gamegrene.com

Since you're preparing a lot and running a "serious" campaign where the story is more significant than mere hack'n'slash, you've got to be careful about the players you select. It's *your* careful work; don't waste it on people who don't appreciate you.

There's nothing wrong with people being a little blasé at the average beer-and-pizza game. And sometimes the rhythm of the game will ebb and flow; one week, everybody's really into the game, and the next, everybody's chatting distractedly. It can go that way.

But all in all, I'd say you seriously need to get yourself some better players. Anybody should be grateful to be gaming with a GM that spends four hours per week preparing the game. If they aren't, they're spoiled. Kick 'em to the curb, and find somebody hungrier!

First, I enjoyed the article greatly, and your previous articles have helped me a lot in the past with my campaignery.

Secondly, imagine the distractions amplified in trying to run a campaign over IRC. We've established that the pace is going to be slower than one run in real life, and have some custom software to help speed things up, but sometimes... its bad. Thusfar I'm still doing 1- and 2- character "intros", but sometimes there's incidents like:

DM: "Feln approaches you and says, 'nice shooting, we recovered this map from the body, I think we should hit the next outpost now, we won't get a chance like this again.'"
Player: "ooc: gonna go grill a burger".

Not that I'm much better about this than my players... 80% of whom (and myself) are EQ players :)

Naginata,

I'm glad you like the article. But this is my first here...So you have me confused with someone else.

Sam,

I think the biggest problem that existed was the fact that the players and I were all pretty decent friends before we started playing. I was also at the steak eaters house. I know now that both of those were situations were asking for trouble.

All EQ players are not evil...Just the ones I know.

Enjoyed the article and I empathize with your plight. I've been GMing for 25 years and have been fortunate to have serious players who are also good friends. We have a few simple, unwritten rules.

1) Fun and Friendship: We are here to have fun and will conduct ourselves accordingly. We came to the game friends and will leave it so. Whatever happens "Ingame" remains in game and after the game we should be able to shake hands and talk about it as friends.

2) Respect: We are all mature and busy people. We all choose to RP together because it's what we all want to do. We eliminate all other distractions (TV, radio, eating at the table). If someone wants or needs to do something else, step away from the game table so as not to disrupt everyone else's time.

2A) Special note able food and other table-clutter. Eliminate as much as possible. The table is for a *few* dice and character sheets only. Everything else disrupts the game. It's hard to Role-play with a player who's mouth is full of mashed potatoes and it's hard to roll dice dodging potato chip crumbs and Ring-Ding wrappers.

3. One World: There is only one world and 1 Gamemaster. What he/she says goes. If a player has an issue with something that happens "ingame" that can't be ironed out quickly, do not disrupt everyone else's game by starting an arguement right there. The GM is the final arbitor of all disputes. If a player doesn't like the way the game is run, then run your own.

I am fortunate to run 2 different groups (about 12-14 total) where all of the players are enthusiastic to play. I have gone to great pains to find players that share the same goals.

A 'bad' player, someone that doesn't approach the game the same as everyone else, can poison a entire group. You may agree to disagree, but let the player know that in your game the game will be run your way or they can go elsewhere for their RPing. Either the disruptive player learns to fit in, or cut him loose and look for more players. Trust me it works.

Good Gaming,
Turandir

I have seen bad games bust up good friendships -plural intended.

If you are there - back off. Find new players. You cannot make people want to prioritize your game over something else, except by making it a better game. Easier said than done, because I'm sure it's already the best game it is.

You cannot control the interest of your participants. You can influence it sometimes, but they have their own interests.

If you play every week, I recommend playing every 3 or four weeks instead. Or fold the game. Don't make it a confrontation - just lay it out. If the person isn't interested, that's their right. By the same token, cancelling a planned session at the last minute is not respectful of any of the participants time, anticipation, and hard work on your part.

Whatever you do - and this is experience that was paid for dearly - if you know it isn't working out - and you value their friendship first - find another activity to do with them.

Little short, but an interesting read.

Makes me glad that I'm spoiled by a group of dedicated folks and a scheduled night that takes precedence over any other event (barring a few weeks notice).

That said, I can empathise with the difficulty of finding a new crew after losing your old one. A few years ago I thought I might have to drop the hobby when my old group split. Thankfully, a close friend hooked me up with my current one in the nick of time and we've been steadily progressing through all manner of campaigns for almost five years now.

In response to Turandir's suggestions, I think you've hit on a number of common threads that any group needs to truly function well.

As an example of how these can affect a game, in my current group, the owner of our common play house just came into possession of a young child, and for the past couple of months, we've been dealing with constant screams, interuptions, and clutter. You can visibily see the effect this has had on the group, as attention spans are shorter, patience is thin, and breaks are far more frequent.

Some other tips that I have found keep gaming nights running smoothly are:

1) Regularity, make sure that everyone knows the night, time, and place. Once its set, keep it that way and if people miss a night, play without them unless its physically impossible. Don't penalize them outright for missing, but reduce shares of experience, monetary rewards, ect... (This of course relies on them caring and having a player base that can accomodate a missing person)

2)Be persistent and always keep your eye out for new folks. Talk about your hobby in the off time, beat the bush for new folks in-case you have dropouts, and try to spark interest among your player base so that they have a vested interest in showing up and seeing the fruits of your labor.

3)Variety, this depends somewhat on your group, but I've found that having a staple of at least three general campaigns that you tend to rotate in and out of helps to keep the gaming fresh and your players interested. If the mood on a particular world starts to shift, we'll simply finish the campaign, and then move over to another one for a while.

4)Don't force feed too much. In line with the previous mention, we tend to keep our campaigns to a reasonable length, as it helps to preserve the mobility of our worlds while still giving a sense of completion. Try not to trap the players into campaigns that can't be resolved in less than about 2-3 nights of gaming. This can sound kind of defeatist for doing long story arcs, but you can instead just link them and provide a series of mini-climaxes heading towards a major resolution. Just leave yourself handy breaks or stopping points to allow for resumption if interest shifts.

5)A last one that doesn't directly help the campaign run smoothly, but will help you retain your hair is : Don't overplan. Hate to say it, but I've seen more interesting campaigns than not ruined by DM/GM's who had thought out an arc months in advance only to have it derailed by random wandering they couldn't cope with. Let them wander and make the wandering fun. With subtle hints they'll make their way back to the plot eventually and they'll be more interested in their characters and coming over to game in the long run. In fact, having a few handy wanderlust topics ready can be a good stand in on those nights when you are missing folks.

Araes,

Thanks for the comments. I too thought the article was a bit short, but I didnt want to add something that would spoil it and/or throw off the focus.

I think perhaps the biggest problem was a pretty total lack of maturity among most of the players. Two of them were mature and serious about the campaign, one was most of the time, and the fourth was prone to making crude sexual jokes and the like.

I think I was just asking for it, to be honest. Sometimes you just bury your head in the sand and hope it doesnt rain. That was my case, without a doubt.

Not to say I totally regret the group and campaign. I do not. I gained valuable experience, and I introduced 4 people into RP. Cannot ask for much more than that.

Araes, those all all good, practical tips into making a long campaign a little less daunting. I do most of them as well - or some variant.

In particular, rather than running multiple campaigns, I allow a "stable" of characters from which the party can draw for a particular game. They all belong to the same chartered "company" to which all the characters tithe, but for this privelege, they may select a different character depending on their missions. Typically, they adventure within a certain general region, and they meet up from time to time, so it all makes some level of story sense.

Because we track XP meticulously on an Excel spreadsheet, and divide it among the people present in the adventure, they are motivated to bring as few characters as they think they need.

We play whether or not all the players are present, and we NPC the character, safeties off (no guilt in killing a PC whose player is MIA, through the normal course of the story).

The best advice though is to ensure - above all - that the adventures have an ending. It's ok to string them along - but you've got to have some sense of closure or success (or failure) every few sessions, or it becomes arduous as a soap opera. This makes story sense and gaming sense.

Whatever you do, if you see people losing interest, DON'T try to go easy on the characters, making the game aspect less challenging. I know a DM who did that as a matter of policy to keep two PC's alive, because he thought they were just waiting to die to quit the game. In the end, they quit anyway, but so did the others who found the game to be unchallenging and arbitrary - since the DM was basically making it all up on the fly.

Yeah,

A simple disagreement about the rules can definately hit the preverbial brakes of a game. I think for the most part, the players are the one who need to realize...its not that critical; this one little detail is NOT gonna poke all of their future gameplay in the tooter. They need to just accept the GMs decision and flow with it.

Actually, hashing out the background info is part of the fun. I gave my players a supplement, detailing the campaign world, what monsters can be found where, how much a pint of brown ale costs in a local tavern, the names of the local politicians. It's great fun, plus, it gives you as DM some ground work, so you don't have to wing it, you can always refer to the supplement. It's all good.

I have often been blessed with players such as Neph has just described.

They are great to have around.

I also do what Olly just described and it does give focus to the players' creativity thereby it lessens the chance I will have to stop or slow them in their creative process.

As the wise man said: "It's all good" or neutral or evil depending on the campaign ; )

I've never had a lot of trouble resolving disputes over rulings.. for that matter, I haven't had a lot of disputes. But I find that when they do come up, the players are a lot more likely to accept your decision with little or no complaint if they feel that you're a fair and reasonable GM.. and if a player has a problem with a ruling, a *brief* discussion usually doesn't hurt. At the very least, it shows that you're willing to hear their side on the issue, and most players will agree to disagree until a more appropriate time for the sake of the game if they feel they're being treated fairly.

As far as having stuff cluttering up the table.. again, I've never found it to be a problem. As long as the table's big enough to accomodate everyone without crowding, and it isn't covered with totally extraneous junk, a few extra glasses/plates/dice/whatever shouldn't be any problem. Anything that's really bulky, like big chip bags or two-liter soda bottles, can always sit on the floor or somewhere else within convenient reach.

