gamegrene.com

I think GM's can but shouldn't cheat. While this is a repeat of the "to fudge or not to fudge" discussion from another thread. I believe your example of the "old companion" appearing out of nowhere to help the pc's as the last one falls is way better than dismissing the critical hit. It shows greater creativity and more respect for the player (I find).

I also like that you will tone down some challenges instead of fudging. Sure you help the pc's along and make things easier for them.
But, their victory will still be theirs, it will not have been handed over to them by faking the results.
Also, when the cavalry comes in or the challenge is lowered so should the XP (and sometimes treasure) rewards.
I mean if a Solar, a Silver Dragon, Drizzt or Elminster happens to save the party from certain doom they should at least get their share of XP's and maybe treasures. If not the party will progress faster than normal, but that's less bad in my opinion than fudging.

Your examples of reasons for "cheating" are great and while I've never seen 2 and 3 happen, I've certainly seen more than my share of 1. My girlfriend has often tried to coerce me into making life easier on her. I've killed her characters twice in the past. Once as a GM (an unlucky crit) and once as a player (my character went berzerk and killed her on a crit0. Both times I was threatened with the "tonight you sleep in the bath tub" speech, never worked and was never enforced either.

I've also seen players try to bribe GM's and that is pathetic.
I've had one GM who, when bribed, accepted it!!
Bastard! Nephandus will scream. But wait Neph, here comes the good part.

He gave "special treatment" to the briber only to give the same thing to the rest of the party one or two sessions later, the hapless briber being none the wiser. He even mentioned it to the rest of the group. Let's just say that the briber was never allowed again at one of my tables or the GM.

Well, thanks for the article Rider - timely I suppose. But if it was inspired by the banter in the "Painful World of the DM" thread, it would have been interesting to see you respond to the big points contained there, rather than repeating things that were debated at the beginning of that thread.

For instance, the notion of a DM as being no different that a writer - with full control and licence over the set-up and outcome - where do the players fit? Is it a game?

What is the value of a player's contribution?

If players spend points and attention toward contingency plans - such as healing spells, potions, and healing proficiencies - it would seem to me that a sympathetic DM's intervention nullifies the contribution they made? And shouldn't the group that doesn't prepare in this way (instead putting resources toward other capabilities), then be subject to more risk, as a consequence? These are all judgment calls that belong to the players - the DMs role is to set up a fair challenge.

This was all discussed there, but not really touched here. PPerhaps, if that thread is going to continue here, maybe you would address some of these more difficult questions and examples.

DM bribes are really meta-gaming, and slightly off topic IMO. But then again, I guess they aren't that far off the mark, because a DM who overrides the mechanics to engineer a certain result is also, in a way, exerting a personal, irrelevant exterior force on the narrative.

Eight hours may be a reasonable time to actively participate in a game, but it’s a long time to endure a performance. Deny players their choices and their consequences, and you remove the game from the activity. At that point, you are reciting a novel. It may or may not be entertaining, but it isn’t interactive and it certainly has no game element.

It comes down to points of distinction:

-Is the DM a performer or a facilitator? An artist or craftsman?

-Are the players an audience, or are they participants?

-Are the rules merely a pretense for plot generators, and therefore fairly unimportant (ie Vampire LARP), or are they there to resolve scenarios and tests according to a game logic that everyone has the same opportunity to wield and anticipate with equal skill, and access?

It takes confidence and experience for a good DM to to let a character fail in an important task, or to let a story take a turn for the sour – but that is the cost of a sweeter eventual victory. As a writer, I can say the same holds true – even more. The two things that make readers turn pages most are unanswered questions, and bad things happening to good people. Rob Roy wouldn’t be much of a hero or a story if he didn’t get the shaft early on.

In a game, you OWE it to your players to let them fail in a fair challenge.

My apologies Rider, didn't mean to put you on the spot for that.

As for players 'preparing' ahead of time, that's not really what I meant by their contribution. Specifically, I meant that their contribution was the choices they introduce in play, which act on the scenario that the DM set up. If the DM can override the results of their choices - whether they are successful or whether they fail - then doesn't this act nullify their participation - either as a game, or as an author?

I'm not talking about the 'set-up' of the scenario - that's pretty much the DM's domain. I'm talking about what happens within the encounter, as the PCs cause something to happen.

Once again, Nephandus, you have overestimated the ability of the players to gauge the difficulty of future encounters, not to mention the results of RANDOM rolls.

Suppose the players made those plans, but the battle goes against them anyway? What if they felt that those resources were better put toward things that would make them more effective in combat; is it fair to say that a BETTER fighter should face "more risk"? What if the GM imagined the players using some particular tactic, or having some bit of information critical to the outcome of the encounter, and things didn't go that way in reality? Should the players be punished for not having the same idea as the GM?

To answer your question, "is it a game?", I feel compelled to point out that, yes, it is a ROLEPLAYING GAME. The players have the freedom to play their characters. Do you rob the merchant? Help the damsel in distress? Obey a superior who orders you to execute someone you believe to be innocent? These are the player's choices to make, unless the GM is a complete asshat, and if you seriously have to ask what contribution a player makes to an RPG, I seriously have to wonder if you have ever played one.

Enough; I tire of you. You defend your position with ridiculous, extreme examples - such as the 12th-level warrior vs. the kobold, or a game where the GM determines EVERYTHING - and dismiss all attempts to point out the obvious flaws in your position as strawman attacks. You change your position regarding whether the rules should be followed or not, and your notion of "player control" appears to be completely divorced from reality.

I continue to follow the discussion with interest, but it seems clear to me that you have nothing further to offer it. Perhaps Sam or even Cocytus will succeed in making sense where you failed.

Xplo, have a mint. If you feel that I am arguing in bad faith, I agree that you should ignore my posts rather than responding to me. In responding, you are merely giving me attention that I shouldn't deserve.

Nephandus,

Alright, I understand what you ask. The measure I have is completely arbitrary. There are not limits that have to be crossed to change things, it is just entirely dependant upon how things go. Usually, the only time this happens is when I screw up...If I put one too many trolls in the room, for example. Other times are just due to complete ignorance on the players part, and I feel like screaming at them for not noticing something so bleeding obvious.

In both instances, I see them as my fault, and not the players. I either made something too hard/too easy or something too dense for them.

So when I have intervene it is either due to an unexpected encounter, or mistakes, or an overestimation/underestimation of the PC/NPC abilities.

So perhaps I see where you have been coming from all along now. If the DM makes a perfect scenario, there is no need for DM intervention, right? In theory and perhaps sometimes in practice that is true. Yet, it all gets thrown out of the window when a players get thrown into the mix...

Right, except that if you can trust the scenario that you've prepared to be a fair challenge, then it releases you from the guilt.

You can finally let them play it out. Sure - it can all go out the window. They can screw it up royally! I've had players lose fights and beat a hasty retreat, with priests out of heal spells, basically on their third try will a healing proficiency skill check, trying to stabilize an unconscious character, while the wounded fighter and the rogue try to basically hold off the goons and keep them all from being overwhelmed. We were all sweating it out, and I was nearly at the point of despair - but they pulled through - BARELY - with their skins intact, and got the hell out of there to fight another day.

Were they upset that they lost the fight? No way! I've never seen them more excited and engaged. One of the best things since we switched to 3e was that it was interesting how often the major encounters would hit that sweet spot of tension and desperation, really forcing the players to make the best use of tactics and the full use of their options.

The point was - it isn't the winning that made it so enjoyable. They lost that battle. It was the PLAYING that made it good.

Xplo said:

"Perhaps Sam or even Cocytus will succeed in making sense where you failed."

Ah, yes; we must have some patience with that Cocytus fellow. He is somewhat weak-minded. ;)

Xplo, I ducked out of the conversation because it felt like Nephandus and I were simply saying "nyaah nyaah nyaah" to each other without getting through. I tried to focus on his central argument, rather than some of his choices of examples and analogies, which I had trouble swallowing.

Once again, I don't want to hash those out. It's not that I don't think I can hold my own, it's that I'd rather see the conversation go somewhere than get bogged down in endless tit-for-tat.

As you may know from reading my posts (or may not, considering the volume of verbiage that got posted on "the Painful World" thread in the past two days), my experience of GMing has always included at least a little fudging. I thought your GURPS anecdote from the other thread was a great example of how a masterful GM can make the action more intriguing through the use of fudging.

It's a dangerous endeavor for the GM. Nephandus, I think, justly points out that the player trust will erode for any GM who gets *caught* cheating, no matter how well-intentioned the cheating may have been. I say this because I have experienced it first-hand. Some of my players have always known that I fudge, and consequently my reputation as a GM among those players is that I am a big softie who won't let their characters die. This reputation is mitigated somewhat by their knowledge that my reasons for trying to save their characters is that I love their characters almost as much as they do, but they still regard me with a little amusement. And sometimes they do reckless things to see how I will bail them out, and that's humiliating.

Now, Nephandus argues that a well-constructed scenario should be able to stand on its own, without a need for GM fudging to correct it. The challenge ratings used by 3d Ed, taken in conjunction with the well-balanced character classes, provide a mathematical probability (or so goes the argument) that a group of a certain size will use a certain amount of party resources - be they spells, hit points, ammunition, one-shot magic items such as potions and scrolls, or what-have-you - to defeat the encounter.

I am intrigued by his position, mainly because I am very guilty of not using the rules as extensively as I believe I should. When I began my 3d Ed campaign, I had the problem that Buddhists call "expert mind" - hey, it's D&D. I know these rules! Why do I need to read them? Over a few sessions it became clear that I really needed to re-trench, review the rules thoroughly, and apply them in a consistent way. Nephandus is right, insofar as he says that the 3d Ed rules are less broken than any other D&D ruleset I've encountered. They're well-tested, and for the most part they work very well.

