguments to the king? Stop railroading us. So my guy just happened to notice that hill giant in the middle of that open field when he had a completely unobstructed view of it? Stop railroading us!!

And how is any of this in any way related to the Stormwind Fallacy? Did I say that DM's who prefer a story will run always run a game without ever allowing the players to roll dice? No, no I did not. A much better example of what you seem to think I was implying would be a DM who allows has the king grant the party's request for no reason even after one of them insult's him and his lineage directly to his face. THAT is railroading.


The story isn't just told by the DM, it's also told by the characters. By that I mean the characters, not the players controlling them. What if, immediately after the Council of Elrond, the Fellowship rolled a double zero on the random encounter chart and lost Gimli, Pippin, Sam, and Boromir to some huge nasties they simply couldn't overcome? According to your claim, the survivors would have randomly encountered a group of four new elven warriors from Rivendell or just some wandering group of dudes from somewhere randomly in the woods and they all could have just continued right along like nothing had happened and it still would have been just as equally an interesting story.

And you would be wrong. We never would have seen Boromir's growth as a person, nor his redemption through his sacrifice against the orcs. He would have died as some ass that wanted the ring for himself. We wouldn't have cared at all about the dead bodies that were found in Moria, because Gimli wouldn't have rushed into the tomb. Frodo would probably have died when he encountered Shelob, and no one would have saved Faramir from his father's madness. Nothing would have happened the same way because the new members would have completely different motivations and personalities from the old ones. If they were basically the same characters as the one's that died, then there was no point in having them die in the first place.

The DM who fudged that double zero encounter roll doesn't want to see his story be played out, he wants to see the current story play out.

[nedz]

We've just finished playing a campaign where the story ruled: it got a bit boring. Chase scenes, for example, were scripted so it didn't matter if we dawdled or ran: the villain would escape, or be caught, regardless; there was no suspense. The iron rails annoyed me, though the other players didn't seem to mind quite so much.

I tend to favour (1) since I prefer running sandboxey type games. In these Flickerdart's answer is less important since it's the accumulation of results that matter.

There is also the trick of rolling concealed dice to create suspense or hide some fact. Here the result is ignored - it is the very act of rolling which is interesting.

In principle I am prepared to fudge the dice whilst DMing, though I can't remember the last time I did it: probably a few years ago when I ignored some crit threats, and just treat them as hits, against a low level party. Those are swingy enough already.

[Thurbane]

I must admit, as a DM I have been known to fudge dice rolls on a rare occasion, but usually only to save a player from an (un)lucky crit roll or similar...

[Ettina]

You realize that, by that line of reasoning, people who don't roll dice every single situation that could possibly call for them are also railroading?

Why didn't we roll to climb that cliff? Stop railroading us. How come we didn't have to roll diplomacy in addition to our well-reasoned arguments to the king? Stop railroading us. So my guy just happened to notice that hill giant in the middle of that open field when he had a completely unobstructed view of it? Stop railroading us!!

That's a strawman. There's a big difference between automatically succeeding a Spot check to see a hill giant in plain view and automatically succeeding your saving throw when the BBEG hits you with a save or die spell. In fact, the game itself says not to roll Spot check for something that is plainly visible to everyone.

As a DM, though, if a player insisted on rolling for everything, I'd just tell them they succeeded without telling them I'd set the DC at 1.

[Ettina]

The story isn't just told by the DM, it's also told by the characters. By that I mean the characters, not the players controlling them. What if, immediately after the Council of Elrond, the Fellowship rolled a double zero on the random encounter chart and lost Gimli, Pippin, Sam, and Boromir to some huge nasties they simply couldn't overcome? According to your claim, the survivors would have randomly encountered a group of four new elven warriors from Rivendell or just some wandering group of dudes from somewhere randomly in the woods and they all could have just continued right along like nothing had happened and it still would have been just as equally an interesting story.

And you would be wrong. We never would have seen Boromir's growth as a person, nor his redemption through his sacrifice against the orcs. He would have died as some ass that wanted the ring for himself. We wouldn't have cared at all about the dead bodies that were found in Moria, because Gimli wouldn't have rushed into the tomb. Frodo would probably have died when he encountered Shelob, and no one would have saved Faramir from his father's madness. Nothing would have happened the same way because the new members would have completely different motivations and personalities from the old ones. If they were basically the same characters as the one's that died, then there was no point in having them die in the first place.