I haven't seen Xplo before. Are you new?

Yeah, for a while it was just me, Olly, Shark and Nephandus posting...

So that means...not much information.

Yeah...

He sure seemed a little...how can I put this nicely...umm...

militant

I come and go. *shrug*

Eater, I can see why your players would complain. OTOH, if the shoe fits...

Ah yes, I remember when I was a DM. I would spend an hour or two preparing for the next session, and, most days, everyone would make it. After a few sessions, I realized my group had two modes: Ready to Play & Hey, Can I Borrow Your ? In the former, everyone would have their character sheets, dice and Players' Handbooks. In the latter, group members (one in particular) would show up without dice, and sometimes not even their character sheet. The phone conversations that preceded these games often went something like thins:

Me:So, were going to play on Saturday, so bring the right character sheet.
Player:Ok, I got it.
Me:I want to get started quickly, so don't be late.
Player:I won't.
Me:And don't forget your dice this time!
Player:Right. Dice.

The night of the game, the Player would show up an hour late with the wrong character sheet, no dice, but with a brand new anime DVD he wanted to watch. We would inevitably watch the DVD. After about two months of stuff like this, I threatened to throw him out, and he shaped up. He's only relapsed once so far. I decided on this mode's name when I realized that, at the end of the "gaming" session, someone would say something along the lines of " Hey, can I borrow your ?" It's true.

Anyway, those days are long past. I no longer have full gaming group. My old group consisted of 8 people playing 3 different campaigns in 2 gaming systems(not every player was in every game). That was 6 months ago. Three months ago, that group became 3 people, including myself. One of the 2 players is a hack-n-slasher, and the other hates house rules of any kind. I tried having a game with just them last month. The hack-an-slasher tried to avoid the plot at all costs, and the other one tried to convince me to remove all the specialized equipment I have come up with from the campaign world. 4 hours of playing led nowhere. I have only played one RPG session since, as a character, with a totally different group that rarely has time to meet.

I've tried to attract new players, or get the old ones back. So far, no luck. It's funny, though, that the only reason I became a DM was that one of my groups (which later became the one that recently broke up) lost it's DM. He got a girlfriend. And I think he's given up gaming, at least for now.

All the players that have played under me agree I'm a good DM. I come up with interesting plots and hooks. I allow (and provide!) food. I'm flexible when it comes to character backgrounds. I give enough gold and XP to keep them interested, but not make them too powerful. Yet, almost everyone left. I don't know why.

I want to master a game again. I want to roll dice and consult a table, fudge monster to-hit rolls, protect the integrity of the plot, spend hours fleshing out NPC's and world locations, describe the the sights, sounds and smells of a lost dungeon, and stage epic (and not so epic) battles. I am a GM!

When I first started writing this, I had a point in mind. It's become a rant. All I really wanted to say was that I think the article is well done and stressed some very important GM strategies, especially those regarding player cooperation. But I needed to vent. I'm a GM without a game to master, what do you expect.

Anyway, good job Rider Of The Storm, hope to see more from you soon.

Nephandus said:
Fudge your To-Hit rules, and I won't be playing in your group

Neph, (may I call you Neph) that is a pretty unbending position. Assuming the GM does not do it often, a little fudging is likely to go unnoticed, or even be appreciated. I have occasionally fudged (or ignored, or even just did not roll) rolls so that a specific result I wanted to occur takes place. Like have the giant drop his weapon, just because the sight of a 5 die axe spinning accross the cavern is kinda cool (plus ya just know some big dumb fighter is going to try to pick it up and try to use it, and the comedic value of that is not to be missed). Or choosing the amount of damage done (rather than rolling it) because I want to leave the party with a few severely injured members for a while to further some plot element (no healing magic in my game)- or perhaps to keep the damage done coordinated with the "rep" of the baddies. For example if a group of kobald bandits is known for their ferocity I could see determining their hits and damage in a manner other than just following the dice.

But that is just me. And rather than fudge the rolls I suppose I could just give the Kobalds some plusses (for training, leadership and morale), and if an encounter is not woundidng the party enough I could just throw a few more baddies at them, same end, different means - it's just not the solution I chose.

I will say thogh, that the VAST majority of the time I go with the dice, If you enter combat, you risk a bad roll killing you, and if my NPCs enter combat they risk being killed just as easily by a player.

Lost Wanderer,
Rant on brother, If you can't vent here, where can you. I went a cozy 10 years between my last campaign and my current one, so I hear ya.

John

First off, DM's are not capable of cheating. If DM's were under the rules, then they could be.

But DM's are not. We are there to run the game. Die rolls are a mere direction in which the game should go, not the be all end of choices.

Hmm...A good topic for an article...Thanks Nephandus.

I have to agree with Ashaqua - Nephandus' point is valid, but extreme.

In my circle of gaming friends, there are some DMs that are forced to roll the dice in front of the players. Among us, that is a sign of our lack of trust in him - good DMs, or so we feel, fudge so well that you'll be hard pressed to catch them doing it.

I am intrigued by the tension Nephandus describes, and I think I'll try it myself. I would like to point out, however, that I have routinely fudged rolls for the bulk of my GMing career. For me, group dynamics and "real life issues" have always been a greater problem for campaign longevity than the roll fudging that my players know I'm doing here and there.

Wow, people have started writing articles in these posts now...

Ironically though, the more the DM intervenes to narrate the game resolutions rather than letting the player and the game mechanics play it out, the more control he takes from that player, and from all the other players - not just with that character, but with all his DMing - because the stigma is attached to the DM style, not to the particular game or session.

So, when it comes time for a player to die – and clearly so- the DM is quite responsible personally for letting it happen, and the player has every right to blame and resent the DM for letting it happen, when in the past, he didn't.

It can be difficult to resist fudging - especially for the party benefit. Honestly, what feeling motivates one to do so? With me, when I used to fudge routinely, it was guilt, and same with the DM whose players left because they gradually realized they "couldn't die" and got bored. The problem in all these cases was that the DM can often feel responsible personally for the player's loss, and "has the power" to change it. Someone dies and everyone’s heart sinks – for an empathic DM, it’s very hard not to hit the shiny red Reset Button. But when things like that happen – it’s part of the drama.

A good DM will know that, and not deny the players this vital aspect of both role-playing and gaming, even when players are visibly upset. Why are they upset? Were they attached to a character who has now died, in the same way that a reader anguishes over the death of a character in a novel (though secretly finds the drama compelling?) Did you cause this death? Are they upset because they can’t play for a while?

New characters can be rolled up, but once a DM has gotten a reputation of being soft on death, it’s hard to recover. My own group begins with a bank of two or three per person (which all belong to the same company), but brings them out selectively on missions to limit XP division. So, it’s not a RL catastrophe if one or two die – but the replacement character takes a hit on XP, reverting to the min XP of the average party level.

If a DM or party really blunders and they KNOW it’s going to turn out badly – like a total party death, then I don’t mind sometimes having my villains make poor tactical choices – like opening their flanks, or having another nemesis join the fray – I’ve done it a couple of times. But with careful preparation of balanced encounters, as well as of escape hatches on really tough encounters, and flexibility in tactics, I’ve never actually had to override the rules or fake a number.

Rolling the dice on the table isn’t just about jacking the tension up – though it succeeds marvelously at this. It’s also about conveying to the players that I, as DM, am not necessarily trying to get them. In fact, there’s been many times where I’ve shown genuine concern and fear for the party as I’ve rolled the attack roll (ironically – this makes them even MORE afraid and involved than if I cackle maniacally). This differentiates me, the DM, from the bad guy they are fighting – creates the impression that this conflict is less personal. I feel less obligated personally to put them on life-support, and they feel less inclined to blame me for their character death. I feel less separate from the vibe at the table – I’M NERVOUS TOO! I want them to live and to succeed, but in playing this way, I show that they might not – and THAT makes the victory that much sweeter, knowing it has been earned at a cost.

Since we started playing that way, I’ve had several players go out of their way to say that even though their characters died (and not just for doing stupid things), they have actually enjoyed playing more, and they enjoyed their characters more. For everyone, including their replacement characters, playing with “live ammo” this way has really helped to put them savor their gaming moments – keeping them on their toes.

I should point out – that’s just for fudging for the party’s immediate benefit. I note in the orginal post I responded to, someone mentioned fudging to harm or to injure a party member, to propel some kind of story element. I had a DM pull this twice – once on me, and once on the whole party and it was a disaster both times. Essentially, he overrode the base rules system – in fact – he overrode character abilities that had been paid for in point allotments, because they were inconvenient to his story. This was just plain sloppy. One time he decided to “blind a character” with a head blow, and another time, he needed some kind of infestation to afflict the land, but he kept on changing the rules of how it worked to prevent party members from affecting it in any way, although party members were being affected horribly. In the end, everyone just disengaged and basically dared him to kill them if they did nothing – which of course he was not prepared to do. At that point, all shreds of narrative and game continuity were shot to pieces, and basically everyone realized that they weren’t really “playing” – they were listening to a DM tell a story about characters they had created.

The third time he tried it, once they were on to his MO, was the last. We “took a break” in the middle of his session – permanently.

I know that death is a difficult subject. No player wants their PC to meet an unfortunate demise, and I think that many a GM don't actually WANT to kill anyone's character. Often the dice just don't roll your way, you're just rolling ass tonight, or you don't attend to your HP. Occasionaly the GM rolls a CRIT for a monster that (in accordance with the roll) is SUPPOSE to rip your PC's head off.