Also, I'm intrigued by the level of drama he describes as resulting from everyone knowing that the GM is NOT fudging. This is admittedly a matter of personal taste.

I have been thinking, over the last day or so, that Nephandus is also using a dangerous method. His method hinges on two presuppositions which I find risky:

1) That the rules as written (forgiving, for a moment, the bit about GM cheating that I called him on) are well-constructed and will not fail the GM if used as they are intended.

2) That the players will have enough sense to know when they are beaten, and will flee from an obviously unbeatable encounter rather than digging in their heels and trying to win against all odds and reason.

The first presupposition is the real clincher. It's only fair to point out that the designers of 3.0 very quickly (in terms of the RPG publishing industry, anyway) realized that their well-balanced system had a number of fairly serious problems. Hence 3.5, which among other corrections makes some important adjustments to the challenge ratings of certain monsters. GMs who adhered rigidly to the old CR system kept reporting that certain monsters were too easy or too difficult to kill, and the designers (thankfully) heeded their advice.

So if you're using a broken system, as even Nephandus admits, his method is vulnerable to bad calculations. Now, 3.0 and 3.5 are the best D&D rulesets I've ever seen - I really can't believe how much better they are than the previous editions - but they still have their problems. That's why I take a lot of their calculations with a grain of salt.

As a side-note, a GM who for whatever reason doesn't run a dangerous monster or spellcasting NPC to the best of its combat ability may find that the party kills it far too easily. I've had this problem during busy sessions where i've had a lot of encounters planned, some involving high-level adversary spellcasters. Only when I budgeted a full extra day of weekly preparation to familiarize myself with the capabilities and best tactics of the casters and powerful monsters (such as Balors) did I find that the encounters went anything like the way the rules seem to intend.

The second point goes to players who get too complacent in their RPing. It's not real, and it's a rare GM who can truly scare the players, so the players' sense of urgency is not sometimes what it would be in a similar "real life" situation.

Nephandus' method is dangerous, in the end, because it runs the risk of total party annihilation in an anti-climactic way. Now that I think on it, I can recall gaming with a very impartial DM through _The Temple of Elemental Evil_. The campaign collapsed when the entire party, largely through its own stupidity, became trapped in a room without any hope of survival. There was no resolution to the situation, and we never played again.

I am having a similar problem, right now, with the _temple of Elemental Evil_ computer RPG. I have been playing on the "Ironman" setting, where you can't save your game before a combat, or really at all unless you're quitting the session. I am no gaming amateur; I have put together a balanced and capable party; yet my entire party has been wiped out over ten times so far, and I've had to start all over. Sometimes my party gets killed by one of the easiest encounters in the game. It's kind of a nightmare, like gaming with an inflexible DM who is incapable of fudging dice rolls to get you through a fight you really should win, hands down.

Nephandus says that careful preparation and adherence to the system rules will obviate the need for fudging. I'd say, in an ideal world, he's right. I'm interested in trying things his way, though, because if the payoff is anything near as great as he says it is, it would be worth it to me. But I'm faced with arduous preparation and "pre-playtesting" of scenarios because I'll be trying to apply his method to GURPS, which as you know has no CR system at all.

I'm undecided. Some of the things Nephandus says have the ring of obvious truth to them, even if he mires them in hyperbole and secondary reasoning of questionable integrity. I'm willing to experiment with his method, and after doing so I think I'll be in a better position to judge whether GM fudging is desirable or not.

Good article. Personally, I'm such a lousy liar that when I show an interest in a player's exact HP, they get suspicious. I should keep track myself, I know...
I tend to be more hard-nosed about events, and let the dice fall where they may. The one exception is the coward in my group, for whom the monsters have a subtle vendetta.. since he's always hanging in the back of the party, he's the only one who hasn't died at least once. I've never known anyone else who prepared *Plane Shift* every day as an emergency escape measure!

No insult was intended, Cocytus, of course. I was referring to the fact that, although you expressed interest in no-fudge gaming, your position has been pro-fudge.

I'm skeptical about the true value of CR. I'll happily accept that it makes a good guide for gauging the difficulty of an encounter, since the general consensus seems to be that it works.. but how can anyone hope to boil down an encounter where each side may consist of literally hundreds of different kinds of creatures, some of which can be enormously varied with respect to power levels, magical abilities, and so forth, using any kind of tactics in any imaginable environment, to a simple set of numbers? The possible combinations are limitless.

Granted, there's no need to derive a mathematically perfect number for CR, just a good one, which is far simpler. The point, though, is you can't rely on them. It's not enough to set up a "fair" encounter according to the numbers and then let whatever happens, happen.. unless you're willing to accept any and all possible results of the encounter, including the death of the entire party.

Nephandus' way of preventing that, I gather, would be to introduce some kind of deus ex machina.. but I don't see how that's any better than fudging. Both represent the use of GM fiat to change a "natural" outcome; both can cheapen the game and leave the players jaded if overused. The advantage that fudging has over DEM is that, if done properly, it's undetectable. The best you can possibly hope for with DEM is to make it palatable and interesting; you can't NOT tell the players that something happened. Even if they're all killed and/or knocked out, and awaken to find the monsters gone, you can't conceal the fact that they survived a battle that they obviously lost.

Oh, hey, and props to Rider for facilitating this discussion with a new article. At some point, I'll try to post something actually relevant to what his article says...

Also, the DMG is pretty clear about modifying CR ratings (and their XP) due to circumstances. P167 "Modifying Encounter Levels"

There's one thing that threw me about CR's for a while, and made it quite difficult in a campaign that's drawing to a close right now where I removed clerics from the equation. It's a little nugget of information, but it's an important one. When referring to CRs above 9 or 10, it's expected that the creature will kill at least one of the party members. Since the party should have life-giving magic available to them, this isn't seen as a big deal, but it can turn a mathematically correct CR into a nightmare if you're not careful.

My players know, for the most part, that I'm out to tell a story and that while their deaths are possible, I will go to some lengths to avoid just killing the players out of hand. I've always preferred the close call scenario to the dragging of everybody's lifeless corpse back to town, and since I removed clerical assistance there is no help anyway.

The biggest problem with this kind of stuff is that I have to fudge one of the most natural monstrous behaviors out there: the gang up. My current party consists of a barbarian, a fighter, a fighter/thief (More of a thief), and a sorceror. The natural thing for any of the enemies to do is to gang up on one or the other, but only the fighter and the barbarian can take that degree of punishment for very long. Even playing with a max HP houserule (And that applies to the monsters too) the sorceror only has about 76 hit points, which means that most CR 10 or 12 creatures will shred him inside of a few rounds. The thief is slightly better off, but the barbarian and the fighter have incredibly high armor classes, and thus anything that can hit them will hit her without a doubt. Because of this, enemies often spread their attention foolishly, putting one or two individuals on each party member instead of dropping 8 on each and then moving on to the next one when that character is killed. It galls me sometimes to ignore such a simple tactic, but if not I'd soon be short a party.

However, for the final conflict (coming up next session) I'm thinking about taking off the brakes. The worst case scenario is approximately 20 8th level sorcerors, 4 8/4 sorceror/fighters, and 1 8/8 wizard/fighter, if they play it wrong. The enemy has weapons that only require a touch attack, but their low magical level means one thing. The 12th level wizard that I've got as an npc could tear through their protective spells, and none of them have the power to hurt him magically. If worst comes to worst, he'll save the day and win the campaign.

Of course, in a way, that would also play into my hands. I've been intending to do a followup where the half-orc barbarian unites the orcish clans and starts forging an empire on behalf of the wizard, with the party's sorceror subsumed as an underling. The sorceror and the barbarian ending up as undead wouldn't exactly discourage it. A big plan can sometimes be a help in these things.

I don't like screens, but the dice get hidden anyhow.

Someone else I knew used a box for the last game- cool shining dragons and everything, gets us in the mood. It turned into "good botch or bad botch".

I guess it depends if you actually get along. If the players don't think their characters should be killed, tinker all ya want. If they DO think they should be killed when they should be, follow their ideas :P

True - I remember when I joined the group as a player. Every time they went to listen at a door, or walk down a hall, someone would sigh that they do "the usual". Apparently, that was some pre-set macro of defensive stances, poling, marching order, and listening. Combat and all encounters were pretty much a lean-back affair. Nobody ever really got too concerned. What's funny, is that I recall playing in a number of different groups where this was the case - including with GMs who cheated who also were 'killer GMs' - in a number of different games. If you are going to sit there for 8 hours - that's a long time to be bored, and most of them were very bored, putting more effort into arguing and pleading outcomes than actually engaging the situation - mainly because that's what most GMs reward.

But if I'm going to spend that time on a character or a game, I want to USE my character. If players are so afraid that their characters may die that they won't use them in a game, then I kind of think they are missing the point.

After a few ass-kickings in my group when I took over DMing, they shaped up their tactics remarkably - and had a lot more fun with them. So much that when the Olde 2nd E slugfest DM relieved me (we alternated), we cleaned his clock in nearly every encounter - it was embarassing, and frankly, boring. I think his problem was that he was still using the 2nd e slugfest rules, where combatants mostly just pound each other, rather than maneuvering and using special tactics and terrain to his advantage.

"Why is throwing a challenge better than simply lying about the die roll? Well, it isn’t… much."

It's a subjective thing, to be sure. Again, I can see the validity of your point of view. Earlier I said something about the fringes of probability and making a party annihilation scenario so unlikely as to be almost inconceivable - using your approach, what I mean is that I would aim to put party annihilation scenarios at the fringes of probabilty. That seems to be what you're doing by using the CR system.

I agree with Xplo about DEMs, but I also think a DEM can be handled in a somewhat plausible way - for example, the party might be captured as the last of them falls unconscious, and the players would then enter an "escape" scenario as they wake up in the bad guys' dungeon/lair/what-have-you.