Doesn't mean they couldn't have had something else interesting happen to them. I mean, look at Game of Thrones. Does the fact that main characters drop like flies make it a less interesting story? No! Sure, a lot of them could have been fascinating characters if they'd survived, but watching the fallout from their deaths is fascinating too, and leads to character growth in the survivors.

[Doctor Awkward]

That's a strawman. There's a big difference between automatically succeeding a Spot check to see a hill giant in plain view and automatically succeeding your saving throw when the BBEG hits you with a save or die spell. In fact, the game itself says not to roll Spot check for something that is plainly visible to everyone.

As a DM, though, if a player insisted on rolling for everything, I'd just tell them they succeeded without telling them I'd set the DC at 1.

No, it was satire.

For the purposes of rolling spot checks, the rules say it is the DM's purview to say what is or is not considered blatantly obvious. I was specifically mocking the idea that, by the rules, you could feasibly have to roll to notice the giant in order to bring attention to the senselessness of defining railroading as not leaving every single possible narrative decision in the hands of the dice.

...and knowing is half the battle.


Doesn't mean they couldn't have had something else interesting happen to them. I mean, look at Game of Thrones. Does the fact that main characters drop like flies make it a less interesting story? No! Sure, a lot of them could have been fascinating characters if they'd survived, but watching the fallout from their deaths is fascinating too, and leads to character growth in the survivors.

That's your opinion. I personally know a number of people who stopped watching the show when their favorite character was killed. There is never any guarantee that the affect the dead guy will have on the story of the survivor is going to be anywhere near as intriguing than the story of the guy who was just made dead.

I myself was fascinated by Syrio's character, mostly because he was such a fish out of water. The culture he was from instilled views that were so radically different from everyone else around him that it was simply a delight to read any scene he was involved in. I was always glad to see him come back because I was eager to get to know his culture better through him, and I found his disappearance to be an enormous waste of potential. Now instead of getting to learn about Braavos from the person who was raised there, I have to learn about it through Arya, who is herself an outsider, and to me the experience is less interesting as a result.

[Crake]

You realize that, by that line of reasoning, people who don't roll dice every single situation that could possibly call for them are also railroading?

Why didn't we roll to climb that cliff? Stop railroading us. How come we didn't have to roll diplomacy in addition to our well-reasoned arguments to the king? Stop railroading us. So my guy just happened to notice that hill giant in the middle of that open field when he had a completely unobstructed view of it? Stop railroading us!!

And how is any of this in any way related to the Stormwind Fallacy? Did I say that DM's who prefer a story will run always run a game without ever allowing the players to roll dice? No, no I did not. A much better example of what you seem to think I was implying would be a DM who allows has the king grant the party's request for no reason even after one of them insult's him and his lineage directly to his face. THAT is railroading.


The story isn't just told by the DM, it's also told by the characters. By that I mean the characters, not the players controlling them. What if, immediately after the Council of Elrond, the Fellowship rolled a double zero on the random encounter chart and lost Gimli, Pippin, Sam, and Boromir to some huge nasties they simply couldn't overcome? According to your claim, the survivors would have randomly encountered a group of four new elven warriors from Rivendell or just some wandering group of dudes from somewhere randomly in the woods and they all could have just continued right along like nothing had happened and it still would have been just as equally an interesting story.

And you would be wrong. We never would have seen Boromir's growth as a person, nor his redemption through his sacrifice against the orcs. He would have died as some ass that wanted the ring for himself. We wouldn't have cared at all about the dead bodies that were found in Moria, because Gimli wouldn't have rushed into the tomb. Frodo would probably have died when he encountered Shelob, and no one would have saved Faramir from his father's madness. Nothing would have happened the same way because the new members would have completely different motivations and personalities from the old ones. If they were basically the same characters as the one's that died, then there was no point in having them die in the first place.

The DM who fudged that double zero encounter roll doesn't want to see his story be played out, he wants to see the current story play out.



If you had read the entirety of my post, you would have seen which dice I was specifically referring to. Saying that my argument extends to trivial things, such as climbing a mountain or survival checks, or spot checks (which take 10 can completely obviate the need for) is strawmanning, despite you trying to call it satire. My specific example was fiating away the BBEG's save on a save or die because you didn't want him to die just yet. By keeping him alive, you're preserving your story. Letting him die suddenly means the players' actions matter, and you need to put in some thought and consideration beyond "this is what happens in my story". You need to consider what happens with the death of that NPC, does someone revive him? Did he have the capability to have contingencies in place to resurrect him? Or does a second in command take the opportunity to take power? Perhaps both, and the BBEG's factions are split in two, with infighting going on, giving the players more time to achieve their goal?