Now, from the GMs perspective, this is a situation that will reflect you own playing style, your opinion of the players and/or their PCs, their actions up to that point, possibly even your real-life friendship with the players. I am NOT saying your decision will AFFECT these things, but you will merely ponder them before announcing the outcome. I know that the death of a PC will put a damper on the game. And no matter how exciting the session was up to that point, the death of a player character will usually place the session automatically in the 'suck' section. Its not uncommon for a player to become attached to their PC even if they are still lower-level. Nobody likes to hear the phrase "...roll a new character."

I should point out, if it isn't obvious, the reasons or reason why I don't have much tolerance for DM's who invoke Rule #0.

3rd edition is basically a stable, playable game - just the way it is. I haven't seen 3.5 so I won't comment on that. Previous editions were so broken that it was impossible to play without having someone arbitrating "how to play" as you went along. For the most part, that need is gone now.

When players design their characters, they do so based on the rules they've been served with - the player's handbook and the game setting. If you start fiddling around with the wiring though without telling them, they end up paying for abilities and designing backstories that are less relevant to the game you are playing.

It's important, I think - that everyone at the table play from the same set of rules. It is a courtesy to the other players to learn those rules - especially for the DM. A good DM should be able to devise scenarios that do not cheat the same rules the players use. By playing from the same book, you allow the participants to sometimes surprise you by using their resources in ways that you might have overlooked. The rules are the player interface into their "gaming moves", for lack of a better word. A DM who ignores them to satisfy his own private vision is not being collaborative, and without collaboration, there is no game.

I wasn't meaning to diss your style of play, Nephandus. But I do think its substantially different than mine.

My campaigns tend to the the story of specific heroes versus specific villains. I'm inspired heavily by books, and by epic stories. Take the Crimson Shadow- its a light, escapist hero story by R. A. Salvatore. Its the story of three heroes, 4 or 5 by the end, and their fight against a specific, long term villain. If you killed off the Crimson Shadow, or Oliver, the story would be dead. You couldn't adequately replace them. In a game, that risk of death needs to be there, but the risk of capricious death does not. I carefully avoid effects that involve "roll above a 10 or your character is irrevocably dead." If I can't avoid those effects, or if those effects create themselves, such as by critical hits, I will bypass them when it is appropriate.

Your campaigns evidently do not mind that. That's fine, but I don't think you'll get pcs with extensively bluebooked backgrounds if there's no real expectation that they will be around next week.

You seem to forget that control is lost not only when the players are subjected to a roll fudging, but also when the players are subjected to a "whoops your dead" death that they could not have avoided through any reasonable means of play. What sort of control does a player have when a series of events entirely outside of his control cause his character to die? The fact that this series of events is the result of a series of random dice rolls does not remove that players control of the story anymore than if the DM removes it.*

The rest of my post was meant to address issues regarding how I prefer storyline and background to rigid adherence to "the rules as they are wrote." I would strongly assert that players in your game would not want to spend an extensive amount of time detailing the interpersonal relations between their characters and various npcs, as well as their characters goals and desires. I'm sure they do create some, and I'm sure they roleplay them. But your stories seem to be the tale of a particular company of warriors overcoming various challenges, not a tale of a specific, closed set of characters over the long term. I'm sure your means of play works, I have in fact engaged in that sort of game. But I just prefer this one.

As for the magical items, if I ever have a player express an interest in creating magical items, then I will worry about whether I'm nerfing magic users. I have never had an interest expressed beyond the basic scroll, which I do permit. (Only epic stuff gets rule zeroed.)

I'm confused by your passionate dislike of rule zero regarding game mechanics. Do you also hate published modules? How is my rule zeroing the mechanics of magical weapons any worse than a DM stating that he would like to run his campaign in the ravenloft setting? Both entail changes to game mechanics. I disclose up front. If the players have a problem with it, they can say so and we can work it out. Its never come up before.

You need to concede that there is a difference between a DM simply taking over the game and dictating outcomes, and changing a few rules here and there up front in order to facilitate a style of play that I prefer and to which my players have agreed, and which the rules as stated do not permit. The way your reasoning seems to have progressed it seems almost impossible for you to not also attack my style of play were I to elect to play under D20 Anime, or some module. The 3rd edition rules are not sacrosanct. They are designed for a specific type of game. If you want to play a different type of game, you may need to change the rules.

*The asterix is to reference the fact that I was recently reading a paper by a political science professor from the university of chicago discussing how, in general, people would prefer to be subjected to injustice at the hands of impersonal forces rather than at the hands of an individual. Given the same disparities in sentencing, people are less upset when that disparity occurs because of a law than when the disparity occurs because of a judge's discretion. Whether this is rational or not is up for debate.

I'll take your word on the incredible thespian skills of your players. And I'll take your word on the degree of emotional involvement your players have in your characters. I'll even take your word that your players have no problem dropping that emotional involvement the moment their characters die. Those are all elements of your gaming group which I cannot observe. I will, however, complement you on how you have apparently gathered to yourself a collection of gaming paragons, pinnacles in their field in all respects. Its quite impressive.

Where I won't take your word is your convictions about the nature of the game. The game I do have in front of me, and have played. It assumes certain things, for example, a relatively easy availability of raise dead spells, or other life saving magics. Because of this, there are a wide number of easily lethal effects liberally spread through the game. Most notably any effect which includes "save or die" or "save or be incapacitated" type effects. The first reduces the players chances to a mere dice roll. The second reduces their ability to move to a mere dice role, and their chance of survival to a judgement call on the DMs part as to whether an enemy will attempt to coup de gras their incapacitated form.

"Do you have a specific example of a D&D story which cannot be done through the rules, as written?"

Well, you kind of turn that into a circular question by including "D&D" as a modifier of "story." The trap you've laid for me in that question is a classic no true scotsman fallacy. If I show a story which cannot be done through the standard rules, you will simply reply that it is not a D&D story. The existance of DMs right to alter or determine the storyline also fights against my ability to prove my point, as you will be able to say "simply leave that aspect of the game out" to anything that I find incompatible with a story type.

Nevertheless, an attempt:

1) The most commonly cited story type that does not work well under D&D rules is the low magic campaign. DMs hoping to avoid the somewhat monty haul aspect of the treasure tables as they are printed often want low magic campaigns which focus less on having the right spell, but instead upon having the right skills and brains. D&D does an excellent job of presenting a detailed skill system- and then obliterating it with spells. For example, the first level (second in 3.5) spell spider climb instantaneously makes the thiefs careful investment in climb seem paltry in comparison to the wizards cheap spell, or worse, the minor magical ring the fighter has pocketed. Not to mention invisibility versus hide, elven boots versus move silently, fly/levitate/spider climb versus climb and jump, knock versus disable device, find object versus search, etc, etc, etc. All of these effects are easily available in nearly unlimited supply once characters reach moderate levels. The rules by rote do not make for low magic, skill based campaigning.

Oh, and as for the "glorified chess game" comment- if I recall from our discussions of battlemats, you DO play a glorified chess game once combat initiates. You also have the magical ability as a DM to always have a battlemat prepared ahead of time, which of course raises the question of whether you avoid all of these difficulties in combat by simply steering the PCs outside of combat towards the ends you desire... I recall you becoming quite snippy when I pointed out that you MUST be pushing the storyline in certain directions if you can always have battlemats prepared before the PCs get there. At the very least you must have limited the PCs possibilities to some reasonable and finite number, which you have accounted for in advance. Is it possible you avoid the difficulties of instant kill spells and poisons and backstabs by assuring that they do not come up?

Unless I have you confused with another person, of course.

Oh - I see - never mind. For the most part, insta-kill poisons are a rarity in 3e, compared to previous editions. Insta-kill spells are very high level, and by that time there are insta-resurrections, so no biggy there. Sneak attacks, flank attacks, and surprise attacks do come up from time to time. I've killed a party member with a flanking surprise attack before.

If that's what you mean by high magic games, I hate them too.

But they don't really have anything to do with DM intervention. It's like saying "On one hand, I like apples, but on the other hand, I support Bush's stance on Iraq." One is not a function of the other.

For me, my magic ratio is just right - it follows the guides set by the DM Guide - which seem to be fairly sparing. Challenge Ratings in the games are calibrated to assume a certain amount of magic in the party. Deny them this magic, or give them too much, and they become a less useful tool in setting the challenge.

Doing the whole "going to hell and fighting gods" thing just doesn't work well for me, largely because the setting isn't very well grounded. How do you relate to characters like that? How do you top it? What do the players eat, who do they know? When you do encounter stuff like that, I agree - it should be special, and it should feel that way. By the same token, I think it helps my games at least, to give the PCs some sense of what the "normal life" is, even if it is just bluebooked, rather than careening off into sprawling endless plots. In a game like this, I think the bigger challenge is knowing how to keep things small, so that they are relatable.

Nephandus, you're wrong.

GM fudging doesn't take control away from the players; it takes control away from the DICE. What you're complaining about sounds more like railroading: forcing certain things to take place (or not take place) regardless of the actions of the PCs.

Then again, perhaps I'm wrong. From reading your statements on how D&D should be played, you seem to regard a GM as being held to the same rules as everyone else, and the RPG itself as some kind of serial wargame, where tactical engagements (and probably skill contests, reaction rolls, and indeed anything which is normally decided with a roll of the dice) are handled perfectly fairly, as wargames, without regard to the needs of the greater story; as such, anything the GM does that isn't strictly in the open and according to the rules is "cheating", no matter what the reason.

Here, you're entitled to your opinion.. but I dare say most players would disagree.

As far as whether fudging hurts a game or helps it, I feel that depends on the GM. A bad GM might use fudging to "beat" the players unfairly or protect a favorite NPC, or to prevent the PCs from dying at any cost, and then your complaints are justified. A good GM might use it to keep the party from being improbably slaughtered by foes that were simply not meant to win ("the kobold gets ANOTHER critical.. er, how many HP did you have left? Doh..."), or to give players a chance to act that they might otherwise not have had. Personally, I feel that no character to whom the players have developed an attachment should die (permanently) without a good reason, whether that's willing self-sacrifice, abject stupidity, poetic justice, or the obvious risk to life and limb that comes with a climactic battle. Wiping out major characters for no good reason rarely makes for a good story.