In saying that your approach is risky, I don't want to sound as though I think it isn't worth trying. After all, I've said that the fudging approach is also risky, only the thing at risk is player trust rather than PC lives.

"As a cautionary measure – if you think it’s risky, and you want to try a “live fire game” try it with new characters, rather than the ones you’ve played with for 5 years."

Oh, absolutely. As I said, it's a thing I want to try in my upcoming campaign. I wouldn't use it in my high-level campaign where I've already let things get out of hand.

Sam said:

"But I think that cheating GM's kind of provoque effects similar to what happens when you make school exams too easy and diminish the level of expectations towards the students. Lowered difficulty and free bees breed mental laziness."

I think this is one of the stronger arguments against fudging. As I said somewhere else on one of these threads, I think a lot of the negative effects I associate with fudging extend to GM laziness and ignorance of/misuse of the rule system. If the GM is too lenient in one place, the characters may become too powerful, prompting a GM adjustment that is either wanky or overly harsh. This in turn prompts a need for more fudging or excessive lenience in another area, and so on. It's a nasty cycle I've found myself in before. If knowledge of the rules, consistent application of them, and eschewing the fudging of dice rolls might help me avoid it, I am interested.

It seems to me that some of the negative consequences of fudging being brought up here - namely, loss of the players' trust, and player complacency - have nothing to do with fudging per se; they're the result of bad GMing.

Getting the players to trust you isn't a simple matter of following the rules; it's a question of overall competence. Are you familiar with the rules? Are players rewarded for good roleplaying and clever ideas? Do you try to resolve disputes and complaints fairly, or just smack down the gavel without stopping to consider whether the players are right? Do your decisions as GM make sense? And most importantly, is the game *fun*? As Paranoia shows us, you can get away with damn near ANYTHING as long as everyone is having a good time, and the players will love you for it (even if it's a love/hate kind of relationship.. *wink wink* ).

Obviously attitudes among players will vary.. but as long as you're running a good game and not making things too hard or too easy for the players, they'll forgive the *possibility* that you may be fudging sometimes.. and as long as you're fudging properly, that's all they'll ever have to forgive, or even suspect.

As far as boredom and complacency go, these have little to do with fudging per se. If the GM always designs encounters that are too easy, the players will get complacent. (This is actually an instance where randomness works to your advantage; even if the worst likely outcome of an encounter still leaves the PCs victorious, the possibility that they might be crippled or seriously wounded will encourage the players to show a little caution, especially if it's a minor encounter. Just because you don't have to worry about the outcome of an encounter doesn't mean that they can't.) Likewise, if a deus ex machina always saves the day, the players will get lazy.

Xplo said:

"Getting the players to trust you isn't a simple matter of following the rules; it's a question of overall competence...but as long as you're running a good game and not making things too hard or too easy for the players, they'll forgive the *possibility* that you may be fudging sometimes.. and as long as you're fudging properly, that's all they'll ever have to forgive, or even suspect."

That's true. What I meant by the fudging being risky, though, pertains to getting caught fudging. It's one thing for your players to suspect you're fudging, or even to be pretty certain you're fudging but trust your judgment because you run an entertaining game. In my experience, however, a GM who gets *caught* fudging will lose at least a little of the players' trust. This can even be true if you're fudging in their favor. Some players will ask: why didn't you trust us to survive the encounter?

I can't deny that fudging is not necessarily bad GMing, but I have begun to suspect that fudging *on my part* is bad GMing. When Nephandus asks, "what's wrong with using the rules as written?" I have to admit that my organic 3d Ed campaign gained a thorough understanding of the rules belatedly. It began as a very casual thing using only the SRD downloaded and printed out, and grew into an intense, every-Friday-without-fail game that lasted over a year. In the beginning, I didn't give the rules the fairest shake they might've had, so I have to question other GMing calls from that campaign as well. It seems probable to me that I'd have had to do less fudging if I'd run a campaign that more strictly adhered to the guidelines in the DMG.

I said:

"As I said somewhere else on one of these threads, I think a lot of the negative effects I associate with fudging extend to GM laziness and ignorance of/misuse of the rule system."

First of all, I'm not sure if I did in fact say something like this, or where it was that I said it. I'm not sure why I felt compelled to claim that I did - perhaps it was an artifact of typographical carelessness, the result of saying "As I said..." too many times in a row.

What I can say is that fudging for me personally has most often been a result of a bad cycle of GMing, where I have to fudge a roll to compensate for laxity elsewhere. The number of times I've had to fudge a die roll in what you might consider justifiable circumstances - as when randomness threatens to overwhelm PC tactics that really ought to work - have been very few in number.

Because my various rulebooks all contain sections exonerating the practice of fudging, I felt justified in relying on it. It seems to me now that my reliance on the practice was uncritical. If I'd run a campaign utilizing the rules to a better extent, I'd feel more confident in telling Nephandus that there are just certain times when fudging is necessary and desirable. As it is, I'm not so sure.

Although the main bulk of the discussion has been on the act of cheating by the GM, I think first I'll just cover my personal preferences on dice rolling. Since the bulk of my experience lately has been with systems where the power of foes and players is a direct relation to the number of dice they have available for a task (Shadowrun, WEG SW, WW games), I tend to prefer a system where a shield for dice is used. I don't like a big one, as I feel that seperates me from my players, however, at least something to keep them in the dark about how much power I'm putting into effect against them.

The primary reason for this isn't so that I can fudge the rolls when I feel like it, but instead so that they can't do some quick math and metagame their chances of success. I've found that this tends to effectively build tension for the players and also helps keep them from immeadiately running when they see a certain number of dice being put into play.

Now, as far as the cheating goes, I'm for it and I'll attempt to describe why. In general, almost the entire basis revolves around the simple axiom of "I'm not perfect". I know I'm not and accept that fact with some resignation. A little bit up, Neph was pointing out how if you read Dragon magazine and use these particular scenarios as guidelines, since they tend to be more effectively balanced, then your games should run more smoothly. That may be perfectly true, but I'm also unwilling to devote that level of addiction to what I view as a fun pasttime where I get to tell fun, interactive stories with a group of friends.

Somewhere in that last statement, the second reason is also buried. I view the process as interactive storytelling rather than gaming. In my preperation, I have a limited time to devote to setting up all the aspects of the adventure, so I devote a larger proportion to the story aspects rather than the physical mechanics. I know the systems well enough that I can basically play certain sections on the fly, and know general stats for a wide range of opponents, tasks, and obstacles. Because of this, fudge becomes the number one snack in some sessions.

Of course, this may immeadiately paint a bad view of my gaming, but in general I tend to find it works, and really I think that's all that's important. If I have to quickly tone up or down a foe's power output because I misjudged the party's ability to hand them their ass, oh well. In my world, I'd rather make that trade than spend hours calculating CR's (or theoretical difficulties for those systems that don't have them), only to have them be upset with badly timed crits, minor effects I didn't take into account, or simple errors on my part as a GM. Which has happened quite often and gradually shifted me towards the free form camp accordingly.

As far as the subtle distinctions between cheating with the dice and cheating with behavior, I just don't agree. If you're going to play fair, then you play fair all the way. Otherwise, there's no point in not sullying yourself. Tactics like taking parties prisoner, or using subdual for killing blows, ect... are just as obvious, and in some cases moreso, than simply working the probabilities to protect them.

And as far as fudging, leading to laziness, leading to bad GMing, and leading to suffering (sorry couldn't resist), I also don't agree. I'm more in agreement with Xplo on this point that the task of a GM is simply to entertain and excite his or her players, hopefully through dynamic use of the setting, a good story, and maybe even a smattering of the rules. The problem with the theory, I think, comes in the connection of fudge to lazy. Bad GM to suffering seems obvious, as is the lazy GM, to bad GM. However, I think that the slope of fudging has a lot more traction than some people seem to give it credit for, and if all the other pieces are in place, no one will give it a second thought. Unless, of course, they are specifically looking for it or constantly paranoid that someone's going to get one over on them. In fact, for many cases, such as my own, I find that not being as much of a stickler for the nitpickiness tends to give me far more freedom to weave an entertaining tale. The time I save by only doing a first approximation threat balance allows me far greater freedom to elaborate and expand those personal aspects of the plot that characters will be interacting with.

Finally, Sam, I'm surprised you find Shadowrun to be sooo unleathal. I tend to have more problems with characters being vaped in it than I think any system I've played in. The power of a fully auto weapon, or lots of high power stun to drop people is disturbing against folks who aren't prepared for it.

Actually, in a small revision I would also say that the lazy GM connection may not be as evident as I made it sound. Heck, by some people's approximations I'm lazy and I'd prefer not to think of myself as bad. Like most things its a grey scale. On the one hand, there are those folks that exist in a state where if they don't prepare the game simply won't be fun. On the other, I think that if you have a proper grasp of the system, and a defined idea of where you would like to go (or at least can think fast on your feet), then its quite possible for a person who's lazy about rule specific planning to make the night fun for everyone involved.

Anyhow, my third cent on the subject.

Nephandus said:

"I should note - there's more technique to building palpable tension than public dice rolls."

Good points in that post, Nephandus, and thanks for the clarification. For my part, I do not believe I viewed the public dice rolling as the only ingredient to building a tense session. I was trying to say that I found your support of public dice rolling as an *element* in tense combats compelling. I don't think you've overstated it as much as you say above - the descriptions you provided on the "Painful World of a GM" thread were compelling enough to me, and pretty clear as I recall. You made it sound as though it were the plot elements that built the tension, but the uncertainty of the public dice rolling that brought it to a head.

Araes said:

"The primary reason for this isn't so that I can fudge the rolls when I feel like it, but instead so that they can't do some quick math and metagame their chances of success."