As for how it relates to the stormwind fallacy, the very fact that you said that "story over mechanics" means that DMs are more focused on the story means you think that having mechanics lead the story means that the DM is less focused on the story. The old argument that optimised players are worse at roleplay, it's the exact same argument, just from the DM's side.

As I said, pre-determining events isn't good story telling, it's lazy DMing

[Nhia]

I think the thing would be to play the charater "DM" better then any of the PCs. They need to think anything is possible even if the DM controls the outcome behind the screen. but also have different scenarios planed; if the run, if they fight, if they solve without violense. The only sure thing is that PCs never do what you think they would! :) I hate dying and the awkward scene trying to get new PCs in.

[jaydubs]

I don't like dice fudging, regardless of whether I'm a player or a DM in that particular campaign. As others have mentioned, the dice introduce an element of true chance outside of either the DM's or the players' control. Following them means that we (being both the players and the DM) truly don't know what's going to happen. The heroes might win, they might lose. That's exciting.

The other thing is, I find open dice rolling to be one of the fastest ways to get my players to trust that I'm not railroading other parts of the game. It's like a big neon sign saying "I'm comfortable not controlling the outcome of this encounter." And that strongly implies "I'm comfortable not controlling the outcome of this story." In my experience, most players like that. It feels like they're holding their own fates in their hands, rather than succeeding or failing at the whim of the DM. And if offered the choice, I'm betting most would accept the risk of character death from unlucky rolls, in exchange for that freedom.

Besides - there are other tools available for handling that sort of sudden bad luck. Hero points, fate points, limited re-rolls and the like. Also, building potential escape options into the scenes. And giving enemies goals other than "kill the PCs." And those are all things I can do openly, guilt free, without having to conceal it from my players.

[Yahzi]

It's like a big neon sign saying "I'm comfortable not controlling the outcome of this encounter."
How can a PC fear death if his DM fears it for him?

The dice are critical. They take the blame for killing PCs. Otherwise it's just the DM pushing people around.

[Amphetryon]

There are RPGs where the dice do not play a critical part in the outcome of encounters. D&D is not among them. If you and your group prefer games where the dice have less say in the narrative, I might humbly suggest investigating those other options.

[Doctor Awkward]

If you had read the entirety of my post, you would have seen which dice I was specifically referring to. Saying that my argument extends to trivial things, such as climbing a mountain or survival checks, or spot checks (which take 10 can completely obviate the need for) is strawmanning, despite you trying to call it satire. My specific example was fiating away the BBEG's save on a save or die because you didn't want him to die just yet. By keeping him alive, you're preserving your story. Letting him die suddenly means the players' actions matter, and you need to put in some thought and consideration beyond "this is what happens in my story". You need to consider what happens with the death of that NPC, does someone revive him? Did he have the capability to have contingencies in place to resurrect him? Or does a second in command take the opportunity to take power? Perhaps both, and the BBEG's factions are split in two, with infighting going on, giving the players more time to achieve their goal?

As for how it relates to the stormwind fallacy, the very fact that you said that "story over mechanics" means that DMs are more focused on the story means you think that having mechanics lead the story means that the DM is less focused on the story. The old argument that optimised players are worse at roleplay, it's the exact same argument, just from the DM's side.

As I said, pre-determining events isn't good story telling, it's lazy DMing

No, it's still satire. It was a senseless exaggeration of a rules technicality made only to emphasize a point. Repeatedly insisting that it's not won't change things.

In fact, if we want to get technical, the only real straw man argument here is when you claimed that my posting "Story trumps Mechanics" was my way of suggesting, "Those kinds of DM's take away all dice agency for the sake of the plot they have created.", when in fact I neither said, nor implied, any such thing. This is made even more obvious when I clarified in my previous reply that player characters tell the story just as much as DM's do. Rather than addressing the actual content of my post, you chose to view it as an implication you felt would be easier to argue against.

Anyway...

the very fact that you said that "story over mechanics" means that DMs are more focused on the story means you think that having mechanics lead the story means that the DM is less focused on the story.

Of course I think that.
I think that because it's demonstrable fact.