I meant later... damn.

Xplo says:
GM fudging doesn't take control away from the players; it takes control away from the DICE. What you're complaining about sounds more like railroading: forcing certain things to take place (or not take place) regardless of the actions of the PCs.

Nephandus says:
As I indicated previously, the dice in this game are not random – at least, the important aspect of them isn’t. The outcomes fit along a pre-selected probability curve – which the players select when they choose attributes and skills, and when they apply them in tactics to various scenarios. There’s nothing random, for instance, about a high-level fireball usually causing more damage than a low-level fireball (though it might not). There’s nothing random about a rapier having a higher crit chance than, say, a greatsword, no matter who is wielding it.

When a DM fudges to overrule the dice, they are, in effect, dictating the results of the action, rather than letting the player gauge the own scenario, and weigh his own odds, to take his own action. This, to me, is not a game – and I prefer to retain the game in my role-playing games.

Xplo says:
From reading your statements on how D&D should be played, you seem to regard a GM as being held to the same rules as everyone else, and the RPG itself as some kind of serial wargame

Nephandus says:
This is the way *I* play it, and some others do – at least the way we play the “game” portion of the activity. It works very well, and addresses most of the complaints I’ve seen here – including offering more “role-playing” opportunities than I’ve ever had with any of the self-styled roleplaying “artistes” who poo-poo all over discussion of sound game mechanics.

Xplo says:
, where tactical engagements (and probably skill contests, reaction rolls, and indeed anything which is normally decided with a roll of the dice) are handled perfectly fairly, as wargames, without regard to the needs of the greater story; as such, anything the GM does that isn't strictly in the open and according to the rules is "cheating", no matter what the reason.

Nephandus says:
Not quite. The GM can keep secrets, and there are many instances in which a secret roll is needed – usually corresponding to how clandestine the activity being tested is. But yes, the GM, at least in D&D 3e and probably in most other games should use the same rules as the players and handle fights in a fair manner. There may be exceptions, but I can’t really think of any if the encounter is set up properly.

Xplo says:
Here, you're entitled to your opinion.. but I dare say most players would disagree.

Nephandus says:
Hmm. Fair DMing that fits the rules, that allows players the freedom to choose their own outcome that values their character selections and abilities, that allows players to anticipate the “physics” and rules of the game, so that they may concentrate on the story instead. It’s hard to imagine why anyone would disagree with it.

Xplo says:
As far as whether fudging hurts a game or helps it, I feel that depends on the GM. A bad GM might use fudging to "beat" the players unfairly or protect a favorite NPC, or to prevent the PCs from dying at any cost, and then your complaints are justified. A good GM might use it to keep the party from being improbably slaughtered by foes that were simply not meant to win ("the kobold gets ANOTHER critical.. er, how many HP did you have left? Doh..."), or to give players a chance to act that they might otherwise not have had.

Nephandus says:
No, a good GM in that case will not fudge the dice, but will instead realize earlier on that the encounter is going to be a disaster due to poor planning or bad luck, and will change the tactics of the kobolds. Who KNOWS why they ran away? Where did that owlbear come from that attacked the leader. It’s certainly manipulation – and often it can be obvious, but it puts the choice back in the players’ hands again. Do they chase the kobolds? Do they fight the owlbear? In that case, they are all stupid and I have no problem routing them to the last man.

This happened to me in the Sunless Citadel, when an enterprising character opened the door to a water mephit, and they didn’t have enough magic items to get past most of its damage reduction. Sensing the way the battle was going, rather than fudging dice rolls, I introduced some other villains from the next room, attracted by the noise.

Xplo says:
Personally, I feel that no character to whom the players have developed an attachment should die (permanently) without a good reason, whether that's willing self-sacrifice, abject stupidity, poetic justice, or the obvious risk to life and limb that comes with a climactic battle. Wiping out major characters for no good reason rarely makes for a good story.

Nephandus says:
Which is why they are relatively easy to heal at low level and easy to raise at high level. It’s perfectly fine to kill a character in a regular battle. You should see how it raises the tension. Depends partly on the maturity of your players though. Are they able to maintain some objectivity?

Sorry about the length Mystic. With so many straw man arguments - it's getting that I need to be very specific in what I say, lest people presuppose my point even more.

'My mother used to say 'life is like box of chocolates. Some people like the Nutty ones, and some people like the sickly sweet pink centred ones.''

That was my post. I forgot to put my name again.

Ok. I tried to cool this debate down but its getting serious so I think I'll make a serious contribution:

EARLIER ON I SAID:
'I'm a bit split here. On the one hand I share Neph's hatred for DM intervention ( thats fudging). I hate loss of player control, and excessive channelling towards a conclusion. I've spoken at length on this before, so I'll just say I REALLY REALLY REALLY HATE IT !'

but I would like to qualify this a bit. Yes I do fudge a tiny weeny bit. But only to offset a really really bad bit of luck against players. I really don't like penalizing players who have done nothing stupid. I think that this minimal interference is ok. I NEVER NEVER fudge to force a storyline. For me the story belongs as much to the players as the DM. If they want to circumvent my design than thats fine by me. I adapt.

I ALSO SAID:
'On the other hand I must admit to a dislke of too much magick. Especially magick items. I feel, like Cadfan that they tend to make the characters skills and abilities less important than his possessions. I also think it takes away from the awe factor of magick if it becomes too common. The extreme case of this is my friends, older brothers D&D group who play a high level high magick game and regularly Invade hell taking on bealzebub and his demon hordes. I mean come on guys ! is nothing sacred ? Maybe I'm a bit prejudiced here, but anyway I think lower powered games are just more convincing.'

Now Neph and another commentator couldn't see why I was linking the two topics of fudge and high level magic. I apologize if it looked like that because they are two un-related topics which I just happened to put in a single post.

OVERALL:
I tend to agree with Neph's distaste of fudging.

As for the unrelated topic of too much magic in a game, my personal preference is closer to Cadfan's very limited magick game. But I would also find Neph's greater amount of magick acceptable.

sam from quebec says:
"While I think Cadfan concentrates on the story being told as and the desired end result. Nephandus seems more preoccupied by how one gets to where ever they get to."

This is the only portion of your post that I have a minor quivel with. It seems that many people here are setting up a false conflict - something like Star Trek vs Star Wars. Clearly - the base SF genre applies to fans of both, and while you'd think them diametrical opposites from reading flamewars on a BBS, the fan base is relatively uniform.

In this case - I don't see a conflict between story and mechanics. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and Sam has pointed out in the remainder of his post, how he does the same.

Playing fairly, using the mechanics and trusting them for resolving challenges - does NOT make you sacrifice story. Things may not get resolved in the manner you anticipated, as a DM, but they will get resolved one way or another. There are many ways to manipulate a tactical scenario to salvage a game from a disaster - which do not disregard the base mechanics.

The difference between our approaches, if I can discern one, is that I never forget that this is a game as much as it is a story, and that part of the way the story turns out depends on what the players do. And that means sometimes that the players can fuck it up - but the risk of that outcome is preferable to pre-determining an outcome based on some pre-set idea of how it should turn out.

Sam, good point about Amber. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "all bluffs, diplomacies, and intimidations should be rolled," but I think I disagree.

Nephandus:

First of all, pay no heed to these calls for brevity. The Bard may call it the soul of wit, but I, for one, come here to read and discuss role-playing games. Any thoughtful, articulate post is a great delight to me. I enjoy reading through your ramblings, even though I don't always agree with you.

On the issue of "DM cheating":

You say that when the DM fudges a roll, the endeavor stops being a role-playing game and becomes something else - an interactive story, perhaps, with the degree of interaction determined by the amount of fudging going on. Correct me if I misstate.

I will suppose for the sake of argument that this is a completely accurate view. I must ask you, then: so what? If people participate in this and enjoy it, does it really matter what we call it?

If this interactive story resembles a true role-playing game closely enough that an observer uninitiated to role-playing games would be unable to distinguish the two, how much does it matter which is which?

Do you see what I mean? As long as people are having a good time, I think this aspect of your position becomes somewhat academic. You seem to be saying that doing things your way promotes having a better time, and I'm increasingly inclined to believe you - but surely you do not believe that those not doing things your way are not enjoying themselves, or that they cannot really enjoy themselves as much as you and your group do. Enjoyment is purely subjective, no?

I have one other thing to say to you, which touches on your true RPG vs. interactive story argument: the rules of RPGs themselves discuss the phenomenon of dice fudging. Many of these rules actively encourage it.

I refer you to the GURPS Basic Set and the D&D Dungeon Master's Guide.

In the GURPS Basic Set, there is a section called Keeping the Characters Alive (B181-183). Its last subsection is entitled "Cheat!" It begins: "When all else fails, roll the dice where the players can't see - and then lie about your roll."

The Dungeon Master's Guide has a section called "DM Cheating and Player Perceptions" (pp.17-18 in both 3.0 and 3.5). The second paragraph begins: "Do you cheat? The answer: the DM really *can't* cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes. As such, it's certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or to keep things running smoothly..."

Both rulebooks say that not cheating is better, and caution strongly against getting caught. All the same, they both say that DM fudging is within the boundaries of acceptable GM behavior.

In that light, I'm disinclined to agree with you that a situation where the GM cheats is not a role-playing game.

Not that it really matters to me what we call it, as I said above.

Nephandus, your vision of role-playing is inspirational. Not only do I say that without a trace of sarcasm, I intend to follow your advice and see if I can replicate your success.