There's a point to be made there. Meta-gamed thinking sucks, and it's one reason why I will interrupt a game to pull a player away from the table if her character sees something that the others don't. In my experience, even good role-players often have trouble keeping in character knowledge separate from out of character knowledge. All the same, I don't think the public rolling would be too bad for that. If your players start meta-gaming tactics on the basis of calculating the bad guys' to hit bonuses, you can always overrule them. I find a simple "C'mon guys...your characters don't know that" is enough for my group. But then, I try to choose players who are mature and whose playing styles are compatible with my own.

Araes said:

"And as far as fudging, leading to laziness, leading to bad GMing, and leading to suffering (sorry couldn't resist), I also don't agree."

If I characterized fudging as *leading to* bad GMing, I misspoke, and I apologize. Neither do I wish to say that fudging and bad GMing go hand in hand. Once again, I merely wish to describe my personal experience with fudging as largely a necessity caused by my own mistakes as a GM.

Nephandus said:

"It seems that if one must characterize someone as having an addiction, it would more likely be the person who does it all from scratch, though even in that case, I don’t think it’s a particularly generous thing to say."

Heh. Maybe not. But I don't mind being called a role-playing junkie or "addict". I have some close friends and relatives who are addicted to things with more serious consequences of (ab)use, and I have to say that gaming compares favorably.

Pardon me if that's too irreverent for anyone here. Perhaps it's just a reflection of my belief that addiction is just a word, and that people needn't be too sensitive about it.

Neph:
Sorry, didn't mean an offense on the addiction comment. However, I was just attempting to imply that the first way you said it, the comment sounded more like "if you read these particular issues of Dragon and use their CR numbers and guidelines of difficulty, then they'll clarify problems you have with the base ruleset." Which thereby would imply a decent amount of commitment in owning and sorting through Dragons, finding the best versions of the core set, and then using those rules/CRs, ect.. That's the general tact I was taking it from. Not using them purely as story adventures, which I tend to avoid from a purely aesthetic standpoint. (Which I admit does create more work and further restrict my limited time, but those are the choices I make.)

As far as the other points you addressed, yes, I'm aware that they can be good story hooks and fit into an existing adventure. Particularly when planned in cases like you mentioned. However, as a general sense, I've found that when tacked on to battle encounters which didn't initially require them (lucky hits dropping people when the CR's are obvious), they tend to be fairly transparent as the players are aware (meta or not) that they should have won and that it's a bacon-from-the-fire save nonetheless. I just prefer fudge in those cases. I feel that I'm already making concessions to account for my superiour organization as the GM, and fudge falls into the same case.

One of the other points which we obviously are at odds on is the play style. I tend to prefer stories which are premised almost entirely on mystery, screwing with the players, and subterfuge all over the place (part of the reason I like the Shadowrun setting). Because of this, I don't go out of my way to kill people, as I'd rather them suffer debilitating wounds, serious injury, and fear for their lives, but still live to experience the full grandeur of the story once the hooks are revealed. Sure, people die. Last time I ran some people through a Thrawn era adventure in SW they all ended up paste due to a sacrifice that ended up crippling Thrawn. But I tend not to kill people through things which weren't directly under the control of the character (stupidity or choice). I'm not a big fan of the random death to NPC #6.

One more bit, on the public die rolling, I much prefer subtlety and the players being in the dark as far as power goes. If they're smart they'll figure out they should run when the results start coming down. However, in many cases I would prefer them to have tertiary clues than to get a direct look at the foe's stats. Intentional or not, the next time they have a go they'll have a very firm idea of its stats, and will make sure they're at a particular level of skill unless its unavoidable.

And no, its not the only tension method, far from it, but its an effect way to keep them guessing in that particular vein.

I'm actually a player in a number of 3.5 games right now, so it's not as though I have much adaptation to do to learn the system. But I'll take your advice anyway - who knows? I might learn something.

DMs should cheat, but they shouldn't let the players know. The players should feel like they are constantly in danger, so they become excited and into the action, but they should never die in an encounter with a minor villain.

Look at the Lord Of The Rings movies, for example. Boromir was slain by Lurtz, right, one of the villains of the piece. If he'd have been killed by an anonymous uruk-hai, as he is in the book, I doubt the audiences reaction would have been as strong. I personally think the movie adaptation of this is better than what Tolkien originally wrote, because it's a more heroic death.

Heroes should come close to death a few times in their adventures, for example, We had one of a ranger in our group once, I had him arrested for poaching and sentenced to death by hanging. He was rescued by his companions, of course, who fought their way through the crowd, slew the executioner and the guards, and cut him down, just in time. The carnage that followed was very brutal, with the party taking on almost the entire town guard, but I made sure that though all survived, the encounter 'seemed' very intense. Needless to say, I was rather annoyed when Pirates of the Caribbean stole my idea. True, they had put Johnny Depp in the role of the ranger, and replaced poaching with piracy, and the executioner wasn't killed... but I was annoyed.

It's not very realistic, but hey, it's exciting, and that's what keeps the PCs wanting more.

Exactly - *exciting* is what keeps the PC's wanting more. And *exciting*, from a player's standpoint, does not depend on being slain by the Boss. If that's the only time a PC can be threatened in the game, then it is likely it will make the rest of the game relatively not exciting.

Curious - How many people in the Maximum Fudging camp have actually been a player in the game recently?

How many have actually tried not fudging, while using a stable and balanced system?

Exactly Olly.

Neph:

Good point. Has any one tried not fudging? Maybe Neph overestimates his players' abilities to evaluate the danger of a situation, but maybe Cadfan and some others underestimate their players' capacity to enjoy the game in spite defeat and death of characters.

As we say here "L'essayer c'est l'adopter" or "To try it is to love it" (mor or less)

Curious - How many people in the Maximum Fudging camp have actually been a player in the game recently?

How many have actually tried not fudging, while using a stable and balanced system?

I am not certain that I am in the Maximum Fudge Camp, though I did posit a few instances where I might have found fudging acceptable. Nonetheless, I'll bite.

I have not been a player in just over 10 yrs. Prior to that it was pretty common, and I did not notice or mind whatever fudging may have occurred. And it is my understanding from conversations with the GMs involved that some fudging did occur, usually in favor of the characters.

Until 10 yrs ago it was also common for me to GM, and for the last year and a half I've been at it again. The level of fudging in the past varied with the system I was playing. But occasionally I took the dice results to be "indicative" of a result, rather than "deterministic". By that I mean mostly that I felt very free to interpret the effect of a crit roll fairly loosely. Especially in systems where it is too easy to die IMO. Characters still died, even well loved ones, just not as a result of a really bad crit hit by a lone run of the mill goblin. Accumulated wounds from a bunch of goblins killed a few though.

The last 2 year have been fudge free, as I've made a minor change to the rules to reduce the likelihood of instant death at the hands of a palooka. Plus there are fewer judgement calls in combat now that we use a hexmap and counters. In the old days since the GM determined who could hit whom, and there could be some misunderstanding among the players as to precisely where participants were located, some allowance by the GM seemed appropriate.

Now that combat is all right there in black and white (and painted minis) there are fewer judgement calls, more tactics, and no fudging.

Everyone involved liked the old method at the time, and everyone involved likes the new method now. As a result I don't have a strong opinion on the matter of fudging, I think it depends on the group. That having been said, I like the new method better personally, I like the tactics, and I like not being responsible for as many in-combat judgement calls.

As to the dice, usually I roll behind the screen, since there is no reason for the players to know what the bad guys need to hit them. Though I will admit the possibility that the rolling on the table could add to the tension.

John

Oh come on! How many of you 'non-fudging' characters out there seriously expect me to believe that you've never fudged the rules in favour of NPCs, never mind PCs. How many of you have let the villain escape in order to further the plot? I think we all have at some point. If we can fudge for NPCs then we should be able to fudge for PCs as well.

On December 17, 2003 04:27 AM, Olly said:
Oh come on! How many of you 'non-fudging' characters out there seriously expect me to believe that you've never fudged the rules . . .

Olly,
Using Neph as the sample non-fudge example, he does not claim never to have fudged. He just does not believe in fudging dice results. He is willing to fudge opponent tactics - "the evil barbarian is having too much success weilding his great sword of monstrous cleaving, so he inexplicably chooses to switch weapons to the much less effective fondue fork of unearthly tastiness", and Neph also suggested he will fudge through Deus ex Machina "Hmm, that white dragon is giving them fits, Suddenly a great Flame Strike from the heavens incinerates the beast just as he is about to kill the whole party with a breath weapon - remember that beggar you fed and clothed last week, it turns out he is a high priest of Osiris, and came by to say thanks".

The Opponent and NPC actions are supposed to be directed by the GM, so Neph is OK with fudging them to further an encounter, though I imagine he is more subtle than my examples :) The dice (if I read his posts correctly) are not supposed to be within the GM's control, so he does not fudge them.

In the past I have fudged the odd die roll (especially in Toon and Paranoia, but in straight games too) but lately there has been no fudging of any sort in my TFT game, combat is potentially very lethal, so it is not entered into lightly.

John

Faster Fudging is.

Easier it seems.

But better GMing it is not.

To my work now, return I must young padawan.

On December 17, 2003 02:24 PM, Araes said:
I'd rather they scrape by with the skin on their teeth rather than stripping them bare.

Though in my opinion, rendering the party unconscious, stripping them bare, and shackling them in a dungeon is the best possible result of an encounter. It just does not happen often enough.

John

Smart, that is.

Fudging the dice rolls is perilous work indeed. I run a 3e D&D campaign right now. Just recently, my two PCs ran across an orcish chieftain who was considerably more powerful. He should have slain the two rather easily, but i fudged the dice rolls so that my PCs could live. However, by doing this, i think i may have lost some respect from the players. One player already doesn't care enough about her character, instead metagaming and treating her monk as a set of ability scores and bonuses. The other, however, is trying to be heroic and do the right thing by playing his character to the hilt.