Anyone who has run more than a couple of table-top sessions will tell you that random dice rolls spoil a story all the time. The very nature of leaving the narrative in the hands of the dice is not conducive to good storytelling. Again, I am not saying that good storytelling and good DMing are mutually exclusive, or even inclusive. What am I saying is that what is and is not a good story is a matter of opinion only to a degree. There are objective standards by which art is judged.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

I think the thing would be to play the charater "DM" better then any of the PCs. They need to think anything is possible even if the DM controls the outcome behind the screen. but also have different scenarios planed; if the run, if they fight, if they solve without violense. The only sure thing is that PCs never do what you think they would! :) I hate dying and the awkward scene trying to get new PCs in.

Whenever a character dies, and there is no option for resurrection, what do you do? Tell that player, "Oh well", and have sit in a corner? No, he creates something new, and re-enters the story at another point.

This can go very poorly. (https://youtu.be/oSynJyq2RRo?t=30m06s)
Even a perfectly executed introduction of a player's new character will often feel contrived in some way, which greatly detracts from the narrative. And further, the contributions that the previous character made to the narrative are now done, and that potential is wasted, replaced by something that could easily be worse.

"Oh but diamond dust and resurrections and magic..."
Are any of those things any less contrived? You are either creating a laughable revolving door afterlife akin to what you see in a comic book, or you are putting the quest to save the world on hold so that you can do a whole new quest to resurrect your fallen friend. And the bad guy is just going to wait for you to finish... why? Because of sloppy writing that's the result of a clunky narrative?

You can easily list a hundred thousand counterexamples and scenarios and contingencies to address the situations. Great, that's awesome. That makes you a great DM. But being a good DM and telling a good story are not. The same. Thing.

Here's another example of how a single die roll can kill an entire campaign. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKgmhmEtgx4&list=PLtffrRBS4J2HybO_Jg8Ihasgio6078kXb) He adapted the narrative, and it still wound up being an entertaining story, but that's because he's a both a great DM and a good storyteller. These situations are the exception, not the rule.

As far as "Fudging a bad guys roll on a save or die to keep him alive"? That is something the again depends entirely on how his death will serve the narrative. Imagine if you are playing table-top Chrono Trigger, and the party is fighting Magus. At the end of the battle, he offers to join you because he knows that helping you defeat Lavos is more important than any squabble he has with you. You are then presented with a choice of killing him or letting him join you. The result of that choice in the narrative? Magus is one of the most beloved and well-remembered characters in video game history today.

If I were the DM in that campaign, would I fudge his saving throw against a save or die during the battle so that I could give the party that choice once the battle was over? You bet your ass I would. If that situation came up, I would also have made something up about how he "Saved, but it seems to have taken some kind of toll." and then imposed circumstance penalties to ensure the party's eventual, if difficult, triumph.

The DM who prefers Story over Mechanics is the one who is willing to fudge the occasional die roll because he knows that the combination of characters and narrative flow is working, and feels that purely random disruptions will add nothing to the story. This does not make him wrong. It makes him different.

[Crake]

No, it's still satire. It was a senseless exaggeration of a rules technicality made only to emphasize a point. Repeatedly insisting that it's not won't change things.

In fact, if we want to get technical, the only real straw man argument here is when you claimed that my posting "Story trumps Mechanics" was my way of suggesting, "Those kinds of DM's take away all dice agency for the sake of the plot they have created.", when in fact I neither said, nor implied, any such thing. This is made even more obvious when I clarified in my previous reply that player characters tell the story just as much as DM's do. Rather than addressing the actual content of my post, you chose to view it as an implication you felt would be easier to argue against.

Anyway...


Of course I think that.
I think that because it's demonstrable fact.

How exactly do you believe it to be a demonstrable fact? I'd like to think that the games I run are very story and roleplay oriented (which my players would agree to, that out of all the DMs they have had, which is around half a dozen or so, I run the most fun and story-oriented games), but I still let the dice influence the story. It's not a difference of how story oriented you are, it's a matter of how you tell the story.


Anyone who has run more than a couple of table-top sessions will tell you that random dice rolls spoil a story all the time. The very nature of leaving the narrative in the hands of the dice is not conducive to good storytelling. Again, I am not saying that good storytelling and good DMing are mutually exclusive, or even inclusive. What am I saying is that what is and is not a good story is a matter of opinion only to a degree. There are objective standards by which art is judged.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:


Whenever a character dies, and there is no option for resurrection, what do you do? Tell that player, "Oh well", and have sit in a corner? No, he creates something new, and re-enters the story at another point.