But it's something new to me, this gaming purity you advocate. I've admitted to fudging, and I sure do think I have been role-playing all this time...

Nephandus -

"When a DM fudges to overrule the dice, they are, in effect, dictating the results of the action, rather than letting the player gauge the own scenario, and weigh his own odds, to take his own action. This, to me, is not a game – and I prefer to retain the game in my role-playing games."

Apologies; I had unwittingly assumed that all fudging would be going on behind a GM screen and thus remain invincible to the player, since this is nearly always the case when I GM, and it's been a long time since anyone tried to change my rolls as a player to suit themselves.

So let me be clear: I see no problem with the GM fudging or dictating his own rolls, so long as he does so in a way that's fair and serves the story. Ideally, the players should never realize, nor have good reason to suspect, that the GM has fudged.

However, I can think of very little reason to change the player's rolls; saving a PC from death, for instance, would not qualify (better that the GM prevents the cause of death before it happens, if he wants the PC to live).

Likewise, you probably misunderstood my example with the kobold and the critical hit; it was meant to illustrate what would happen if the GM (who ought to know how injured the PC was) let the critical hit stand. Had the GM, who's presumably rolling behind a screen, simply lied and said "the kobold misses you", the PC would have a second chance at life, the encounter would have that much more chance of going as expected, and no one would ever be the wiser.

I would certainly prefer some transparent behind-the-screen fudging to an obvious and intrusive deus ex machina.. and if "player control" consists of knowing the likely outcome of an encounter, then having the encounter change difficulty or end in a way that the players couldn't have predicted takes away that control just as obvious fudging does. Of course, there is an element of finesse here: who knows why the kobolds ran away, you ask? Hopefully the GM would come up with a reason which the players may discover, which would make it seem as though the GM had it planned all along...

Nephandus -

"Which is why they are relatively easy to heal at low level and easy to raise at high level. It’s perfectly fine to kill a character in a regular battle. You should see how it raises the tension."

Assuming, of course, that this is true.. and in "standard" D&D, it is. But should the GM decide on a "low magic" setting, or should everyone be playing some other game entirely (for shouldn't good GMing technique apply across systems and settings?), this may not be the case. There are some who feel that easy healing (let alone ressurrection) cheapens the effect of injury and death. Who will mourn the passing of a great hero when any mid-level cleric can give him a divine jumpstart?

I think this whole discussion boils down to two basic qualities: the enjoyment the GM has from the game, and the enjoyment the players have. I think the states of both of these should determine the kinds of things that go on during a game. By kinds of things I mean the way combat is dealt with, roleplaying style, fudging and everything else that has been and could be discussed here. If the players and the GM want to play by the dice, then they will. If everyone would rather certain things happen in a certain way for the sake of the story that _everyone_ is creating, then fudging is likely to happen. I'm not going to say whether one way of playing is better than the other, because they aren't really. If Rule Zero let's the GM override the sourcebooks, then Rule One must be "The game shall be played because it is fun," with no amendments to it.

As an example, I offer my own experience. In a D&D game, there was a session when there were only two players. We were in the mountains and needed to reach civilization again. Along the way, a certain monster had been harrassing us. During a climactic battle, I was sure that my character would die. The monster was standing over my prone body, and it was it's turn. For the sake of the story, the DM caused the monster to vanish. At another battle, when more people were in the game, the monster showed up again, and this time we were beating it. Again it disappeared.

Because the DM had predetermined the outcome of both of those fights, the story has been improved. My character now really wants to get its revenge on the monster, and must also find a way to block its escape (which I still don't know how to do). If I had only told you about the first battle, I imagine that most of you would think that my DM was "fudging", even though there wasn't any single die roll that he lied about. But the idea is the same. But since I mentioned both events, it now seems more like a good use of plot hook/story element/etc.

And for the resurrection thing, don't forget that all those spells require a material component. How likely is it that someone has a 500gp diamond lying around, or even a 5000gp diamond for True Resurrection?

HOLY-- !!

I DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ ALL THIS!!

Cocytus says:
You say that when the DM fudges a roll, the endeavor stops being a role-playing game and becomes something else - an interactive story, perhaps, with the degree of interaction determined by the amount of fudging going on. Correct me if I misstate.

I will suppose for the sake of argument that this is a completely accurate view. I must ask you, then: so what? If people participate in this and enjoy it, does it really matter what we call it?

Nephandus says:
Yes, the more the DM dictates the action AND its results, the less interactive it is. One might even say that it is barely interactive at all.

But several people raise the same point: What if none of the players are aware of it, and everyone is having a good time?

Well, suppose you have a cheater in pretty much any game, and they successfully hide their activity? A game of cards, for example. Does it matter?

IMO, yes, it does. If five or six people are going to devote 8 hours of their time to sitting and playing a game with each other, how DARE one of them invalidate the activity by cheating?

I’ve had two DMs do it, long term. Both eventually got caught. Not at once – but gradually, you know – players started to ask for rolls to be public, then it begins to be a cakewalk. One of them quit, claiming he couldn’t die. Then another quit (“not interested”). Another time, a DM decided to cheat to injure the party, sometimes to the point of NPCing our characters if we made the “wrong choice”.

“Your character wouldn’t do that,” he said.
“Oh, your characters don’t know enough yet to be cautious, so you have no reason to be wary of that statue, so go and stand near it, like you normally would.” he said.
This was part and parcel with a whole range of behaviour that basically flaunted the rules constantly. He simply never stopped “adjusting” the rules on the fly, and all of his proposals were awful “improvements”, messing up a whole range of associated abilities and player attributes.

At that point, the table flew into revolt, chairs were pushed back, and everyone started checking with the DM to see what choices they could make. That was the last time he DM’d – and he LOVED dm’ing – thought he was a master at it – if not for the players who kept on screwing up HIS stories by making the wrong choices. Nobody cared one bit whether they lived or died, and people started trying to die for the rest of the night, simply as a means to withdraw from the game and go home without making a worse confrontation.

Another GM in Cyberpunk used to wing it constantly, and then boasted that he was just making it up as he went along. Again, the players suddenly found other priorities in their lives – which included playing in other games with other GMs.

Still other times, I’ve enjoyed a 6 hour stretch of Axis and Allies, a complex war boardgame, against what appeared to be a very challenging opponent, only to discover at the end, that he was cheating the whole time, taking extra ships. I never played another game of anything with him. That’s too long, and too much investment to waste on someone who doesn’t understand why I’m there.

It’s possible to cheat and get away with it, and to manipulate a story outcome that is good. But is it a better story outcome? Is it a game? Who, exactly is served by it?

As for the DMG saying DM’s are incapable of cheating, I don’t really care what it says, for the reasons I’ve laid out. I don’t follow rules out of rote insistence on dogma – but rather on what works most effectively. Boken editions of the game may have required DMs to narrate through the wobbly mechanics, but this isn’t necessary now.

Nephandus says:

"Well, suppose you have a cheater in pretty much any game, and they successfully hide their activity? A game of cards, for example. Does it matter?

IMO, yes, it does. If five or six people are going to devote 8 hours of their time to sitting and playing a game with each other, how DARE one of them invalidate the activity by cheating?"

That's not a good analogy. In a card game, the players are playing against one another, or sometimes (as in the case of Spades or Bridge) with a partner.

In a role-playing game, the players are not (usually) in adversarial relationships with each other, nor are they "playing against" the GM. I've sat at adversarial role-playing tables before - where it really did feel like the GM was playing against the players - and I did not return for a second session.

I don't think you've made a case that every time the GM cheats, she is cheating the players. Neither have you established beyond all doubt that GM cheating invalidates the whole session. You have said that a session without GM cheating is more enjoyable, and there I think you may have a point. Saying that GM cheating invalidates the activity - you're pushing it.

Nephandus said:

'Another time, a DM decided to cheat to injure the party, sometimes to the point of NPCing our characters if we made the “wrong choice”.'

This is an extreme example. Unless I mistake, no one arguing against you has wanted a GM to boss the players around like that. I am talking about fudging the occasional mid-crisis dice roll. I have never advocated GM dictation of a player character's actions. You may say that fudging a die roll impinges on the character's freedom to work within the system, and there is something to that, but it's not the same thing as taking the character out of the player's hands.

Nephandus said:

"It’s possible to cheat and get away with it, and to manipulate a story outcome that is good. But is it a better story outcome? Is it a game? Who, exactly is served by it?"

I do not think there is any objective answer to these questions.

Nephandus said:

"As for the DMG saying DM’s are incapable of cheating, I don’t really care what it says, for the reasons I’ve laid out. I don’t follow rules out of rote insistence on dogma – but rather on what works most effectively."

That's fine. Which rules you use or don't use is not the issue here; how much you heed or trust the game designers is not the issue here. All I intended by quoting the DMG was to point out that, when role-playing systems' designers describe GM fudging as an acceptable and sometimes necessary part of the game, your assertion that a session with GM fudging is "not a role-playing game" loses some credibility.

It's really a tangential issue: the thrust of your argument seems to be that GM fudging ought to be unacceptable, and that's where I think your points are strongest. It's not a game? Okay, if you insist. Pardon us while we don't play this game over here... =)

Cocytus says:
That's not a good analogy. In a card game, the players are playing against one another, or sometimes (as in the case of Spades or Bridge) with a partner.

Nephandus says:
No, it’s a good enough analogy – in that while the players are playing against each other (and not necessarily always so in team card games, and in team war games such as Axis and Allies), because the prime reason the players are there is to have fun. To play. Not necessarily to win.

When I play one of those games, the odds are that I am going to lose – if there are a lot of people playing. Clearly, while I want to win, it isn’t integral to the experience of playing.

Cocytus says:
In a role-playing game, the players are not (usually) in adversarial relationships with each other, nor are they "playing against" the GM. I've sat at adversarial role-playing tables before - where it really did feel like the GM was playing against the players - and I did not return for a second session.