Oh my, i have certainly deviated from my original point...

When does fudging the die roll become too much? When should the DM let the dice fall where they may and let the Gods of Faerun sort the bodies out? I am not new to DM-ing, i have done it for several years now. It's just with a disinterested player and a small group, i find i fudge more rolls than ever now.

Maybe i shouldn't DM anymore, eh? BTW, i am new to Gamegrene.com and have ravenously devoured everything on this site. Keep up the good work, gentlemen and -women. Happy Hunting.

Neph:

Thanks for the advice. I DO believe i have been lured into a "story-driven" adventure, with the me overly concerned with telling the "ultimate story." After careful review, i believe i made the wrong turn when i forced my players into constricting roles, thereby limiting the fun of the game. I've just started making fun, one-shot adventures, where the heroes can do fun things, and where the fate of the whole world doesn't hang in the balance. They seem to enjoy that more, saving one guy from a couple of baddies, instead of trying to save a kingdom from the predations of an evil god. We'll try this tack, since i am having much more fun PLAYING with the PCs as opposed to TELLING them what's going on. Hopefully, this will set the game straight, and i can keep my job as a semi-half-ass decent DM.

Excelsior!

Olly:

I wholeheartedly agree, sir! The new focus for my PCs is the travel and journey of Forgotten Realms. I'm pleased to report outstanding progress. I'm having more fun than ever describing events and places. My players have even made plans to go the Dales this year for Shieldmeet. As my PCs are only 5th level (and just attained that level last session), i still have a little time to give them the guided tour of the realms. My oh my, i'd truly forgotten the fun of roleplaying. Well until the next time, may i quote our favorite whackjob Stan Lee ...

Excelsior!

You can't beat zombies and Vikings. Or ghouls. And giant spiders, they're always good.

Evil Harry Dread once said: 'Giant spiders is always reliable. Better'an octopussies even'.

Even IMAGINARY ones? Wow...bunch of weenies

If we're talking about Hang Man Chang...

"I drop trow and scratch vigorously, thereby infesting everyone..."

Hey Neph,
I've a question for you. About a hundred messages ago, on a different thread, I gave some examples of fudging, one of which involved assigning damage to a PC so the party would wait in town to heal up (which I wanted to use as an adventure hook somehow). You clearly expressed disapproval of this technique. Suppose instead, I just had your horse throw you (asssuming you had not spent character points on horsemanship) and said you suffer a severe sprain and take x amount of damage. Would that be OK with you as a player?

It is not dice fudging, but there is abit of railroading in it. My thinking is it would be OK with me, since I know the GM did it for a reason, and the reason is unlikely to be to kill my character, I will see what he has in store for me. I am confident that my players would feel the same way, but other folk might not take so sanguine a view. What do you think?

John

Hi John - It really depends on the way in which it is implemented.

If it is bluebooked between adventures - say, on email - just to get the party to the town, and I'm healed by the time I would take any action, then this would be fine, especially if I was the least proficient person. In this case, there's no need to go into descriptions of X amount of damage (that is understood to be the result of the "sprain") What's important to me, is that the PC's are in mint condition by the start of live play.

That said, I can think of more effective ways to get a party into a town - you don't need to maim them. I've done it with a beer festival, another time with an "adventuring company meeting" where, after training and paying to level up, everyone agreed to meet at such and such place and time. If I'm bluebooking these things anyway, I look at the 'tween adventures narrative as a great opportunity to describe "normal life" to the players, focusing on happier times and people, adding in local flavor.

If, on the other hand, this happened in live play, or if there were any kind of lingering effects, then it would be entirely unnacceptable to me. Why waste precious live play time on scripted events? I do as much of that away from the table on email as possible, until game day - when we actually start at the dungeon door, fully equipped, motivated, and ready to go.

I don't think anyone wants their character to be permanently bed-ridden from a fall from a horse. I doubt anyone would continue to play that PC after the accident, either. I would find the transition from active to passive gaming to be...well, sucky.

Oni

I know it was a while ago, but you know all the small stuf can amount to something like saving the town, province, country or world.

Have these seemingly unlinked events be related somehow. You know, something like the X-Files or Babylon-5, there is alot of seemingly filler episodes, but eventually many loose ends get tied up (like Chris Clarememount Excalibure or X-men comics).

This drives me crazy. Yes, absolutely DMs can cheat and absolutely they SHOULD NOT. DM cheating is one of the worst traditions in the RPG industry. It is my strong opinion that DM cheating is one of the main reasons the hobby fails to capture a larger audience.

Why on earth do players spend hours and hours working out the minutest details on their character, carefully applying the rules of hundreds even thousands of pages of source material, if the DM can simply “cheat” to keep them alive or even kill them. As a DM I make my rolls in the open and I do not change the stats or situations of my NPCs or scenarios. I let the chips fall where they may. And you know what happens? Every few games my players and I are genuinely surprised by our game.

When one of my players loses a character in combat or a dicey situation they know that character death came from their own choices and they have to push themselves as players to handle a bad break. I do not have to answer why I “cheated” on some other rolls but not on the one that would have saved that characters life. We play roleplaying GAMES and in games you should play by the rules. If you want to tell a story and play god, write a book. Don’t waste 3 to 6 peoples’ time making them jump through all the rule hoops to create a character and work at complex combat options when you will just bend the rules at your whim. If a player ever cheated at my table (announced a die roll result different than what they rolled) I would be genuinely disappointed and sad and maybe even angry and so would most DMs. So why do DMs think they are different? Play by the rules and the story that is created is something special, a story actually created by a group of people communally. Cheat and the story that is created is just a story that was bent back into the shape the DM wanted, with all the random excitement and imagination cruelly banged off and hammered down. Play by the rules. You are not god.

Largely, opposition is set BEFORE the PC's encounter the players. It is the intersection between story and game mechanics - pre-balanced at the time of conception for a certain party level.

This may alter somewhat once the game is joined by actions the party takes - for instance, if they make noise in an adjoining room, the critters may hide, flee, or be attracted, and the encounter may take place in a different room. Obviously, this will change the encounter somewhat. But the critter stats won't change.

My adventures are prepared completely beforehand. I don't wing it.

I fall in between you guys. The opposition is set in stone once the encounter begins. I have notes like 5-10 goblin thugs in lair, then i determine how many are out thugging based on the challenge I want to present, just before the encounter begins.

I don't play Warhammer or 40k, but in my current game (Fantasy Trip) combat is counters on hexes, and the system really supports it - with everything defined in hex terms, so the wizards don't tell me what they are casting, just the results. When a bear appears on the map, neither I nor the npcs know if it is an illusion or a real bear - that way the bad guys cannot metagame, even if I were tempted to let them.

John

My, I sound droll and dry...

Yes, GMs can cheat. In the same manner that authors can cheat. I remeber Isaac Asimov wrote something about this once. (Authorship and cheating, not GMing). He was talking about writing a mystery within a science-fiction or fantasy setting, saying that it was difficult to do properly because of the ease of "cheating." It is all too easy to have the mystery remain such because of some technological or magical contrivance that the reader could have no way of knowing about. The reader would never puzzle it out, because the solution is pulled out of the air.
That is a good example of an author cheating. I have read books that made me feel as if the author cheated the story, you know, the appearance of a heretofor unknown phenomen stepping in to save or damn the hero. Actually, its quite common in fantasy novels, the hero is on a path to discovering his/her true power, then -- suddenly -- at the worst possible moment those powers fail. Because its Thursday and the Hero is Sweating and just ate Beef, he can't summon the Ancient Fighting Knowledge that he had just recently learned to access.
Any story teller can cheat, but it can be worse with GMs because they are only the director, the players are supposed to be contributing to the story as well. A GM can introduce things for the sole purpose of staying a planned path, in complete disregard to the natural development of the adventure.
Fudging dice rolls is not neccessarily cheating, certainly not when it is used wisely (covering a mistake on the GMs part, for the sake of smoothness or fun). I have fudged rolls many times because I under or overestimated the fighting abilities of the PCs. It's not fair to leave no way out, and its not fun without challenge, so I fudge toward balance. But, I will not cut off options just because I did not expect the PCs to go a certain way. Actually, Its more fun for me when they do the unexpected.

Ok. So the point is. GMs can't cheat the dice, but they can cheat the players. Don't do it. I'll kick you.

The unbending DM better have an ironclad gaming environment, which will stand up to his hammering of the game rules. "The rules say you're dead! You're dead! Your attempts at gaming in one of my campaigns has ended with death... wanna' play again?" Rules-lawyers on both sides of the screen are annoying at best.

If the story means nothing, why bother playing the game out on paper? Sit down at a computer, create your vision of an adventure in Neverwinter Nights or a slew of other games, and design the perfect-rules-campaign that you've always dreamt of. No one here is suggesting that you take difficulty and failure out of the gaming equation. That's just as absurd. I do agree with Salvo that every once in a "great" while the integrity of the story takes precedence over some small insignificant rules-point.

I guess to state the obvious, in my above example, the PCs have reached the climax of the story. Some have tasted failure through death, yet others struggle forward to the bitter end. When I suggest that the DM fills in the blank with said "cheat" here, I don't mean, by having the door swing freely open, or have one of the characters find the key on the floor, or any such feeble attempt to force the story forward.

No, the cheat comes in something smaller. A lower climb DC for the tower's outer wall. A lower break DC for said door. Or even a hidden tunnel, seemingly well guarded, yet easily passed. If failure is the obvious fate, I try to let the PC at least find it in glory. I'm not going to turn to my group and say "the evil god has arisen to destroy all that is holy because you COULDN'T FIND THE D@MN KEY! So much for that..."