That's not a problem of the dice, that's a problem of the DM not being able to give the players any options. It's a case of the DM being unable to find a narritive despite the dice, which again comes down to lazy DMing. If a player dies without any means for a resurrection, have them roleplay out a scene in heaven (or hell) in which their fates are decided, giving the player a potential chance at a resurrection, either damned or blessed. Hell, when I had my first player death ever, it lead to an unlikely romance between the player and the demon that had taken his soul hostage, leading to his eventual ascention to one of the demon lords in my campaign.


This can go very poorly. (https://youtu.be/oSynJyq2RRo?t=30m06s)
Even a perfectly executed introduction of a player's new character will often feel contrived in some way, which greatly detracts from the narrative. And further, the contributions that the previous character made to the narrative are now done, and that potential is wasted, replaced by something that could easily be worse.

"Oh but diamond dust and resurrections and magic..."
Are any of those things any less contrived? You are either creating a laughable revolving door afterlife akin to what you see in a comic book, or you are putting the quest to save the world on hold so that you can do a whole new quest to resurrect your fallen friend. And the bad guy is just going to wait for you to finish... why? Because of sloppy writing that's the result of a clunky narrative?

You can easily list a hundred thousand counterexamples and scenarios and contingencies to address the situations. Great, that's awesome. That makes you a great DM. But being a good DM and telling a good story are not. The same. Thing.

I would argue, that as a DM's job is to tell a story, that they are in fact the same thing. Being able to weave the events into your narrative is part of the finesse of being able to tell a good story while also letting the players actually take part in it, rather than just deciding what will happen because you cannot be bothered to figure out the alternative.


Here's another example of how a single die roll can kill an entire campaign. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKgmhmEtgx4&list=PLtffrRBS4J2HybO_Jg8Ihasgio6078kXb) He adapted the narrative, and it still wound up being an entertaining story, but that's because he's a both a great DM and a good storyteller. These situations are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not gonna watch over 2 hours of youtube to answer to this, though I may eventually get around to it. Despite that, based on what you said, he managed to adapt the narritive and it still wound up entertaining? From what you said earlier, I assume you believe it possible to adapt a narritive, while it not being entertaining, making you a good DM, but a bad storyteller? I don't believe those two things are possible. If the story is not entertaining and the players not engaged, you're a bad DM.


As far as "Fudging a bad guys roll on a save or die to keep him alive"? That is something the again depends entirely on how his death will serve the narrative. Imagine if you are playing table-top Chrono Trigger, and the party is fighting Magus. At the end of the battle, he offers to join you because he knows that helping you defeat Lavos is more important than any squabble he has with you. You are then presented with a choice of killing him or letting him join you. The result of that choice in the narrative? Magus is one of the most beloved and well-remembered characters in video game history today.

Having not played Chrono Trigger myself, I consulted someone who had, and have come to the conclusion that this is a very subjective view point, and thus will disregard it as conjecture. You can hardly speak for a character being one of the most beloved and well-remembered characters in video game history, let alone that single part of the narritive being the reason.


If I were the DM in that campaign, would I fudge his saving throw against a save or die during the battle so that I could give the party that choice once the battle was over? You bet your ass I would. If that situation came up, I would also have made something up about how he "Saved, but it seems to have taken some kind of toll." and then imposed circumstance penalties to ensure the party's eventual, if difficult, triumph.

Considering the likelihood of an enemy in DND just dying outright before you have a chance to surrender, your plan would likely have not worked at all. My example was more referring to say, the players meeting him, and killing him before they were even intended to fight him, say with a phantasmal killer or something.


The DM who prefers Story over Mechanics is the one who is willing to fudge the occasional die roll because he knows that the combination of characters and narrative flow is working, and feels that purely random disruptions will add nothing to the story. This does not make him wrong. It makes him different.

I was never of the opinion that story over mechanics was wrong (though, as I have mentioned a few times, I do feel it is lazy and detracts from player agency, whether that is a bad thing would be up to your players), merely that story over mechanics does not make a DM more focused on the story. How you tell your story is irrelevant of how focused on your story, hence why I brought up the stormwind fallacy, it's not a perfect connection, but if you replace optimisation with mechanics, and roleplaying with story, then it works out the same as my arcument. There is nothing stopping a DM from letting the dice affect the story, while still being entirely focused on telling a good story.