Nephandus says:
If you’ve read any of my posts, especially some of the earlier ones in this thread, you’d know that there is nothing adversarial about my gaming. Rolling in the open, when I do it, allows me to display sympathy for the players – since I genuinely want the best outcome for them as well.

Cocytus says:
I don't think you've made a case that every time the GM cheats, she is cheating the players. Neither have you established beyond all doubt that GM cheating invalidates the whole session. You have said that a session without GM cheating is more enjoyable, and there I think you may have a point. Saying that GM cheating invalidates the activity - you're pushing it.

Nephandus says:
Perhaps you are more generous than me. I know that if I happen to be losing at cards and I catch someone cheating, the game is out the window. It may well be that this was the only time the person cheated, but how do I know – do I trust their assurance?

Cocytus says:
I am talking about fudging the occasional mid-crisis dice roll. I have never advocated GM dictation of a player character's actions. You may say that fudging a die roll impinges on the character's freedom to work within the system, and there is something to that, but it's not the same thing as taking the character out of the player's hands.

Nephandus says:
Really? Do you, then, ask the player what happens, rather than ruling on it yourself? Do you leave it open to players to decide when to overrule dice? Probably not. And if you do, again – it isn’t a game anymore anyway.

Fudging the occasional dice roll – is – by definition, dictating the outcome of a scenario. The player made a game decision that had a result. Your action overruled that result.

Cocytus says:
It's not a game? Okay, if you insist. Pardon us while we don't play this game over here...

Neph says:
Oh, no pardon needed. Personally, I like improv and Whose Line is It Anyway – that’s sort of what your method proposes. I know RPGers who never use dice, and I know a lot of people who enjoy LARP – which basically uses certain game elements to introduce new plot.

I just don’t like the misrepresentation to a group of players. And I don’t like what I perceive such a futile and pious attitude toward D&D, from people who – for the most part, seem not to have actually even *tried* the game they wrote – instead either tinkering haphazardly or just “Rule Zeroing” it – a surprisingly accurate title.

Honestly – why does the simple notion of playing the game as written seem like such heresy here? It’s not a difficult concept. It’s far more simple to do than to muddle through with house rules. It’s not a bad game. And, Xplo – why does it seem to be such an impossibility that you can have a good story accompany a good game? It’s as if it is inconceivable to you.

If it was even difficult to balance, I might concede the point – but it isn’t. In fact most of the criticisms I read here about alignment and mechanics wouldn’t be so bad if people would simply read their book and quite fucking around with it. They make their own problems for the most part – spending more time screwing around with rules systems and dice which are apparently irrelevant in their games, instead of trusting the mechanics, and concentrating on running the stories and characters.

You think my style is suited to wargaming Xplo. Excuse me, does your game not have combat in it? Toss your books, and your point will have more credibility with me.

Well, after sitting out for a while, I feel obligated to speak my piece.
Nephandus said:
"You think my style is suited to wargaming Xplo. Excuse me, does your game not have combat in it? Toss your books, and your point will have more credibility with me."
Do you wargame? To compare a wargame to a RP game just due to combat may be plausible on the very lowest scale, but other than that, the point is not valid. Why? Because in a wargame, the intention is to kick your opponents ass and to keep rules as correct as possible. Games usually consist of two players trying to screw each other by the rules. Even players who do it for the fun of it are still strict to the rules. Bringing a rulebook our and taking a few minutes to find the correct interpretation or the proper clarification is common practice. This is competition, almost in a pure form.
RP games are perhaps comparable, but as I said above, it isn’t a very valid point. Instead of trying to kick everyone else's ass, in a RP game you are trying to cooperate. With everyone. The DM, the PC's, the whole group. RP games in themselves are a cooperative process.
To make one's point valid by comparing it to a wargame is not overly valid. Rules in a wargame take precedent over everything else. In a RP game, the story is the top priority. Or it should be. I would never want to play in a group that was run like a wargame. Nor would I ever run one like a wargame. That, my friends, does not make for a good role playing game. It makes for long arguments and endless bickering.
The game to me is not about the rules. The game to me is to create something worthwhile that happens to have rules with it.

"Cadfan says:
and then eliminate that occurence quietly and for the sake of the game.

Nephandus:
If he acts in that manner, he’s eliminated the game, for the sake of something else."

I put this in its own post, because its the most silly part of your argument.

Lets say the DM decides that the 3rd edition rules are too lethal for characters. He decides that he likes d20 anime better, where this doesn't happen. So he runs the next game under d20 anime rules, where the DM is encouraged to allow dramatic flourishes for the PCs, and not necessarily for the bad guys.

By adopting a rules variant, has the DM destroyed the "game?" Compare ordinary d20 rules with the DM quietly not counting rolls that would be insta kills, with another game system that simply does not HAVE insta kills for enemies against players. I don't see that the DM has done anything different here. Unless you are intending to argue that the second rules system is inherently worse than the standard d20 rules, I don't see that you have a leg to stand upon.

If you DO claim that there is a difference, you're either going to need a new argument, or you're going to have to claim that you believe that any rules change made by a DM is inherently worse than any rules variant (read, set of rules changes) published in a book. I definitely have not found this to be the case. Publication does not automatically make your product balanced or fun.

Neph- considering that I have not characterized your arguments, I find it difficult to see where I have presented a straw man.

I find that your arguments attack switching games systems just as easily as they attack fudging critical checks. It would be a straw man if I accused you of hating all systems except d20. Its not a straw man to point out that your arguments ATTACK all systems except d20.

A straw man would be where I restated your argument incorrectly, defeat the incorrect presentation, and declare victory. Its not a straw man to take your argument, use it to reach a conclusion, argue against the conclusion, and use that against the original argument. If you must discuss this in terms of logical argument, what I just did is called a modus tollens.

If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, Not A.

Modus Tollens.

Actually, in fairness to Neph, although I stand by my own points, I believe he meant that the reason he follows the rules isn't because he's dogmatic, its because he feels they are what work most effectively.

Re Anime D20 vs Core D20.

I would have no gripe playing by Anime, Star Wars, Spycraft or whatever D20 or non D20 system, as long as it is made clear which rules apply to the universe.

By that I mean, if I know I can't ever knock out a guard like Austin Power with a Karate chop to the neck (what ever class, skill, level, feat I have), I expect the same rule to apply to the bad guys.

If jumping distance works a certain way (bet it home made or core rules) I base my decisions to jump across a chasm, from roof to roof or onto a pirate ship based on the assumption that I have such and such odds of making it. If the GM changes the equation from game to game that's unfair and somewhat cheating.

Now if the GM decides that I get a +/- X on my roll because of there is a storm, the boats are rolling or whatever than that's OK.

Just as both Cadfans examples of the hero trying to hide in the castle seem fine. Although hiding in an unknown castle that your enemies know can only postpone capture (unless you are a master ninja or something or manage to get heck out of there in time) so eventually what ever the penalties the guards will get to your hiding spot.

The Troll example is kind of vague. If the Troll is thrown at the players who have no choice but to confront it (the dropping trap doors or the unspottable-troll-till-it's-too-late-but-none-of-my-monsters-are-ever-surprised-by-the-pc's) then I guess whatever happens is te GM's fault. But, if the pc's entered a cave for example, littered with bones, troll shit and could hear the troll cracking bones to suck the marrow. Well the confrontation was the players' choice. The GM put the troll there but the confrontation and how it happened was the players' choice.
Even if the troll guards the only entrance that leads to... wherever the heroes need to go. The players can always decide to lay a trap/ambush for the troll. Have one players (a fast runner one hopes) serve as bate and lure the beast away from his guard post. Offer it gallon of whiskey, run away and come back when ist's totally drunk. Or charge like idiots and die because their second level character can't survive a frontal assault on a troll.

Now if the players charge like idiots and you haven't teleported the troll in front of them or used the sliding trap door dirty trick. They should by all means die for their stupidity (unless you have the cavalry arrive to save the day) they should at least lose a level and get raised by a mysterious stranger who will ask them a favour in return.

But fudging the rolls so the troll misses most of his attacks? Or always rolls minimum damage. That cheapens the adventure I find. Why not have the cave guarded by 2 hobgoblins in stead.
Or the troll is sick and has 25% HP, -4 STR and -2 ac -6 initiative (in which case it is a lower challenge rating) but you have established it in advance so it's not cheating.

See where I'm getting with this. Fudging can lead players to feel they are invincible or that their actions have no consequence (just as a high magic no component or xp cost system can lead to a monty haul campaign).

Changing the rules on the fly usually creates more problem than it solves in the long run (my opinion based on 18 years of gaming).

If the rules for surprise, initiative, critical hits, etc are applied as is one shouldn't have problems balancing the adventures with the players strengths and weaknesses to make it just challenging enough.

Of course no crit on the players is OK too (makes it more animé) while having vitality and wounds (equal to contitution) or less HP's like in SG-1 (great game by the way) makes for a more leathal and tactical game where combat should be avoided unless one has a definite (definate?) tactival advantage.

I don't know it all depends on the style of play you want. One thing is for sure (changing the rules as you go along, is bad form, just as custom designed encounter at everry corner are) In order for the game to work (as is) one should follow the rules' letter AND spirit and only make things on the fly for uncovered situations (which will happen enough to satisfy your creativity anyway).

Enjoy your games folks.

If there's a philosophical difference, I think its here- I see the rules as a necessary evil.

To me, the purpose of the game is basically cooperative story telling.

The rules just exist to provide parameters so that the story telling isn't taken over by any one player.

If the rules get in the way of the story, the rules are getting in the way of the game. Change rule systems, or edit the rules.

I find d20 to be close enough to what I like that changing rules systems is unnecessary. I just find that some edits are in order.