Just wanted to add one more thing:

There is absolutely no way I am willing to end a campaign by saying

"the evil god has arisen to destroy all that is holy because you COULDN'T FIND THE D@MN KEY! .... "

John

Interesting. John, you say you are unwilling to end a campaign by saying - "the evil god has arisen to destroy all that is holy because you COULDN'T FIND THE D@MN KEY! ... "

That is what gets me about DM Cheating. When it comes down to it, DM Cheating occurs because the DM believes the ending he desires is more important than the story the players’ choices and the dice have created. When we as DMs sit down to the table our 3-6 players are usually granting us 3-6 hours. Each session is 9 to 36 player hours being given to us as a gift. When a DM “Cheats” to arrive at his desired ending it shows the DM does not recognize the value of the gift of time and attention and trust that has been given to him.

The goal of RPGing goes beyond entertainment. The goal is to create a story communally where the ending is not predetermined. If players wanted a story where the ending was determined by one person they would read a book. If players wanted a story where the ending was preset there are a host of fine computer RPGs they could be playing. DM Cheating turns the art of RPGing into an act of selfishness (driven by DM ego).

John, is your group aware that you do this, and to the extent and circumstances in which you do it? Would they prefer you didn't?

In most cases, I'd imagine it's hard to know, since when a DM cheats the dice, the story that MIGHT have played out, doesn't, and the DM's story is substituted instead. Hard to say, except through experience, whether or not players who enjoy a game in which a DM cheats might actually prefer a story in which a DM doesn't cheat.

On January 1, 2004 07:55 PM, Nephandus said:
John, is your group aware that you do this, and to the extent and circumstances in which you do it? Would they prefer you didn't?

Neph, our group has been friends and intermittent RPGers for about 25 yrs now, most of us have tried our hand at GMing, and we've discussed the GMing techniques we prefer. So to the extent that we know what we prefer (which as you point out is always questionable) the group prefers the methods we use. So I guess the short answer is YES, they are aware of the potential for "on-site challenge moderation" and the circumstances in which it would be likely. Those circumstances incidentally vary by game system as well as plot circumstances, and from campaign to campaign. I may have mentioned the small scale tactical combat nature of the current game, as opposed to the closed ended epic quest nature of Shark's example, so there has been none in it so far (18 months and counting)

On the topic of Shark's example, the closed ended epic quest type campaign lends itself IMO to fudgeable plot devices, like having the god reviving ceremony last a few minutes longer so the heroes can at least get there.

While I agree with tokuga that this would diverge from "the story the players’ choices and the dice have created" I would suggest (at least for my group) it would be replaced by the story that the players and GM conspired to tell, since rest assured if the party is there, my players intend for the story to include saving the world, and based on our GMing discussions I am convinced they would want me to make the ceremony a few minutes longer, rather than say "OK, you've been too slow, the world ends. Who wants to play some scrabble?"

But that's just my group, your players may vary. It would appear that tokuga and his group would be fine with the end of the world ending, and that is certainly cool too.

Generally I avoid the whole "end of world" issue in my games, as they are smaller scale in nature. But other GM's we've had do the end of the world thing pretty well, and induce much wailing and gnashing of teeth with the tense climax, even though some of it is scripted.

And I love "I don't know about all that stuff you mentioned, but the rest of us just came today to play D&D."

That is my new favorite saying, I almost hurt myself from laughing when I read it.

Wow, this is getting really long, I better stop now.

that's 20 years, sorry.

I'm late to say this but, if the heroes couldn't find the damned key, then the evil god should rise and make a mess of everything.
Doesn't mean the game has to end there.

Let me take a very bad movie as an example: T3. While John Connor fails to save the world from a nuclear holocost and fails to prevent the rise of the machines, it doesn't mean that the fight ends there. Same thing with the dark god rising: just have the forces of heaven come down and let the world be burned to ashes around the heroes in a cataclysmic battle that will almost wipe out the good guys and leave more bad guys alive. Now the heroes have to fight for what is left.

Otherwise, your players will get lazy if they think you won't let the world end.

Well, now, Shark, let's take the ball and run with it, hm? No, you don't end the campaign with "you couldn't find the key." If "you couldn't find the key" kills off the entire party, then keep things rolling.

Sure: the evil god purges the PCs. They all die. Roll up some new PCs, kids. It's ten years later. You hear the tale of a valiant group of adventurers who dared to stand against the minions of the Evil One...

When you play with people who are used to Call of Cthulhu (as I do), you find that a little character death doesn't put them off too much. You've only got to give them another chance to save the world. Or the next world, or the next...

I have to say, it sounds as though it would be exciting to get the opportunity to game with a DM such as the one you described. Knowing that there's a real risk of failure, and that stupidity or plain bad luck could get my character killed, would probably increase my enjoyment of the game.

I'm starting to realize that my players and I suffer from some degree of role-playing catatonia. In the last campaign I joined, two PCs had to die for people to wake up and start paying attention to what was going on.

Wow, I'm spitting into the wind.

**"I'll let my world end. -FAILURE- -IS- -A- -REALITY-!"**

I'm sure I read the above statement somewhere ...

There really isn't a problem with killing off characters. I did it twice this past week in a githyanki invasion campaign in which the PCs failed to repel the aggressors. Is there anyone purporting that a DM leaves nothing to arbitration and discretion? Has every action been preplanned? Did you really time a group of people running up a circular stairwell? Have you assumed that everything has gone perfectly according to plan for the enemy? Is the DM constantly applying every minute rule to every moment? I would hope not. Gaming sessions would drag on for forever and be slower than maple syrup ;p

I completely understand what you folks are saying about failure. It is the single driving factor behind every "boy seeks treasure" story that has ever been written. It is the challenge that sharpens excitement. I am addressing the degree and state of failure within the context of an imagined game. Do not lose sight of the fact that we use the rules as a guideline to fairly play out a story that acts like a game and vice versa. It is absurd to argue that there is no relative judgement call on behalf of the DM. Unless, of course, you are claiming that you have perfectly mastered every rule applicable in every circumstance. I argue that every time a DM sits in front of his group, there is a tremendous amount of trust within the DM's ability to fairly gauge, estimate, and arbitrate the action within his own scope and judgement. One should not stress absolute rule adherence unless one claims to be infallible of judgement and estimation.

Shark said:
Is there anyone purporting that a DM leaves nothing to arbitration and discretion? Has every action been preplanned? Did you really time a group of people running up a circular stairwell? Have you assumed that everything has gone perfectly according to plan for the enemy? Is the DM constantly applying every minute rule to every moment? I would hope not.

Nephandus says:
I don’t think anyone has said the DM should leave nothing to arbitration or discretion. In simply choosing the adventure and doing all the prep work, the DM is making a number of choices at his own discretion, selecting and creating an adventure that should be suitable for X group of characters.

Once play has begun, I don’t think it is necessary to track the minutia to create a ‘real’ world, as depicted in your examples of what could go wrong. But from a story and from a gaming perspective, I do think it is important that the DECISION points – which form the engine of every plot – rest in the hands of the protagonists – the players. This includes each and every round of combat, since combat decides whether a player lives or dies – and is largely the only reason a character could ever die.

Shark said:
[Failure is] is the challenge that sharpens excitement. I am addressing the degree and state of failure within the context of an imagined game. […] One should not stress absolute rule adherence unless one claims to be infallible of judgement and estimation.

Nephandus says:
In fairness, the statement of “I will let the world end!” really doesn’t. Instead, the players’ failure to achieve their goal has a consequence on their setting. In the example above, a very extreme one, it created a “new world” or a different setting. It wasn’t the end of the story. It wasn’t even the end of those characters. It was the end of that particular setting, and the beginning of a new one. I tend to think of the results of various levels of success beforehand, so that I’m not caught onstage without a script when things don’t go as anticipated.

Now, which is the more ambitious and creative story moderator here? The one who bends over backwards to make sure the players win, or the one who – after taking pains to ensure the players have a reasonable chance at winning, allows them the opportunity to fail, and allows that failure to change the story? Which one cares more for the living story?

On January 5, 2004 07:43 AM, Shark said:
Well, time to get harsh. I'm going to make some comments that may sound like personal attacks, but know that I still honor the fact that we're fellow gamers.

Neph says:
So, you admit that you are knowingly about to turn this into a flame war (unnecessarily, I might add) by making personal comments rather than discussing the material or the article. BTW, if you are planning to be an asshole, what does it mean when you say that you “honor the fact that we're fellow gamers”? Is that supposed to make me think that you are anything other than a prick, based on what you wrote?

Shark says:
You cannot possibly claim that you have never had to make a decision that was totally arbitrary AND that could have an impact on the "living" story. You've never faced on-the-fly situations. You've never had to fudge. Praise be!

Nephandus says:
It astounds me that you could be so offensive, while basing it on such a flimsy construct. Are you here to talk, or are you here to kick sand in people’s faces?

I’ve never said I’ve never faced “on the fly” situations – I’ve said I’ve done my best to prepare for them. If you’ve followed me as closely as you say, you’d know I said that I used to fudge all the time – giving me the experience with both styles. I’ve also offered which one I thought was more effective, based on my experience, and I’ve outlined exactly why I think that, so that people may debate the rationale, if they wish. Can you say as much?

Shark said:
You bring up points that I don't see anyone arguing (sorry, but you also make incoherent sentences, I had no idea what you were referring to in some cases).

Neph says:
LOL whoopsie, I have no idea what you are referring to, in this case, so I guess that makes you incoherent.

You’ve attributed two points to me – which I’ve never said, and then called me “self righteous” for saying them (though I didn’t).

Shark said:
Are you implying that the DM who occasionally fudges is not adequately prepared for his gaming sessions?