[Sewercop]

Fudge the dice because you want to tell a story as a gamemaster ? I would leave the table and so would most of the people i play with.
Have had it happend a few times. Insulting and annoying.

[Doctor Awkward]

How exactly do you believe it to be a demonstrable fact? I'd like to think that the games I run are very story and roleplay oriented (which my players would agree to, that out of all the DMs they have had, which is around half a dozen or so, I run the most fun and story-oriented games), but I still let the dice influence the story. It's not a difference of how story oriented you are, it's a matter of how you tell the story.

My answer was to the question of whether or not you are happy in letting dice decide the flow of you narrative. Personally, I think one of the hallmarks of being a good DM and a good storyteller is being able to make sound judgments on how well a given dice roll will serve your story.



That's not a problem of the dice, that's a problem of the DM not being able to give the players any options. It's a case of the DM being unable to find a narritive despite the dice, which again comes down to lazy DMing. If a player dies without any means for a resurrection, have them roleplay out a scene in heaven (or hell) in which their fates are decided, giving the player a potential chance at a resurrection, either damned or blessed. Hell, when I had my first player death ever, it lead to an unlikely romance between the player and the demon that had taken his soul hostage, leading to his eventual ascention to one of the demon lords in my campaign.

I'm not sure that asking the entire party to sit on their hands while you roleplay out the dead character's afterlife would be any more productive than asking that one player to do the same. Even OotS waited until the current book was finished before they started exploring Roy's afterlife.

And if you are concocting scenarios where a dead player can argue with extra-planar beings over the fate of his own soul, I'd wager you are already putting a potentially interesting story over the printed rules, which are quite clear on the requirements of diamond dust spent in ten-minute intervals.


I would argue, that as a DM's job is to tell a story, that they are in fact the same thing. Being able to weave the events into your narrative is part of the finesse of being able to tell a good story while also letting the players actually take part in it, rather than just deciding what will happen because you cannot be bothered to figure out the alternative.

True enough. But the point I was trying to convey is that the randomness introduced by dice rolls will not always be objectively or subjectively better than what you had planned out in advance yourself.



I'm not gonna watch over 2 hours of youtube to answer to this, though I may eventually get around to it. Despite that, based on what you said, he managed to adapt the narritive and it still wound up entertaining? From what you said earlier, I assume you believe it possible to adapt a narritive, while it not being entertaining, making you a good DM, but a bad storyteller? I don't believe those two things are possible. If the story is not entertaining and the players not engaged, you're a bad DM.

I would highly recommend you do try to find time to watch that video at some point, regardless of the discussion here. Not only is the story itself hilarious, but there are a lot of good takeaways from it to help refine one's DMing style.
There's actually a moment where he directly discusses the single roll event and says, "There's by the rules, and there's What should happen." Specifically the where he notes that he could have just walked off the results of the roll and soldiered forward like he originally planned to, but he felt that the narrative would be better served by adjusting the campaign accordingly. After seeing the results, and comparing it to what could have happened otherwise, I was inclined to agree with him.


Having not played Chrono Trigger myself, I consulted someone who had, and have come to the conclusion that this is a very subjective view point, and thus will disregard it as conjecture. You can hardly speak for a character being one of the most beloved and well-remembered characters in video game history, let alone that single part of the narritive being the reason.

This is really a minor point, but why would you consider one person's opinion on the matter any more or less conjecture simply because you know them personally?

A simple Google search will turn up copious amounts of fan-art, fan-fiction, and dedicated forums, with plenty of people who are more than happy to spend days explaining to you why Magus is the single most developed member of the Chrono Trigger cast. I actually think Magus is a little overrated, but my personal opinion doesn't alter the facts.


I was never of the opinion that story over mechanics was wrong (though, as I have mentioned a few times, I do feel it is lazy and detracts from player agency, whether that is a bad thing would be up to your players), merely that story over mechanics does not make a DM more focused on the story. How you tell your story is irrelevant of how focused on your story, hence why I brought up the stormwind fallacy, it's not a perfect connection, but if you replace optimisation with mechanics, and roleplaying with story, then it works out the same as my arcument. There is nothing stopping a DM from letting the dice affect the story, while still being entirely focused on telling a good story.

This is where we agree to disagree then, I guess. I've seen more than enough instances where the dice negatively affect the narrative to say definitively that no matter how much a DM cares about the story they should never ever consider fudging a die roll.