I realize I am a few days behind in this conversation but I wanted to reply to Neph's response to my last post:

On December 7, 2003 07:52 PM, Nephandus said:
My God, fudge a roll to injure my character, and I'll not only call you a flat-out cheater, I'll get everyone to leave the game with me.

Just for the record, if one or more of my players felt that way, which would be the case if Nephandus was in my game, I would not fudge any rolls.

The point of the game (in my opinion) is for everybody to have fun, causing a player to leave the game in disgust does not sound like fun to me, so I would not do it. As has been pointed out earlier in this string, RPGs are a collaberative enterprise, and I would not be very collaberative if I engaged in behavior my players were dead set against.

My group historically has not cared one way or the other, so in the past I've been known to "loosely interpret" dice results. Though in our current game we have adopted a hex map and figures style tactical combat which has been great fun, and would be adversely impacted by not following the dice, so I am currently a strict "roll bad and die" GM.

As a "roll bad and die" GM, I also do not intentionally dumb down the tactics of the bad guys, as I think that would adversely impact the combat as well. Unless of course the bad guys are supposed to be dumb.

That position, coupled with no magic healing or revival of dead characters, has lead the party to offer terms of surrender to many opponents when the party had the upper hand, which is another development I really like.

Anyway, My main point was that our groups game to have fun TOGETHER, so if Neph, or anyone else in the group, felt strongly about fudging to further the story, I just would not do it. And as it turns out, adopting the hex map and figures, has so added to the tactical nature of combat, that fudging in combat would just feel totally out of place now anyway. I imagine that is the kind of game Neph plays, in which case his point is well taken.

If i were running a cinematic combat game, my dice interpretation stance would probably be different. Just so we all have a good time.

John

"If you – and your players – are doing communal storytelling, then great. Nothing wrong with that at all. But don’t pretend to the players that you are actually playing a game as well. It’s not fair to them. If you are comfortable in your position – then tell them exactly what you are doing – and the extent to which you will do it. I’d be curious to see the reaction."

See, Neph, this last part right here is why, even when you're being conciliatory, you ruffle people's feathers. Your post up until this point was a nice disagreement between adults, regarding the nature of role playing games.

Then you do a jeckyl and hyde, and turn into Neph, the RPG Fundamentalist.

1) The extent to which I do this is pretty clear to my players. They know the house rules up front. That covers everything except the not confirming instant kills.

2) The not confirming instant kills is not the same as just rolling every dice behind a wall and announcing whatever I think is appropriate, which is what you seem intent upon impugning to me.

3) The "its not a game if the dice don't lay as they fall" thing is just plain silly. I suppose you can justify it by saying "in my terminology," but I think your terminology is awfully silly as well.

And about your accusations that I'm making up the story and forcing the players into it- watch it. You're making some reckless assumptions. That may be your honest opinion of what I'm likely doing based off what I've posted- but my honest of opinion of what YOU'RE likely doing based off what YOU'VE posted is railroading your characters into set encounters that you have mapped out hours in advance, and then claiming that the players "choice" to play and the players willingness to not tell you to stuff all your plot hooks where the son don't shine means that player choice is really what's controlling the game, even though player choice always conveniently ends where you want it to. So lets try not to get too personal, hmm?

Sam -

"Why not have the cave guarded by 2 hobgoblins in stead."

Indeed.

I think the degree of player choice is being overestimated here. Nephandus seems to feel that if you fill the world with dangers and the PCs confront them and fail, then that was the result of player choice. After all, he says, adventuring is dangerous. But do the players, practically speaking, HAVE this choice?

I would say no. If the players choose NOT to put their characters into danger, what happens to the game? Would anyone want to play in, or run, a game where all the PCs are peaceful farmers who live out their drab lives of toil with no greater incident than an occasional bad crop or bar brawl? Oh sure, you could have adventure find them.. but that is not the players' choice; it's the GM's choice. The players might choose to move to another area, or petition the local government for help, or hire some adventurers - NPCs - to do the dangerous work.

What fun would that be?

No, if the game is going to work, the players have to put their PCs at risk, whether as travelling merchants, a noble's retinue, treasure seekers, or problem solvers for hire. At best, they can only attempt to choose their battles and tactics, and although "discretion is the better part of valor", it's not always possible or practical.

Furthermore, to counter Nephandus' earlier suggestion that dice aren't really "random" because they represent known ranges of values.. bullshit. Random is random. If I have a fighter who does 3-11 damage per whack, and I roll a lot of 3s, that's a hell of a lot different than if I roll a lot of 11s, isn't it? (This, without addressing the question of whether he hits at all.. no sense complicating the example.) If a monster has a bite for 3D6 damage.. wow. 3D6. That's a lot of variation. The low end would leave a 1st-level wizard standing, but the high end could easily slaughter a 2nd-level warrior in one chomp. (Okay, it would knock him out, if you're using negative HP.. but an unconscious 2nd-level warrior doesn't normally stand much chance of survival when a monster is chewing on him.)

Oh, I hear you say, but these are unrealistic examples. The dice average out. Yes, they do.. over a long period of time. There's nothing unrealistic about a streak of good or bad rolls, and anyone who's been gaming for a while knows that well. None of that happens by the player's choice, nor is it predictable.

Finally, to pretend that the GM had nothing to do with it if the PCs enter battle and die is ridiculous. Who put the troll there? The GM did. He could have had hobgoblins.. or a litter or kittens, for that matter. Even if the troll was simply a result on a random encounter table, who created the table? Who rolled on it? And who let the roll stand, knowing that the result might very well kill the PCs, even though he had the power to reject the roll? If the GM is truly to be without responsibility, then the GM must necessarily have no will of its own.. which is why I suggested that Nephandus might prefer a CRPG, where adventures and encounters are designed with only a distant, mechanical regard for the survival ofthe PCs, and the cards fall where they may.

In heroic fantasy, the main characters don't usually die. Yes, they face terrible dangers.. but they survive, *because they are the heroes*. And I've never seen a work of heroic fantasy fiction end with the line "they were never seen again." If a GM is to imitate this style - and D&D is most certainly a game of heroic fantasy - then while he may occasionally throw in something really dangerous just to keep the players on their toes and let them know that yes, their PCs CAN die, the PCs should win most of the encounters that they are meant to win.

Sometimes, due to bad rolls or bad planning on the GM's part, an encounter doesn't go as it's supposed to. In this case, the GM that fudges takes responsibility for the story. The one who fails to use the power explicitly given to him abandons that responsibility, and if the game suffers as a result, that inaction was the GM's choice.. not the dice, and not the players'.

Cocytus says:
The idea that the GM should *never* fudge dice is a new one to me. I've never met or played with a GM who played that way. Your experience, and your passionate insistence that this is the best way to play, is what I found impressive and intriguing.

Nephandus says:
Thanks - again, this is the best way to play for me, and I'll wager for others.

Before anyone considers me dogmatic, I've been playing for decades, and it was only with 3e that I finally actually started playing in the current way. Perhaps it was because in THIS case, all of us had new characters and weren't too attached to them, and because in this case, all of us were new to the game. We didn't have an "experienced" 3e player in the group to foist bad habits on us through the reffing - except for the one player/sometimes DM who insisted on bringing his 1st edition books to the game, I guess as some kind of point of appeal or protest.

It was through 2 years of observing the game experience this player/DM had, and the game experience the rest of us had - which galvanized my beliefs. Granted, this guy "Jeff" was pretty hardcore, often to the point of absurdity - but his stances were just more cartoonish examples of what many people - including me - commonly did in the "old game".

While Jeff claimed to promote story over everything, and often accused the rest of us of abandoning “imagination” - the reality was that he often tried to justify or rationalize a lot of his unfair and half-baked narrative through made-up on the fly game mechanics that might have worked on the old system. Things like "Roll under your dex score" rather than "Make a Reflex save" (which would include things other than the base attribute that might affect reflexes). Actually, that in itself was a house rule in the old system anyway. For all his claims of role-playing and “story as king”, more time was spent arguing about what happened in a round with him – as player and as DM – with him, than with the rest of us combined. That’s just the way it was – and it was constant.

The best games occurred when Jeff was away. You know – those games that really feel like they are “in the zone” where everyone is sitting forward, the combat moves, the players are thinking, and everyone says the next day – “you know, that was a really good game.” Poor Jeff never got those days, and his stories got so convoluted,large, and academic that he would constantly forget to include any point of reference or interface for the players. We’d be on some plane, fighting some minor god to control some planar river that flows to Earth, poisoning some spiritual thingamajig – and someone would say – “Have we eaten today? We’ve been here for so long, I can’t remember the last time my character ate.” And it would just pop the balloon, you know. In the end, he realized he had no way for us to end the story without years of playing, so he just read, literally, 30 pages of background of what was happening and what we were supposed to do if we continued playing. It was all fine and dandy – but it really wasn’t a game, and we realized upon his reading – it never really had been.

I suppose this is the root of my visceral reaction to “Artistes” in gaming. I don’t like it when people take it too seriously, and begin to view the activity as their art, rather than viewing Dming as a practical “craft” which facilitates a game. The stories I choose, the players I include, and the method by which I systemize play – are carefully arranged to keep the players at the center of the game and to minimize my isolation from them. I try to put the most energy into the things that bring the greatest practical benefit in actual “live” game time. The irony is that once I abandoned my pretensions toward Art in my gaming and started just trying to make the best story to fit the game – it was a much better experience (and a more enjoyable story) for just about everyone – except for Jeff – who had his own ideas of how the story should turn out.