Neph said:
What I’ve said is that the DM who fudges removes control of the story and characters from the players’ hands. I’ve also said this is often the result of poor game mechanics. In games with good game mechanics, this is often the result of either lazy DMs who’d rather narrate than deal with possibilities they didn’t anticipate, or DM “artistes” who are using their players as passive witnesses to their stories.

Shark said:
You certainly HAVE implied that combat is largely the "only" way characters should die.

Neph says:
No, I’ve argued that combat (and I’ll add hazards and traps) is the only way characters DO die. I’ve never seen a player cause his character succumb to cancer or cirrosis of the liver, nor do I want to. The difference is that what I’ve said is an observation, while you are mischaracterizing it as a prescription.

Shark said:
You ARE arguing that every time a character should/could die, there is an ironclad rule that pertains to it. That is just ... completely ... (bite my tongue [where's Olly when you need him]).

Neph says:
It’s completely what? Don’t bring Olly in to make your argument. Make yourargument, but support it. You haven’t offered anything here for anyone to evaluate. WHY do you think that a character death in a game should be supported by a rule. How do you do it? Examples please.

Shark said:
I know that you want to play the RPG as a chess game, with the players fighting against predetermined creatures and challenges. You feel that when you adhere to the rules as they are written, you play a fair match in which the players and dice, not the DM, determine the outcome. After all, that's what they sat down to the table for.

Neph says:
Wrong again. I’ve offered plenty of examples of role-playing in my games, which exceed the best examples of role playing in many other games. I play the tactical GAME portion of an RPG like a game, flavoured by the rp background. The rest of the activity is role-playing. I simply don’t sneer at the “game” portion of the activity, unlike some others.

Shark says:
As a DM, your gaming style promotes and even fosters power-gaming to the worst degree. Read some of the earlier articles at this site to see how most gamers and DMs feel about players who try to make their characters seem like a deck from Magic: TG. Because for you and your preferred gamers, every stinking bit of edge you gain on the rules helps determine the outcome of the "living" story process. You may feel like the absolute adherence style is the better way to go. But I think for the majority of gamers, it would seem that the inability of the DM to make in-game decisions is not popular.

Nephandus said:
Since you’ve never played my way, or in my groups, how the fuck would you know?
I’m not really interested in reading how a bunch of other gamers who’ve never tried my way THINK it will be less effective. I already know, from experience, they are wrong – particularly in the power gaming area. Again, with a fair and balanced rule set, played as is, the chance of exploiting for a negative game effect is much LESS than if you start negotiating everything, or arbitrarily deciding game elements on the fly. What behavior do you reward most in game – clever negotiation of how to play? or clever ideas of how to engage the scenario from within the context of the narrative and game structure>?

And where are you getting this bit about being unable to make decisions?

Shark says:
The DM must make judgment calls. That's why he sits at the end of the table, instead of just having one of the players hold a laptop that leads the players through all the preset choices.

Last, when you talk with a non-gamer, don't! I can't recount how many times someone has said that there are too many rules to remember and the system is too difficult to learn. Hell, even vet gamers have said this on occasion. I am so severe about his subject because I feel it is one of the greatest contributing factors to the "loser-geek" image that has been associated with RPGing. Some @55hole, pushing his glasses back, looking at you with satisfaction and saying "that's not what the rules say."

Nephandus says:
Don’t call me an asshole or a loser. Don’t imply it either. Especially when you don’t know me. It reflects more on you and on the significance this plays in your life when you do so. I know, I know, I’m embarrassed for you too.

I’ve played with 3 groups of former non-players, with all of them thanking me for the experience and continuing playing. I’ve gotten hearty APPLAUSE, more than once, from my games – in particularly good scenarios – not just at the end of the sessions, but in the middle of the games. I’ve had players tear up because they were moved by the scenario, or character, or scene. I’ve had players inspired to be DMs using the same techniques, and doing very well. None of us geeks at all, unless that is defined by simply playing D&D (which it may).

Lighten up.

"Ding Ding" will the pugilists please return to a neutral corner ? (or maybe a lawful corner).

In an effort to return to reasoned discourse (How pompous do I sound ?!) I thought I would try the following summary and poll type question:

First my summary
Regarding dice results, there seem to be three schools of thought,

Tokuga and Neph's camp - Overrulling dice results is NEVER the best alternative, so a GM should never do it.

My camp - Overrulling dice results is not often the best alternative, so a GM should do it in moderation.

LeviQDragons camp - Overrulling dice results is sometimes the best alternative, so a GM should do it whenever it is in the best interest of the game.

If I get anyone in the wrong camp, let me apologize, it is just an error. Plus I've simplified for ease of discussion. I've argued for the second interpretation above, but as a result of tokuga's hypothetical about a player who announces a different result than his dice indicates, I am rethinking my position. Since the players and I live with their really bad, or really good rolls, maybe I should let us all live with mine as well. That's what I'm doing now, and it seems OK, but nobody has died in an ignoble manner yet, that will be the real test.

On the question of non-dice related fudging, what I like to call "on-site challenge moderation" the positions are more varied and nuanced. As it relates to adjusting encounters:

Some suggest it should never occur; the GM plays the antagonists as originally written, and as well as he is able, and the PCs win or lose strictly on the merits and the dice. (though it is OK to allow them to get a few "fire escape" type magic items, so as long as they have the foresight to do so and the intelligence to recognize when to use them they might still live to fight another day). I believe tokuga is representative of this school of thought

Others suggest that NPCs occasionally utilize sub-optimal tactics, so why not have it happen when the PCs are getting stomped, potentially allowing them to escape to fight another day. IIRC Neph is in this camp.

And some adjust the strength of the NPCs right up to (me), and even during an encounter (Eater of dead). After all, rampaging ogres get the flu occasionally, or some of the orc bandits may have gone out for fast food, so there are only 7 at home at the moment, not 10, etc.

I don’t expect to change anyone’s position, just to understand them, so if my understanding (as described above) is way off, let me know.

Now the Polling Question
To borrow Shark's example and limit it further - At issue is how long does the evil-god-raising ceremony take compared to how long it takes the remaining party members to beat down a door.

Assuming that your campaign is going to end tonight no matter what (because next week the group is starting a new game of Gurps Steampunk, that one of the other players is GMing) so either the party stops the ceremony and avoids the apocalypse that will literally destroy the world, or they fail to do so, and witness the apocalypse. And based on the time you’ve been keeping (which has really added to the intensity of the evening’s play so far) the ceremony has 15 minutes to go, and the party knows this. They enter the antechamber, and manage to toss the keymaster out the window into the lava below, unknowingly destroying the key that would have gotten them through the chamber door in time (since your notes indicate that it is a very sturdy, magically enhanced door, and should take the remaining party members most of an hour to get through.

Me and Shark (If I read Shark right) have opined that we'd probably adjudicate that the door comes down before the ceremony finishes, even if our pre-game notes indicate the door will take a real long time to batter down. Because I would not want to end the game with "as you batter the door, the evil god is raised and the end of the world occurs. Thank you for playing".

I get the impression (though I could be wrong) that tokuga would be OK with that ending. Some days you eat the bear, and some days the bear eats you.

So on to the question - Without hedging (like saying you would never arrive at such a stupid binary ending like I've described, or the world does not have to be destroyed, etc.), in the circumstances described, would you end the game and the gameworld with the party beating on the door? (assuming further they do not think of a better plan) Or would you let them beat it down early, so they can try to fight their way to the altar, and either save the world, or die in glorious battle trying to do so?

Just trying to take the pulse of the people.

John

John said:
"Ding Ding" will the pugilists please return to a neutral corner ?

Nephandus says:
John, if some bloke doesn’t like your idea, and because of it calls you a loser, or a self righteous bastard, I wouldn’t really include you as a “pugilist” if you dished a little back at the source. It was just an on-topic conversation until that point. Shark chose to bring it there, and as his introductory paragraph indicates – he knew the level he was stooping to.

John said:
1. Tokuga and Neph's camp - Overrulling dice results is NEVER the best alternative, so a GM should never do it.

My camp - Overrulling dice results is not often the best alternative, so a GM should do it in moderation.

LeviQDragons camp - Overrulling dice results is sometimes the best alternative, so a GM should do it whenever it is in the best interest of the game.

Neph says:
That’s only two camps. The latter two basically say, overrule the dice when, in your personal opinion, you think it’s ok, because your version of it is, in your opinion, better or more fun than than the result produced through the game.

In effect, this invalidates ALL the dice results, if only good outcomes are used. Sort of like “Paint it any color you want, as long as it is black.” There is an attempt, in the language, to make it sound like there is player choice or participation – when there really is none, or little. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s just a question of how you and your informed players feel about having less player choice – less game.

John says:
If I get anyone in the wrong camp, let me apologize, it is just an error. Plus I've simplified for ease of discussion. I've argued for the second interpretation above, but as a result of tokuga's hypothetical about a player who announces a different result than his dice indicates, I am rethinking my position. Since the players and I live with their really bad, or really good rolls, maybe I should let us all live with mine as well. That's what I'm doing now, and it seems OK, but nobody has died in an ignoble manner yet, that will be the real test.

Neph says:
I think the real test will be what the reaction will be when one of your PCs DOES die in the normal course of things. It is bound to happen.

In my experience with a few groups, I have been pleasantly surprised to see that when I play fairly (same rules for everyone, including me), that players don’t really mind that much when a character dies – since it’s not personal. Sure, they are annoyed, but it’s not directed at me. And there’s good-natured ribbing around the table. But no stony silence.

John says:
Others suggest that NPCs occasionally utilize sub-optimal tactics, so why not have it happen when the PCs are getting stomped, potentially allowing them to escape to fight another day. IIRC Neph is in this camp.