[Flickerdart]

I've seen more than enough instances where the dice negatively affect the narrative to say definitively that no matter how much a DM cares about the story they should never ever consider fudging a die roll.
The dice may negatively affect a narrative, but a skilled DM recognizes that there is no the narrative.

[Doctor Awkward]

The dice may negatively affect a narrative, but a skilled DM recognizes that there is no the narrative.

Whether or not the change is objectively better than the original is the point.

[Thurbane]

Fudge the dice because you want to tell a story as a gamemaster ? I would leave the table and so would most of the people i play with.
Have had it happend a few times. Insulting and annoying.

Depends on your play style - I've played in both types of games. I have a preference for letting the dice fall where they may, but if the DM is clear and up front that there will be fudging involved at times, I'd be OK with it.

[Sewercop]

Depends on your play style - I've played in both types of games. I have a preference for letting the dice fall where they may, but if the DM is clear and up front that there will be fudging involved at times, I'd be OK with it.

That is a different story wich I don`t object to at all. But they never did. Given a choice upfront is gold and solid DMing in my book.
Doing it without saying so.. No ty.

Atleast with the choice I can back out and let a player willing to play that game have fun

[atemu1234]

Isn't there an entire webcomic showing why LoTR is horrible as a D&D setting?

[Psyren]

The correct answer is "don't ask for a dice roll unless both failure and success are interesting."

^^^^^^^ This. /thread

If you know that a failed roll will just lead to you pretending it didn't happen, do not call for a roll at all.

Penny Arcade had an example of this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2014/04/18/the-dungeon-mistress-part-five) in the last panel. She clearly wanted to feed the party the info. What if he had tanked that Wis check? Then all of a sudden the players know you're fudging and the man behind the curtain is plain as day. Disappointment all around.

[Threadnaught]

Isn't there an entire webcomic showing why LoTR is horrible as a D&D setting?

Nope, but DM of the Rings is a webcomic showing how horrible the story of LotR is as a D&D Campaign.

[ComaVision]

I've fudged crits (not nat 20s) to get a party through the lower levels.

I also rolled a powerful incorporeal on a random encounter once (result of 100) but the players I had that day were all melee and slower so I ignored the result.

I won't do it if it's obvious because I think it cheapens the experience.

[Bucky]

Fudging a random encounter table is just an extension of one of the GM's main duties, adapting the module to fit the party. Fudging combat rolls is a violation of the GM's other major duty, which is making sure the rules of the game are properly enforced.

[Afgncaap5]

Fudging a random encounter table is just an extension of one of the GM's main duties, adapting the module to fit the party. Fudging combat rolls is a violation of the GM's other major duty, which is making sure the rules of the game are properly enforced.

I think that's part of the key issue. Everyone sort of knows that there are times when the GM should roll and times when the GM shouldn't, and there's a similar place where the GM can be accused of taking away player agency, story agency, *or* dice agency. If we pretend this is just a two-dimensional spectrum, there's a series of preferences where on one end of the spectrum rerolling on a random encounter table is natural and sensible, and another end where what's actually happening is the GM has a "different" encounter table using the original encounter table's structure as a template with "roll again" put in place for a lot of the less sensible table entries.

I don't know exactly where I fall on this truncated spectrum. I *do* know that there's a campaign where my character has come back to life not once but twice due to high-end magic reasons. Even before those deaths I was starting to feel like there was no risk. The "bravery" of my paladin became (and still is) replaced with a sense that it ultimately didn't matter how unreasonable the combat was, I could just wade in and "win" because I knew the DM's story wouldn't allow for failure. It's frustrating sometimes to know that success is assured. And equally frustrating when I get to a part of the script where failure is assured... a guy was gonna be murdered by a pirate captain, and we tried talking that captain out of it, but everyone... including the guy who was gonna be killed... was confounded that we were even attempting to be reasonable about this. We managed to talk the captain down from impaling to walking the plank, at least. (Saving him in the water was made difficult by the Kraken that the captain had beneath the waves as a friend, something that had been foreshadowed previously.)

So... yeah. My preference is to go with whatever the dice say and not come up with alternate solutions. It's a strong preference. I can see some value in fudging die rolls ("Ugh, it's 4 AM and we're not done and each round is taking five minutes... you know, I'm gonna reduce this monster's actual HP by three." 'Good news, guys, you beat him!') but I think the times where I'm okay with it far outweigh the times I'm not okay with it.