See – here’s the other part of the problem with Jeff. Let’s take Cadfan’s “story as king” approach as a given, as Jeff did. When Jeff became a player in an earlier campaign of mine, he very much felt this way. He felt that his character’s story would have been better served if she commanded an army of peasants, and if the peasants were waging a war against giants (instead of the skirmish-level game we were playing in Against the Giants (Silver) ) and if she was trying to depose a monarch and install a democratic republic (huh?) and that his character’s strength was her faith – so anything she did – no matter how Herculean – would be successful (he was basing it on Joan of Arc). I bent over backwards to facilitate this “story” but the demands simply had no end. I called it quits when he threw a fit because he didn’t know where the “enemy base” was yet – he claimed I was obstructing “his” story.

This example is obviously absurd – but the core of it goes to show – if story is king, what if two people do not agree on what that story is? How do you resolve that? My way or the highway might sound reasonable if you are a DM, but practically speaking – if you are all friends – you want to be right because you are right – not because you sit in the big chair. Most DMs have a desire to please their players – to have their players understand why it had to land in a certain way. With an interventionist DM, those decisions are always personal – or they always appear that way – even if they aren’t. Because when Jeff DMd again – every time something went wrong for a player, the players always felt he was just being a bastard. It was always him – not the game, in their perception, based on the way he played and intervened in the past.

Things don’t have to blow up like that all the time. Looking back, I can see a million other smaller fights that happened across 20 years of playing with various groups (not always me fighting, mind you) that result from this. It’s the most basic problem in D&D, and nearly all the fights boil down to it.

“Either the participants collaborate, or there is no game.”

Part of collaboration means accepting that, while story may be king, sometimes imaginations in different people disagree. In these cases, unless you want to make it personal, you need to have some other kind of authority which everyone agrees to, and to which everyone has equal access to appeal to. The Rule #0 crowd proposes that collaboration is not necessary. It isn’t – that’s true – but it is necessary if you don’t want to make the conflict into a personal one.

I forgot to add:

We are not in college - at least some of us aren't - and we do not always see the need to follow strict rules of debate. If you insist on shooting down arguments with claims of logical fallacy rather than addressing them, you will find yourself held to those same standards.. in which case it should not surprise you that you need to be very specific, and very explicit, in what you say. If you fail to make your arguments clear, or jump from one to another (for instance, by making the rules king one moment, and then professedly ignoring the ones that don't suit you the next), you can't hold others responsible for misconstruing or anticipating them.

CADFAN SAID:
If there's a philosophical difference, I think its here- I see the rules as a necessary evil.
To me, the purpose of the game is basically cooperative story telling.
The rules just exist to provide parameters so that the story telling isn't taken over by any one player.
If the rules get in the way of the story, the rules are getting in the way of the game. Change rule systems, or edit the rules.
I find d20 to be close enough to what I like that changing rules systems is unnecessary. I just find that some edits are in order.

MO REPLIES:
This merely backs up my point. When you make it story telling, that implies you have a narrative. Now from the vibes I'm getting from his comments, I reckon Cadfan has most of the narrative decided before the game start and players are expected to follow it with only minor variations. An interventionist policy merely backs up the power of the DM to force Players through the expected narrative.

Now what I'd like to ask CADFAN directlly, is: I know you say 'cooperative story-telling'. Bur honestly, don't you accept that as DM you are the main author and by actively intervening you are taking the most power ? Also, what if your players decided to completely ignore your story-line. Would you honestly accept this and follow their lead?

You see, I see the campaign in a completely different way. I have no set story-line. I believe that the DM is not an author, he merely makes the setting and provides challenges consistent with that setting. It is the Players who decide what challenges to take up. In a way, the Players are the true authors, and unlike the DM, the players are of roughly equal power and usually have to cooperate to succeed, so no one dominates.

Last thing is, I haven't always thought this way. When I first started DMing, like most people I designed dungeons and story-lines and expected characters to work their way through my challenges. This was fun and ok because we all knew what was expected and couldn't think of a better way. However, over the years, I have come into contact with more DMs, and better DMs and I have found, that I most like to play in the campaigns of DMs who don't try to force your decisions, and give great importance to the players lead. I believe that this is a more mature way of playing.

I usually always fudge the die rolls, unless it's dramatically appropriate not to. No hero above Level 1 should die at the hands of two goblins and their dog, Sprout.

However, if they're a lot of goblins, and the players are about Level 1 say goodbye to the fudge...

Balin's Tomb, anyone?

Nephandus -

All I can say is that you're one arrogant son of a bitch if you really believe that your arguments are always perfectly clear and your position always the correct one, and that we have nothing better to offer the discussion than strawman attacks. I mean that sincerely.

Think about it.

Mystery person -

The problem with giving the players more control over the story than the GM as you suggest - and understand, I'm NOT saying you should railroad them, and if they REALLY want to deviate from your plans or spend three hours chasing a red herring, I say let them - is that if the players don't all agree on how the story should go, there can be conflicts. The party can become fractured (which isn't always bad, but does tend to be), players might end up fighting for more of the GM's time, and so forth.

This rarely makes a gaming session better.

With the GM providing the story, the chances of these problems coming up and ruining the session are a lot smaller. Besides, letting the GM handle the story is actually LESS work for him; the only way to run a player-driven game is to either plan like mad, improvise like mad, or both. As a GM, I wouldn't care to do the first.. and as a player, I would be leery of forcing the GM to do the second, expecting him to do it well. We are, after all, only human.

Back to the topic (er, sort of) -

As a change of pace, let me offer an example from an actual gaming session where I, as the GM, fudged and even dictated results. I don't intend this to PROVE anything, but I would be interested in seeing what others - particularly Nephandus - have to say about it.

The PC is a special enforcer for his government, given broad police and diplomatic powers and assigned to hunt down the leader of a huge criminal empire. He has tracked down and confronted one of the criminal leader's agents and his band. Having him greatly outnumbered, they attack, but the band - common thugs, basically - are no match for him. Some are killed or badly wounded, and the others flee for their lives.

Unfortunately, the criminal agent has no such luxury; if it is discovered that he caught the enforcer alone and failed to kill him, his own life will be forfeit. A duel between the two men begins. In the course of the duel, the enforcer is disarmed (not a fudge, but a nasty critical failure dictated by the dice). Weaponless, he is then wounded, and falls.

At this point I start fudging. The agent is continuing to attack the enforcer, but misses more often than he really should (incidentally, this is GURPS, so a successful hit still allows the target a defense roll, and combat is fairly lethal). The enforcer's defense rolls stand as-is without fudging; his defenses are actually pretty good, even while desperately rolling around on the ground.

Some rounds go by as the enforcer, pinned to the ground by the agent's constant attacks, can only dodge and squirm in the direction of his sword. According to the rules, he can move one hex a turn while lying down, but I overrode the rules, saying that he had to be able to see his enemy's attacks to dodge them, affording him little opportunity to crawl. (Indeed, at this point I was ignoring the combat map, reasoning that it would only get in the way.)

Finally the enforcer had nearly reached his sword - which, I should add at this point, had a number of impressive enchantments, including a few wishes (which are far less powerful in GURPS than in D&D). As he stretched out his hand for the hilt, desperately trying to grasp it but still just a few inches out of reach, I dictated that the agent scores a critical hit, not doing any extra damage but ignoring the enforcer's defense (not unusual for GURPS; I had simulated a low roll on the critical hit table). Although not killed by the blow, the enforcer was badly wounded and in danger of losing consciousness. On his next turn, I allowed him to grasp his sword. In the player's words:

"Grael grasps the hilt of Avenger.. and smiles."

The enforcer used one of his wishes to negate the recent critical hit, and being armed again and not dangerously wounded, was able to fight his way to a standing position and win the duel.

...

Had I run the fight strictly according to the rules, there would have been two possible outcomes: either the agent would have hit the enforcer before he had a chance to reach his sword, possibly killing him, or the enforcer - crawling at one hex per round - would have reached his sword in two rounds or so, and the fight would have continued as it did after the enforcer made his wish.

I await any responses.

All in favor of a "duel to the death on the edge of a cliff over a firey pit of torment" ...say "I"

*raises hand*

Problem with that, Eater, is that Rider is the author of both articles. =)

I'm up for a duel to the death. I'll just make sure my portraits in a secure location, then I'll whip out my sword cane and make mince-meat of yer...

Right. I think Nysandstil has gotten to heart of DM fudging. It is a tool, use it if you want, rarity of use recommended, consistency required. The action points used in WoTC's Modern D20 and the developing campaign setting "Eberron” seem to have been created for just this purpose. They call it "movie action mechanics." Nothing new here really. I've been doing this for years with our groups highly coveted "hero stones." I'm sure there are a slew of older products that feature these mechanics.

Thanks for the explanation, guys. I immediately recognized the applicability of force points/action points to the cheating discussion.

Hey Action points are an exciting idea ! I thought I invented them because years ago I designed a game system based around action points. I didn't know that there were any commercial games that used them.

Let me describe my game system. I had a game system somewhat like the 'Traveller' system, in which players skills were pretty much defined at the start of the game and improved very slowly as the game progressed. Hence they were fully Expert in their fields at the start of the game.

The main difference between player characters and most of the people they would meet were action points which I called 'Hero' points. A hero received 2 hero points at the start of the game and more as the game progressed. Hero points could be cashed in at any time by a player to negate any roll or make any roll. Thus if a hero was hit and badly wounded (most likely in a realistic damage system) he could cash in a hero point and he would be completely unharmed. Similarly, if he wanted to hit a guard with a knife at 25 yards range and kill him stone dead, he cashed in a hero point and the guard was dead. Of course if you come up against another hero , you could negate his hero points by using your own until someone ran out of points. It worked pretty well and made for a game in which players had a lot of control unless they pushed their luck too far. Used hero points could be regained by rest and recuperation.

Sam,

Not a lot of difference between my system and your friends system. His is more graded by task, while mine is a bit simpler. Otherwise very similar, and I agree it can work well.

Mo