Neph says:
Right, but only as a very last resort. And not to let the PC’s win – only to let them escape to fight another day. If they want to press the fight when they KNOW they are outclassed, then they takes their chances. I’ve had players DARE me to kill them before, doing things they KNOW were stupid, just to see what I would do. I don’t tolerate this anymore. I’m just as likely to call a break or call the game right there if that happens now, as I am to kill them (mind you, one had OCD)

John says:
And some adjust the strength of the NPCs right up to (me), and even during an encounter (Eater of dead). After all, rampaging ogres get the flu occasionally, or some of the orc bandits may have gone out for fast food, so there are only 7 at home at the moment, not 10, etc.

Neph says:
If it happens during the encounter, it’s really just the DM’s whim again. You can trick yourself if you like by calling it a certain hp value and then dropping it, but it’s all the same. It’s just the DM saying when the antagonist is defeated, rather than the players actually doing something to defeat the challenge. Again – there is no game – it’s just a story. How you, and your informed players feel about that is really up to all of you.

John says:
So on to the question - Without hedging (like saying you would never arrive at such a stupid binary ending like I've described, or the world does not have to be destroyed, etc.), in the circumstances described, would you end the game and the gameworld with the party beating on the door? (assuming further they do not think of a better plan) Or would you let them beat it down early, so they can try to fight their way to the altar, and either save the world, or die in glorious battle trying to do so?

Neph says:
What do you mean “without hedging”? It’s clearly a poorly designed encounter, just like 1st edition D&D is a poorly designed rule set. They both DEMAND that the DM intervene, and heavily, to make them work at all. Which means there really isn’t a game, whether or not the stakes in the story are high.

There should be degrees of failure and success.
There should be things each side can do to modify how soon or late the ritual is completed.
There should be protections in place to assure that the party can’t ‘accidentally’ make the adventure impossible to win.

Thanks, the answers have been enlightening so far. First, you're right, there are 2 positions on dice, either you feel there are circumstances where fudging them is called for, or you do not. I stand corrected.

Also, I realize it is a Kobiyashi Maru, lousy situation type question that I restricted painfully, but in order to make our answers comparable, we all had to answer the same question, which none of us did in response to Sharks more general description. I never do the end of the world thing personally, but needed to consider it so our answers were comparable.

That having been said, I like all the answers, especially the "give them something to fight so they don't get bored during the apocalypse" that was pretty funny.

Tokuga, - I am not certain that i've permanently sworn off dice modification, but I am willing to experiment with it and see how it goes. Also the campaign portfolios sound very cool.

Neph, I don't play 3e or 3.5, but granted a well balanced system should reduce the need for fudging. (which I think contributes to my reduced reliance on it lately)And I was just having a little fun with the pugilist crack.

Cocytus, you and Neph have made a valid point, better design of games, or as you suggest adventures, reduces the pressure to intervene as a GM.

Now I almost want to end the world just to see the gangs faces :)

John

Shark, if you want to talk, debate the topic, not the poster. You don't know shit about me, and you must consider the fact that if I debate your post line by line that:

a) I'm giving your post consideration, which is more than I give posts I ignore.

b) I may actually have grounds for debating each line-which I've provided - which means I'm not necessarily overbearing - I may just be right. What exactly are you looking for here? You need me to compromise and represent a position that I think is less effective, simply to satisfy your fragile ego? Look, Gamegrene is a site to discuss ARTICLES about gaming. I don't care about some dork who gets his feelings hurt in the course of perfectly reasonable conversation and debate.

Now, because you choose to whine and cry about me, rather than actually discussing the topic, I'm going to assume that you are new to BBS discussions. This is what happens. BTW - reading these things, it seems that you are the odd man out now. Cocytus, John, certainly Tokuga, and I have all reached agreement in principle in this (including about the "multiple ways of looking at the issue" - which Tokuga also pointed out, btw). So, it sounds more like you are deliberately trolling me, rather than discussing in good faith. When you have anything of value to say, please do - and it should start with an apoligy to me, to Rider of the Storm, and to the admins of Gamegrene. Until then, ta ta.

Well Said Nephandus. I bow to the better writer. You may consider this my "apoligy."

Now all we need is for Neph and Shark to shake hand and make friend.

And Neph, don't ever study psychology or counselling if you hate being trolled, that's all the clinical supervisors ever do... god I hated my supervision sessions.

The Portfolio is a great idea, I'll use that, thanks Tokuga.

What? Someone actually said "sorry" on a bbs? That never happens! No problem Shark, bygones. I noticed the spelling error in my post too - a second too late.

The thing that really bugs me about that scenario - is that when the 'game' effectively ended, the players had no idea. The game was over when the key was lost - but the players had no idea that this was an issue.

A good game structure (and a good narrative structure as well) - should have the protagonists clued in to what they are fighting for, and what's at stake, by the time the climax occurs. If everything hinges on a key that went out the window in the first act, and that can't be recovered, then the players should have been clued in THEN that this was an important item- if there is no other way to get through the door. Because without it, the game is over, and all you are left with is a story. Would the players have acted differently if they knew? Probably.

I've done a lot of behind-the-scenes tweaking, and my experience has been that it's a slippery slope. Errors beget errors beget errors. Some of my campaigns have gone like "I know an old lady who swallowed a fly" in ludicrousness.

Tokuga,
You are clearly way more empathetic than I am, because Neph's story made me laugh. And now I am on the lookout for an appropriate moment where I can say "I don't know about all that stuff you mentioned, but the rest of us just came today to play D&D."

And to recap the "key fell in the lava" poll:

End the world:
Tokuga (but he'd have a real epic portfolio for it)
Cocytus ("in theory", though in past he'd have fudged)

Fudge the door:
Me (We simply must play the final battle - I can't help it)
Oddysey (unless the PCs knew they'd destroy the key)
Neph (reluctantly, the game was ending anyway)
Shark (implied from his earlier post, as he did not poll)

Thanks for participating in this unscientific poll. The results are interesting, not so much the tally here, but the exposition of each GMs thought on the matter, given a really bad scenario. A scenario really well designed by Shark (with a little added detail from me) to put pressure on a GM to fudge.

Now that we've really discussed this topic so thoroughly, and mostly amicably, someone needs to write another article that lots of readers feel strongly about.

Has anyone here ever run into this scenerio? Your DM plays a character along with the rest of the party, (even though there are 4+ people playing) and when a battle arises they never seem to take any damage and always hit? I'm starting to get fed up with it, but I can't mention anything because the DM's about 5 times the size of me and would beat my @$$ into a bloody pulp (he's quite touchy when people complain about his weak as crap DM skills.). To counteract this I storytell Hunter the reckoning on a regular basis so the rest of the group doesn't up and quite. Do you guys have any suggestions on how to fight my Dm playing an "invincible" character?

Hum... your GM is a bully and an intellectual masturbator.

I mean he actually forces you to watch while he plays with himself. Even if he doesn't realize it, that is what it looks like to me.

If he's not enough of a friend to be able to listen to his players when they say they don't have fun and why, then maybe he's not a friend at all. Just quit the game if you can't make him listen to you.

But if you go up to him and say: you're a f###ing bad GM, your game is crap and I've had a better time waiting at the dentist's office then watching you play by yourself. Then don't be surprised if he doesn't take it well. The trick is to be a little diplomatic and not make it sound like a attack but more like constructive criticism.

Hey, Thanks for the advice guys. Another friend of mine invited me to his group so I'm gonna see how that goes. They don't play Hunter, so I'm going to introduce it to them. Thanks again for the advice.

DaGamingGuru said :
"Has anyone here ever run into this scenerio? Your DM plays a character along with the rest of the party, (even though there are 4+ people playing) and when a battle arises they never seem to take any damage and always hit? "

I've read a few times that a GM should never become so enamoured of an NPC, creature, magical item or plot point that they can't ditch it when the players are
a) clearly not interested in said NPC/item/plot point,
b) the NPC is outshining and out'cool'ing the player's characters at every turn, or
c) the characters take a knife to said NPC's throat.

Characters are the focus of the world. Without players playing their characters, there's no momentum in the world beyond the aforementioned masturbatory inclinations of a "creative genius" who can just as easily try their hand at writing rather than RPGing and inflicting their creative ego on others.

RaqofTaq, you said:

'Or am I too sensitive?'

Nope, why did you stick it out so long? He was a plonker, or perhaps I mean a Dingbat ? Anyway he was a miserable cheating s.o.b.

Anio, you said:

'I've read a few times that a GM should never become so enamoured of an NPC, creature, magical item or plot point that they can't ditch it when the players are
a) clearly not interested in said NPC/item/plot point,
b) the NPC is outshining and out'cool'ing the player's characters at every turn, or
c) the characters take a knife to said NPC's throat.'

I think this is correct. Especially c) . If the players decide to kill an NPC, and they genuinely engineer a sityuation where they can do it, then you should be able to ditch that npc rether than cheat to frustrate the players plans. This is the whole point of D&D. Its a collaborative creation of the Players and the DM, with the rules as a framework whereby they can agree on likely outcomes. Now the DM should always be free to give the final adjudication, but he should never impose his will in an arbitrary way.

On January 5, 2004 05:05 PM, Nephandus said:

John says:
but nobody has died in an ignoble manner yet, that will be the real test.

Neph says:
I think the real test will be what the reaction will be when one of your PCs DOES die in the normal course of things. It is bound to happen.

Hey neph, that day was today. A well armed and armored party member got hit by a palooka, toward the end of a pitched battle that had heretofor been going the party's way. The palooka rolled a crit, double damage, rolled well, instant death. No fudging, no GM judgement (it was all on the map, and rolled in plain view), no player complaints. Of course the character was revived (the one major rule change I made allows this possibility in an otherwise deadly system), so the jury is still out on what happens when a player has to make a new character.

John

Good to see someone else who has played "Bushido" I only ever played one game and I loved it. I still have my boxed set in hopes that I can one day start a campaign.