[ComaVision]

Fudging a random encounter table is just an extension of one of the GM's main duties, adapting the module to fit the party. Fudging combat rolls is a violation of the GM's other major duty, which is making sure the rules of the game are properly enforced.

I think of it less as breaking the rules and more as compensating for the well known "swinginess" of low level combat. Low leveled characters still can (and do) die in my games but if I can stop a character from being one-shot from full health without anyone noticing I just might, particularly with new players that I don't want to dissuade from D&D.

[Nhia]

I think that's part of the key issue. Everyone sort of knows that there are times when the GM should roll and times when the GM shouldn't, and there's a similar place where the GM can be accused of taking away player agency, story agency, *or* dice agency. If we pretend this is just a two-dimensional spectrum, there's a series of preferences where on one end of the spectrum rerolling on a random encounter table is natural and sensible, and another end where what's actually happening is the GM has a "different" encounter table using the original encounter table's structure as a template with "roll again" put in place for a lot of the less sensible table entries.

I don't know exactly where I fall on this truncated spectrum. I *do* know that there's a campaign where my character has come back to life not once but twice due to high-end magic reasons. Even before those deaths I was starting to feel like there was no risk. The "bravery" of my paladin became (and still is) replaced with a sense that it ultimately didn't matter how unreasonable the combat was, I could just wade in and "win" because I knew the DM's story wouldn't allow for failure. It's frustrating sometimes to know that success is assured. And equally frustrating when I get to a part of the script where failure is assured... a guy was gonna be murdered by a pirate captain, and we tried talking that captain out of it, but everyone... including the guy who was gonna be killed... was confounded that we were even attempting to be reasonable about this. We managed to talk the captain down from impaling to walking the plank, at least. (Saving him in the water was made difficult by the Kraken that the captain had beneath the waves as a friend, something that had been foreshadowed previously.)

So... yeah. My preference is to go with whatever the dice say and not come up with alternate solutions. It's a strong preference. I can see some value in fudging die rolls ("Ugh, it's 4 AM and we're not done and each round is taking five minutes... you know, I'm gonna reduce this monster's actual HP by three." 'Good news, guys, you beat him!') but I think the times where I'm okay with it far outweigh the times I'm not okay with it.

It's maybe in the beginning (low level) fudging is most necessary, you can't do anything fun without killing them off! ;) But allthough I'm for fudging when needed, I'm all for letting the PCs make their own decisions and alternate the story. As the DM I lay the road ahead and should be prepared for most of the sidetracks the PCs make. PCs with cursed dice may need some help form time to time, but a PC who repeatedly makes stupid decisions stands alone.

[Thurbane]

I knocked a player (my fiance) to -9 hp with an (un)lucky crit last night (2d8+12, rolled 2 8s for 28 damage). She was very unimpressed - I guess some players would prefer a little fudging after all. :smalltongue:

[Threadnaught]

I knocked a player (my fiance) to -9 hp with an (un)lucky crit last night (2d8+12, rolled 2 8s for 28 damage). She was very unimpressed - I guess some players would prefer a little fudging after all. :smalltongue:

What does she think she is? The DM's girlfriend?

She ain't getting any special privileges over what the other players have to put up with. Amirite?

[Nhia]

I knocked a player (my fiance) to -9 hp with an (un)lucky crit last night (2d8+12, rolled 2 8s for 28 damage). She was very unimpressed - I guess some players would prefer a little fudging after all. :smalltongue:


What does she think she is? The DM's girlfriend?

She ain't getting any special privileges over what the other players have to put up with. Amirite?

My very first session ever (had tried one short story before) my bf (DM) killed me because of unlucky dice, but was kind enough to let the others reserect me as an orc. So suddenly I was an elf caught in an Orcs body! I never got anything out of sleeping with the DM!!!:smallfurious:

[dascarletm]

I'm actually more uncompromising for my significant other...

However, sometimes fudging the dice is okay in my book if it accomplishes one thing... It makes the game more fun for the group, and otherwise it would make the game unfun.

I often don't fudge dice, but the other day my players were fighting a monster with displacement. I rolled the %to miss chance, and one player kept failing while everyone else was almost always hitting. Finally at the end I fudged the last miss into a hit giving him the kill. He was visibly frustrated with the situation, and everyone else felt at ease when he was able to finally hit. It made the fight fun when it probably would not have been.